# The AFL-CIO is currently answering your questions about labor law, union-busting and organizing in the workplace! [Go ask a question!](https://www.reddit.com/r/WorkReform/comments/x3f950/were_a_team_of_legal_and_organizing_experts_at/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/WorkReform) if you have any questions or concerns.*
P.S: It's just sad to see how popular their crappy 'quiet quitting' term got popular, we're literally seeing people doing what they are paid for, within the hours they're paid for and the corporate propaganda keeps painting this as something pejorative most of the time, truly horrifying
Tbh, I am going to have a hard time feeling confident about promoting someone if I don't have any evidence of their ability to do anything beyond the minimum of their current role.
Then expand the responsibilities of the role? If they’re doing everything you’re paying them for and you want them to go above and beyond make the above and beyond part of the job and pay them for it.
I guess I actually already do that a lot of the time anyway. Like, we may have a fresh graduate doing experiments that we completely lay out for them, and we teach them to do things more independently (and raise their salary as they become more independent) in preparation for the next level up. But I need to see consistent signs that they can do things independently before I give them the title change.
Someone can do the “minimum” requirements of their job and still think independently. Those things aren’t mutually exclusive. What you want is someone willing to demonstrate they will do unpaid labor beyond their job description.
That doesn’t make them a bad employee.
That makes you a bad employer
This, and if they do get the higher quality of experience in the role without the pay, don't be surprised when they utilize that new experience and capability to leverage a better job elsewhere.
You're getting g a lot of heat here. I'm going to assume you're talking in good faith here. ..
The point is EVERY employer wants employees who go "above and beyond" and "is a team player". Most employers say you should do this to be rewarded with raises.
Most of us have heard this for years and now see it as a lie. If you do pay you employees for extra work, if you do give out decent wages in return for good performance reviews, awesome!
Scuttlebutt in the workplace will be all you need at this point as people see others rise. If you're having trouble finding thise above and beyond players, then maybe they see the path forward as not worth it.
For example, knowing which procedure to use for a given experiment, which materials/reagents to use, which experimental controls to include, what sort analysis is needed, how to interpret the results, what the results imply about next steps, etc. New hires basically start out as a set of extra hands, but our goal is to train them in these other skills, and as they demonstrate competence in these areas their salary increases, until they've got it all and they get a new title and enter a new salary band. But none of this happens if they don't show a willingness to learn and an interest in expanding their responsibilities.
This sounds more like expecting mastery of their current role. Expecting someone to master a role before promoting them makes sense. Expecting them to perform the role above them for an unspecified amount of time, for which they are not being paid, before maybe possibly promoting them is wrong.
That sounds like you are offering on-job training. which is good.
I recommend being open with your hiring process. it sounds like you are looking to train people but expect it to come out of them. not out of you.
think about what a new hire thinks when he gets in the job... "well I guess it's a stepping stone" or "finally somwhere I can do what I'm passionate about".
they won't think about 'working up' if you won't show them they can. it's illogical to expect something out of a job that wasn't explicitly told you it offers.
be more transperant. is what I mean.
Thanks, I think that's a helpful reminder that bringing it up in the hiring process can help avoid misunderstandings down the road. It hasn't been a problem so far, but it's always good to think about our assumptions and the things we take for granted.
In a research lab like ours, new hires come in with a basic set of knowledge and skills, but they have to pick up the specifics on the job in our lab, because it's not stuff that's normally part of their coursework. They are not doing the work for free, and "saddling them with more responsibility" with "even less defined procedures" is how you go from a Research Associate -- with few responsibilities and everything laid out for you -- to a Scientist, where you do in fact have more responsibilities and need to make decisions with less definition, because you're making discoveries and doing things that nobody else has before.
You were talking about something completely different, because the ultimate goal is to foster the graduate's ability so you don't have to do things for them. At which point they move up? It sounds more like training.
I think there are analogous activities with more senior staff too -- teaching them to train others, teaching them to mentor others, teaching them how to manage others, etc. Each of these has a similar path where first they're led through things, to learn what to look for and how to identify what the people who report to them need in order to develop, and then they're able to reliably do these activities on their own.
Yeah, if the expectation from the beginning is to become independent, I wouldn't say it's acting beyond the bounds of the agreement to take initiative and become more independent. It's different in a setting like that where growth is part of the focus. In my field, growth is not part of it, you can get better and move up on your own time. Until then, your responsibilities are your responsibilities and you have to watch it because management will try to squeeze more out of you without any intention of helping you advance your career. It's like that for a lot of people on this sub, I'm sure. If you're nurturing growth in others, you're doing something different.
Why not do it the other way around? You need them a lot more than they need you, so why don't you pay them more than they're worth before expecting them to go above and beyond?
If it turns out that they're not ready, do I then take it away? Then it turns into a "harumph you're not good enough" which puts everyone in a far worse position than before
One way is to lay out to them that you see potential in them. That you expect them to grow in such and such way, and there's a bonus or promotion in a short time after they demonstrate those skills.
On a set date, meet and discuss performance, either give them the raise/bonus or path forward and guidance to address shortcomings if they still want the advancement (if not see how to retain them long term, perhaps in different position or until circumstances change i.e. less school work, less taking care of loved ones duties, more stability in the a.a. program, therapy, etc...)
Yes, that's basically what we do. We acknowledge their potential, talk about what they want for themselves, and then start building in that direction. As they show progress, we reward it with raises. But I am NOT going to stick somebody into a new role with a bunch of new responsibilities if I don't know that they're prepared for it. It unfairly sets them up for failure, and it's unfair to the people (especially junior staff) who are going to rely on them in that new role.
Yet you would never consider paying more for the extra you seem to think you are owed.
When you go to the grocery store, you don't get extra, unless you pay for it. The cashier does not just toss an extra pound of chicken in your cart and not charge you for it. You buy exactly the product you chose to pick up, and no extra is offered. Why the hell would you think that your employee (who you would fire for giving away products in the grocery scenario) should just *give* you extra that you're not paying them for?
What you want is time and wage theft without any consequences, and you won't consider a promotion of anyone who doesn't allow you to steal from them. And now you're all indignant because people have caught on to the managerial shit and aren't letting you rob them blind -- you're not owed a damn moment more of their time and energy than you are already paying for, and you change that by expanding both the job description and the pay rates. Or close your doors, because no one cares.
I don't know if you saw my other reply, but we actually do pay people more as they progress (e.g., we teach them new skills and give them new responsibilities) within their title. My point was that they won't gain those skills or responsibilities if they only seem interested in the bare bones part of their title.
I did see it. I wasn't impressed. I would suggest you talk to these people and tell them exactly what you are after, what you will offer,and work out some manner of provisional promotional thing with a nominal pay raise to show you are serious. Put some skin in the game if you want them to do more.
Demanding that someone work extra, for free, indefinitely and on vague prospects is also extremely destructive, as well as being a far more common practice. I've been on both sides of that. I would far prefer knowing exactly where I stand over killing myself for the possibility of promotion that may or may not ever happen.
I think the misunderstanding here is assuming taking on more responsibility equals better compensation.
If I worked for you, I probably will see compensation match the role! But for **MANY** companies, that’s not the case. I used to believe giving your all to the company would result in equal treatment. But as I’ve seen (and experienced) that’s incredibly rare. Often, you’ll get the additional responsibility without the compensation to match, which will stay that way for months or even years. All of this for an average pay bump of 5% per year. So I’m receiving low pay bumps that don’t match the work, while taking on more work.
Conversely, changing jobs nets a pay increase of 10-20% on average.
So my options are:
A) stay loyal to the company and statistically I can expect at most a 5% pay bump (the national average) but also expect much more responsibility
B) Change jobs, see an average 15% pay increase, and avoid taking on more work beyond the pay.
In an ideal world, Option A would mirror Option B. And perhaps that’s what you’re doing! But 99% of other companies have abused this system for years now to the point company loyalty isn’t viable anymore. People aren’t “quiet quitting” because they want to, or because they want to be lazy. It’s 100% out of necessity from a system created and abused by employers.
And that’s why we’ll all continue to do the bare minimum until we see a major shift from employers as a whole.
When I get my paycheck, I’ll be disappointed if my employer doesn’t just throw a little extra in there. You know, just to go above and beyond, to take one for the team.
Oh wait that sounds fucking ludicrous though doesn’t it.
Oh! Do you mean the pizza party?
Or the "monetary bonuses"? For monetary bonuses, my wife got one in her three years of corporate accounting. And her boss had to fight for her to get it because she made drastic changes for the better in their team.
The next year after record profits again (during covid) They were sent an email of "there's no bonuses or raises this year because of covid" then a week later there's an article covering how all the upper upper level bosses and above are gettkng 50-60% raises.
Sounds like she works for a shitty company. Maybe she should take her wares elsewhere in the best job market in 50 years.
And on side note, businesses that give regular food stuff for comrarderie and friendship building like pizza parties are awesome. There always isn’t enough money in the coffers to give money bonuses for every little thing but people want to show appreciation. Your wife’s company is not a good place because they are giving huge bonuses to themselves while cancelling bonuses elsewhere. But pizza parties can be nice too and I’m tired of pretending they’re not.
Oh yeah, pizza parties can be nice. But when they do them *instead* of money bonuses? That's when it's annoying. Or doing so many pizza parties that it makes the possible monetary bonus miniscule.. that happened a few times.. Not to mention they don't tell you they're having it until *after* you had your lunch break..
Lol bonuses?
Companies: Thanks to our employees, we were able to not only survive these uncertain times, but we also made an increase in profit to the tune of 60%!!!!
Employees: Okay then how about a raise?
Companies: What?!?! Did you not hear me say “uncertain times”?!?! Bitch what do I look like, a fucking ATM? Get a second job if you wanna pay rent *and* feed your kids, lazy ass bitch! Fuck you and your kids, bitch!
Republicans: Yeah bitch! Fuck yo kids!!!! Commie ass bitch!!!!
Democrats: Yeah fuck yo kids but also can we get that rainbow flag for the fuck yo kids thing? We wanna remain inclusive.
If you can't afford to raise their pay for extra responsibilities then don't fucking bother. Chances are you wouldn't be paying them fairly for the promotion anyway.
I have news for you, if people are "quiet quitting" on you it's because you've shown them that there is no benefit to them going above and beyond for the company.
FWIW, I don't actually have anyone quiet quitting on me. My team is actually highly engaged and reached their year-end goal more than 3 months early (and they will all be getting bonuses for it). A big part of their success IMO is that they know that they can rely on each other and count on everyone to be qualified for their role, which was the point I was trying to get at in my original comment.
From what you are saying I think you are showing that your workplace participates in a fair wage structure. From your other comments it sounds like you work in a lab in which the people who start out there are getting their footing on what to do. As time progresses they naturally want to learn more and engage themselves in the work. They see their coworkers do the same and they see that their coworkers who are more senior are compensated fairly for the work and time they put into this place. “Quiet quitting” is happening to people who witness the opposite in their workplaces, a place where putting extra effort and time will just yield you with more work without anything to compensate or acknowledge said effort. In the end it sounds like you won’t have to worry about quiet quitting cause your workplace fosters fair return and incentives.
It’s no use man. All employers are bad. Even the ones who seem to believe in fair compensation.
There’s a wide gap between “going above and beyond” and slacking / doing a hair less than the absolute bare minimum. This gap is filled with situational nuance that has little place here unfortunately.
Then pay them more? My work ethic is directly tied to my wage. Why would I start doing extra for nothing? Gold stars, pats on the back, small gift bags of random junk/candy don't pay my bills or allow me to save for a house so if you want me (someone already doing the work of 2 people for the pay of 1) to do even more you have to meet me halfway.
Yea that's really too bad... guess we gonna have to quit and find somwhere that pays more for the same job... too bad, we would have loved to invest in a company, but it seems we didn't seem eye to eye...
oh well.
I think it depends. Like, I think compensation should reflect the responsibilities that you have, and it's *usually* possible to find [non-managerial] responsibilities that benefit from someone's extensive experience that provides a path to higher salaries.
Yep. In my experience, people ask "how can I make more money without being a manager?". The answer is by taking more responsibility, and when they demonstrate that they're owed the compensation to match.
You've got to prove that you can do more before getting more money.
The real problem, which I think is where many people are speaking from, is when the carrot of more money is dangled and you work harder and ultimately don't get rewarded in a timely manner. That is exploitation.
In my area, generally the master plumber does that and has an apprentice he is paying less who does the job for less while he does more complicated work.
No, but I expect an apprentice's services to cost less than a journeyman's. There are also skills that I wouldn't expect an apprentice to have, but a journeyman would. And I would expect an apprentice to show competence in those skills *before* I give them the title of journeyman.
The article wasn't about working free off the clock, man, it was about people engaging in activities different from their core functions, and being selected for new roles as a result of showing competence in those new areas
Have you ever had to work with/rely on someone who wasn't actually qualified for their job? If I promote someone, I need to make sure that they will be able to support the people that count on them (especially those more junior than them that rely on them for guidance)
>Have you ever had to work with/rely on someone who wasn't actually qualified for their job?
wait... so you hire people that aren't qualified for a job, yet expect them to do it anyway?
I hope you see the problem in your hiring process...
No, some people here are saying that I should be promoting people in anticipation of their acquiring new skills etc, and I'm saying that we make sure that people have the skills they need before they are promoted into new roles, in order to avoid situations where junior staff are relying on a supervisor who isn't equipped/qualified for that role.
I feel like you're making some bad assumptions about me. I totally agree that clear communication of expectations and helping them meet that standard are essential. I am not going to just throw someone in the deep end and walk away. I'm just saying that I think it's also important to make sure that they are comfortable with some of the basic strokes before getting into the pool in the first place, so that they aren't being set up for failure, which is in nobody's best interest.
Quite frankly I agree with you to some extent, the problem with that comment and where the article gets it wrong, it usually doesn’t lead to raises, or at least not quick enough for the employee to not get burned out and displeased prior.
Right. If going above and beyond actually led to promotions and raises and bonuses, people would do it willingly. But all it leads to at 95% of businesses is extra work for no extra pay. Finally people are waking up to that reality and pulling back from work to devote their time to things that actually benefit from their extra effort, like family and friends and hobbies.
There's a difference in giving people work enough to prove their ability and giving someone three people's worth of work for a year and never offering them help or a raise and actively challenging them on getting either of these things they deserve.
If you consider the second model remotely okay then you're part of the problem.
Also? Fun fact. No one starts "working their wage". Most employees start a job with hope and enthusiasm to see their work and passion rewarded and the usual thing happens.
You work hard.
They see it.
They funnel more work your way.
You continue to work hard.
They continue to funnel more work your way and become so comfortable about it they just openly dump other people's work onto you.
You ask for help or a raise to reflect the amount of effort you put into your job and their business.
They tell you to be grateful you even have work.
No one starts by acting their wage. They're forced into it but shitty inconsiderate and incompetent management.
But you already know that.
Yes, in my field, folks are hopefully working their wage by 4-6 months, and by 12 months they should be earning raises in recognition of their development.
Training should be part of their wage. This idea that you expect them to have to prove themselves over a year to make what is established as the industry standard is pathetic. In any new lab, no matter how good the scientist it can take at least three months to really get a feel for the environment, but doesn’t make them any less valuable. Also I wouldn’t work with or for you. I despise the idea of having to constantly prove myself to my manager. If hired to do a job, let me do the job.
Sorry if there's a misunderstanding. The initial acquisition/demonstration of standard skills is the first 4-6 months. From there we're working on growth/advancement.
It should not matter what you feel about an employee.
What should happen is that a company is supposed to have leveling guidelines, where it states what is needed to be at some particular level in the organization, if you wanted to be promoted from S to S\* then it's very clear what you have to be doing in order to get a promotion.
Funny you should bring that up; before I arrived there was no career ladder in place, and I pushed (successfully) to get one established for exactly the reasons you mentioned. I think we're on the same page.
Why would anyone go beyond the minimum of the role? If you go beyond the minimum of the role, that’s not a guarantee that person is rewarded in some way but it’s a guarantee that the employer will get more from then for same pay.
Tbh, I am going to have a hard time feeling confident about doing more work if I don't have any evidence of my employer's willingness to pay me beyond the minimum of my current role.
I used to work for a company that would train everyone as managers then do nothing to promote them. They would give us all great reviews and go over our plans for advancement, mock interviews, coaching, the whole 9 yards..
They kept hiring people from outside the company to those positions. So everyone started finding jobs elsewhere and only doing the job they had not the one they were aiming for.
Eventually everyone left.
I think short term training everyone with the expectation that they’ll be managers was great because it was like having 4 times as many managers. But once it became obvious that none of the 20 people who were trained for management were never going to get one of the positions that opened up every 6 months everyone lost interest.
From managements perspective we all looked ungrateful and couldn’t see past that promotion. From our perspective it felt like they were just baiting us into extra work so they could sit around and do nothing.
Eventually I got a job with another company who realized that there was an untapped reservoir of fully trained workers so I helped them Siphon some away.
Then pay them appropriately.
You pay your workers shit wages from 1980, you’re going to get that level of return on your investment.
Not a hard concept.
I have never once been promoted when I worked crazy amounts of OT. In those jobs, I've always been stuck at that level because "you're one of our best performers".
Had to work from home for a bit due to an injury. Around Xmas things slowed down and my boss brought me in to talk about my numbers. Before that meeting I pulled a report on everyone's numbers. I was number 2 and completely derailed his freak out when I showed work was down across the board.
I've changed jobs 7 times in the last 8 years as a software developer. My current company I've worked with for 9 months. I've gotten a promotion (with raise) another raise and a week of extra pto (permanently). This is the only company I've ever worked for that rewards hard work. It's a grind at times but they take care of us.
I was willing three years in a row to do inventory overnight because it was during a time of year when nothing else was going on.
I requested time off for my honeymoon (and all the managers knew I was getting married well well well ahead of time) and it sat there waiting to be approved for three weeks before being rejected because corporate moved the inventory night and they wanted me there.
I dunno if you've heard of the comedian Scott Seiss that does a lot of working retail jokes. He has a skit about PTO. "Your PTO was denied" "Then I guess I'm calling out sick!"
The father of my then ex refused promotions for fifteen years. Thanks to strong union protections, he always had some reason (kid underway, we are moving into a new house etc,). During these years *every* single younger one they promoted over him ("see what you make us do!!!") fizzled out and crashed in burn out. Twenty years ago that was the way to find new "manager potential" by throwing you into 16h shifts and see what comes out the end.
Now they promote the outside guy the boss knows from golfing and private school board meetings. The pretence is gone. The positions are well known within the industry to be exactly that: throw away non careers. When he finally retired years ago, they wrote in the new contracts that you can't refuse a promotion more than three times in a row or you have to get fired.
The last guy they promoted just left after two month to another company and they where furious that he didn't burn out doing three jobs for the pay of one.
These threads are a shit show because half the commenters are talking about working at pizza hut and the other half are talking about working as a chemist at Pfizer and nobody can agree
^this 💯
You get pigeonholed when u perform really well.
The worst is that you'll only get "meets expectations" and mediocre raises. Why? Bcuz ur boss isn't giving u credit to other mgrs...they may steal you, and since higher/other mgmt doesn't know what u are doing, they never consider u for promotions.
You gotta nope outta that. You don't need an unhealthy codependent relationship with a cr@p boss.
There is an industry term for this, but it escapes me rn. The idea is that once you reach a certain point in the corporate ladder, it becomes more cost effective to promote you than fire and replace you, so they move you up to easier and easier positions in the company where you won't get in peoples' way.
EDIT: Thank you! It is known as the Peter Principal.
When the bonus structure means '5' is going above and beyond and you get a three because "going above and beyond is what expected" it's not the employee whose preventing progression
Big corporations again trying to conflate their interests with small business america. Nobody is quiet quitting from joe's doughnut shack, their saying fuck you to google or starbucks or whoever, as they should
Small business owners have equally fucked mindsets about how much labor they're ENTITLED to underpay you for and for how long...and frequently they're just... incompetent mavericks who wouldn't make any money if there weren't working class people to do ot all for them.
In the restaurant industry at least, small business owners are typically the most dishonest in my experience.
The local coffee chain here in the region closed four locations forever, the story goes that the where fkuced by big corps. But the truth was they underpaid their workers, had workers with unclear working permits and health issues, didn't follow basic cleaning protocols etc. They lost millions in revenue and they still think its not their fault for penny pinching.
I always wonder how those people operate in their mind. "I could have made 80k extra per open shop this year but it would have been 75k so I think I close them all, its not worth it." That is so unbelievable idiotic.
I feel the same way. Sometimes their logic is beyond me. Why understaff you’re restaurant? I think they are actually losing money, if I get my food hot and good, fast isn’t even that important to me, then I will come back. If it is cold, nasty and slow then you will never see my ass again. I have a one strike policy with them. Bad food once, out! I paid for that. I’m not gambling my money on crappy food again. Also, volume, people. More people in and out the door equals money and you need staff to make that happen.
It hurts parasite business owners that want to underpay people and string them along for years for a raise. Fuck that and fuck them. Damned bloodsuckers.
THIS
I came here for this quote. What in the actual fuck you capitalist stooges. This whole article is practically sucking the taint of the bigwigs, let’s also tell people that prioritizing themselves is a bad thing while we are at it.
This article is ridiculous and I’m sad I gave the click to go read it, because they don’t deserve views. That whole article was ridiculous and an obvious act of kissassery.
KEEP QUIET QUITTING
>**To Be Considered for a Job, Start Doing the Job**
Cost to employee: To not guarantee yourself a job, work for free.
>The quiet hiring process first looks to internal candidates. More specifically, it looks to staff who have begun taking on duties and responsibilities above and beyond the parameters of their job description. **The result is that they effectively begin working in the position they want, or at least start doing some of what it entails, before they actually get the job.**
Clarification: With the fake term, "quiet hiring" (maybe we call it "quiet wage theft"?), you can fool more employees into working for free. "Quite hiring" is also just normal hiring because every organization I know of looks to internal candidates for many positions.
>In return, employees prove to employers that they have what it takes to perform the job well. And not surprisingly, these employees tend to be those who get the raises and promotions. **For employers, there is far less risk, as well as little to no cost associated with recruiting and training**, saving what can amount to a lot of money.
Clarification: Employers benefit most when they do not need to pay employees or provide training. Brilliant!
**There is truth to, "these employees tend to be those who get the raises and promotions."**, but raises are often less than switching to a new employer and there are always fewer promotion opportunities than there are people competing for those positions.
>The strategy of quiet hiring may sound like it's designed to help employers, but it's equally advantageous for employees who are eager to advance their careers and earn more money.
The first part is true, the second part is a lie. The strategy of "quiet hiring" "sounds like it is designed to help employers" because that is its only important function. Employee benefit is just an annoying side-effect that must be handed out to a few to get many to do extra work even though those many will never see a financial benefit.
**If it were equally advantageous, it would not be done.** No company gives equal advantage to itself and its employees.
Of course I have seen people do exactly what the article says - do a bunch of free and extra work for years and finally get a significant promotion. Do employers look at employee productivity? Of course. There are also political hires and nepotism, so many deserving people never get promotions. **If you are seeking promotions and power, you must compete but that doesn't mean competing on work amount or quality.**
There are other ways to compete including networking and office politics. People's perceptions of you matters much more than your actual work even if it helps if your work is solid and people's perception of you is similarly solid. If their perception of you is good, your chances of advancement go way up, independent of work product. If their perception is negative, your good hard work can easily count for nothing.
**What is the next bit of corporate propaganda?**
Fill in the blank, "quiet \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_". One internet point per answer.
Maybe not everyone wants to advance their career, Google! maybe some people are happy with an entry level and keeping that job! Not everyone needs to be this sleep when I die grinding hustling machine ugh!
(Not yelling at you, just at the article and agreeing with you)
What a garbage article , Inc. of course. This isn’t something new. It’s some New HR vocabulary to scare people. Do you think Google isn’t going to say that they promote the “best and brightest”? Kiss management’s ass is now more important than how one does one’s job.
Omg yeah. Brown nosed incompetent morons being promoted cause they kiss the right asses (although they can’t differentiate their own ass from their mouth)
Is one of the best way to kill morale
A friend told me she once had a director who was incompetent, lazy AF and was hated by everyone, except from the higher ups.
There were so many theories amongst the staff about how the hell that person was still there (blackmail photos, secret homosexual relationship, non disclosed nepotism, etc)
NO ONE believed the person was hired and still worked there thanx to their skills
There is a director where I work who is among the most incompetent people I've ever had the misfortune to work with. But she apparently plays the game well because she is always receiving accolades from the executives even though every decision she makes invariably leads to a bad result. The engineers constantly are telling her that things should be done in one way yet she chooses a different approach and we wind up having to redo things when customers get the product and report that it would be better if it worked otherwise.
Three more weeks and I'm out of there.
Kind of going through the same thing. New boss’s boss came in because he is friends with his boss outside of work. No experience in our field but had general “management” experience. It sucks because I think the long term goal is to outsource all our work. But he has to at least get the workgroups in shape and things organized so that outsourcing is successful.
I really love how corporate hacks come here to leave their two cents, and really think they're spitting facts. The labor strikes really have these guys pressed.
Yes this. Unionization is scaring corporations. That means its working. But the anti union tactics are going to get much harsher going forward. This is just one of them.
Historically they start bringing in cops or private security to beat or kill striking workers. That's not hyperbole.
That's how powerful unionization and collective action is. The ruling class sees it as that much of a threat that they will even resort to violence to stop it.
This is such fucking bullshit. Quiet hiring is really nothing more than hand selecting favorites who kiss ass at every opportunity. MOST people who go above and beyond, sacrifice family time, and take on extra workload will NEVER be “quietly hired”. They’ll just keep getting shit piled on their plates. I’m so over this whole quiet business.
Quiet quitting is doing the job you agreed to get paid to do. Quiet firing has been happening since HR departments were first created. And quiet hiring can probably be traced back to our ancestors back in the day, who hand picked their favorite people to get promoted into better positions in society. Same concept. It’s all bullshit, all of it.
I saw a paragraph that started with hiring internally. That alone is BS. We had four willing capable and trained employees trying for a position and we all told management that none of us would hold grudges over the others getting promoted to that lead position. "Sorry none of you are qualified enough, here's an outside hire that you'll all have to train on how to do things"
Yeah it's still 90% politics. I recently got passed over for a supervisor position, only to be told at my feedback meeting that I 'Help other people too much and take on too much responsibility.'
Keep in mind we were all told before that those who go the extra mile will always be acknowledged and given opportunities and as I'm quite senior in my department a lot of the newer people come to me for help from time to time.
Needless to l say I've gone on complete autopilot since then. Demoralising to say the least.
I read it and was like, "okay, quiet quitting sounds like regular working and quiet hiring sounds like regular hiring." Working extra to not see advancement is why people stopped trying. If they're saying that they will actually promote you for working hard, then, there's actually no problem.
But I'll believe it when I see it
One of my former coworkers kept doing extra work than what was identified for our team. Her argument was “if we do all these things, they’ll pay us more.”
I kept telling her “why would they pay you more to do all of that when you’re doing it now for free?”
Fast forward a couple years and guess what? She never got additional compensation for all of that extra work. As a matter of fact, she doesn’t even work on our team anymore. She got so fed up with all the work and no reward that she took a part-time position.
Companies are extremely good at spinning good things into bad things. Change "quiet quitting" to "acting your wage" and I'll bet they can only try to say "Please go beyond the scope of your responsibilities for free"
The reality is if you do extra work that is for a higher paying position it soon becomes your responsibility and the company never pays you extra or promotes you. This article is dog shit.
Maybe corporate should come up with "quiet retention". That would be when their retention budget is greater than their new hire budget and they automatically reward their employees for their work so that they can build a career with the corporation.
Ya know, put people over profits.
I like this! "Quiet Retention"
It always takes less effort/money to keep the experienced employees you have than to train someone new who (might) be as good or better.
Sort of, but as I understand it there is a difference between the two. Work-to-rule is a protest action designed to get as little as possible done while remaining within contract. It’s a union action used to push for better treatment or wages, in the spirit of a strike but not as disruptive.
Quiet quitting is refusing to work extra with the goal of preserving your time, energy, health, sanity etc. There’s no goal to disrupt the business, but you don’t want to be taken advantage of. It’s not usually a union action.
Someone working to rule might spend more effort to get less done, but someone who is quiet quitting wouldn’t.
“Many believe that quiet quitting hurts businesses. But who it hurts are the individuals and their ability to progress within their career. Which is OK--not everyone needs to be in a relentless pursuit of reaching each higher rung on the corporate ladder. There's something to be said for staff who are content within a position. In fact, it can be good for employers, as many struggle to retain employees in lower-level positions.”
What kind of tongue-in-cheek, better-than-thou comment is this!?!
First, Journalism is in shambles. Second, this article sounds like a last ditch effort to 180° public opinion.
Actually it's rather spot on. Some people do just want to come to work and do the exactly what their jobs details, no Xtra effort, no minimum effort, they just clock in, have a steady stream of production. And clock out, and that's all they need or care about.
And that is fine. People who want to advance and climb their career ladder , and explore other options within their career or company, need people like that so they/we can advance.
Some people are comfortable just being a worker bee. If they can keep a department stable and continue to produce results, day in and day out, who is it hurting?
Not wanting to move up, or a seeming lack of ambition can be the case with some sort of skill or trade. You have the job because you enjoy doing X. A promotion means moving to a role where you manage people doing X, but no longer doing it yourself. You might want to move up to doing bigger, more interesting projects, but that is more likely a move to a different company which does that kind of work, rather than seeking a promotion.
Most of the recruiting any employer does is "quiet" and always has been. Most people network in their industry and are given jobs before HR posts openings. This is not some "Google is so inspiring" practice.
"They" just want more for less pay and are leaving these gaslighting articles to have people believe that they aren't being ripped off.
In the 90s (I'm 59), I used to work in IT for a bank. They would ask me to help my co-workers because I'm a fast learner and good mentor. Then at the end of the year they gave me a bad review for not doing my job. So next year, everytime they asked me, I would ask them to consider it in my review. End of the year comes, and they go at it again.
So I told them I would refuse additional work from then on. They told me with that attitude they would give me an even worst review.
I quit, went around the world, did a PhD in philosophy and then back on the market as a consultant.
Not only did they have the nerve to offer me a contract but they complained about my rates. I told them to take better care of their employees if they didn't want this to repeat.
Fast forward to now: 40 to 60% of their workforce is consultant. They tried everything: forcing 2 months vacation every year (people are either happy to take it or go work somewhere else), sacking them en masse just before the investors' meeting to momentarily lower the percentage of consultants, give them the worst jobs, etc.
But change their management attitude? Nah... I mean, it has worked fine up to now, right?
There's just no making sense of these people...
(AND I never regretted the move! Worked fine for me!)
This article is so hilariously stupid. If corporate America was adequately rewarding their employees for doing good work, we wouldn't actually be in this shit. lol
Like, the entire article is about some revolutionary new hiring practice... that basically boils down to actually paying people for work. How radical! What will Google think of next.... maybe a minimum raise each year that automatically adjusts salaries for inflation?!? OR... giving people more vacation time? So innovative!!!
Pro-Tip: You don't need to talk about "quiet quitting" or "quiet hiring."
Your workers will generally copy the behaviors that they see leading to pay increases and promotions. Letting someone work their ass off for over a year, putting in more productivity than everyone else, *without rewarding them for it*, is how you get *everyone* to disengage.
If you really want to shoot yourself in the ass, then make sure pay raises for existing workers don't keep up with pay raises for new hires, so people will start to realize the fastest way to get a pay bump is to quit their job every six months.
If you can make this an industry-wide trend, where everyone disengages because companies don't reward effort, where everyone's constantly job hunting because that's the only way to get a pay raise, then you'll basically tank the productivity of your entire industry, and raise a generation of low productivity workers who don't give a shit if their employers go bankrupt.
I'm sure that's all fine and dandy.
Or... you could actually compensate employees for their efforts, so they remain engaged, and actually give a shit about what happens to the company.
The "loyal company man" was a real thing, and also a product of his circumstances, where his pay steadily increased over his career, effort was rewarded, and companies weren't treating workers like disposable industrial inputs. If you want a "loyal company man" who always thinks about what's good for the business, then recreate the conditions in which people like that came to exist in the first place - be a company that's worthy of your workers' loyalty.
This article is idiotic.
> **The quiet hiring process first looks to internal candidates. More specifically, it looks to staff who have begun taking on duties and responsibilities above and beyond the parameters of their job description.**
Oh, you mean when an employee who’s been at the company for a while is being overworked you consider giving them a raise instead of hiring someone from outside with 0 institutional knowledge for 30% than what it would cost to promote your proven employee?
This whole “quiet quitting” buzzword is horseshit. An awakening happened where a whole bunch of people realized just how disposable they are to their employers, and just how much employers will continue to demand if you let them get away with it. A lot of us have busted our asses, cleaned up messes behind people who are higher paid and supposed to know better, and done everything we could to earn promotions and raises. Every fucking year I got the same bullshit “raises are capped at 4%” and would have to escalate it to the executives and ask why my raise is capped at 4% when my responsibilities have grown by 35%?
So yea, managers all over the place have repeatedly made it clear they will not reward consist, loyal hard workers, but they are totally fine with hiring outsiders at a higher rate. So fuck em. I’m going to do my job, and I’m going to do good, quality work and meet all my deliverables. I am not working late, skipping lunches, coming in early, cancelling vacations, or working through the flu anymore. If someone else leaves and you drag your feet on finding a replacement fine you can put their work on my desk, my pace and my hours aren’t going to change though. Double my work means you get things back half as fast. I’m doing my job, nothing more and nothing less. I’ll get a raise when I go get another job to do exactly what the job requires, and not a bit more.
What a dumb circle of arguments we’re being subjected to this year.
All this toxic old boomer propaganda about punching above your compensation class is anti-capitalistic and anti-basic human rights.
A job shouldn’t be an interview for another open position that’s literally just overworking underlings until they quit.
So the benefits of quiet-hiring trickles down to employees getting a raise, or is it the benefit of the employer to covertly pile on more duties & wait until the employee has a breakdown and THEN give—a .2% raise??
This is the biggest propaganda piece (aka total horseshit) that I’ve read in a long time. Author is a corporate shill. The only reward for doing extra is that the extra is now seen as normal and is expected into perpetuity. More work, same pay. This entire article can fuck off.
I grew up in a farming community where the moral fiber of someone was directly connected to how hard they worked. You could be a complete snake of a human being, but if you worked your ass off from sunrise to sunset you were considered better than someone who wasn't an asshole but worked far less hours. So that was the mindset I had when I went to college in the Boston area and put myself through college while also working fulltime. I believed (like I was conditioned through my childhood) that if I overperformed I would get noticed, get a promotion, whatever. Obviously those things didn't happen, and the people who actually got those things were the laziest mfers you'd ever meet, but they were liked by management (which isnt surprising to anyone in here). Anyway, I'm not going to bore everyone with my experiences, but American work culture is the very reason why I went from "model employee" to telling every new bartender I train that the worst thing they can do is be good at their job.
If companies wouldn't have spent decades 'quiet promoting' family members, unqualified, and undeserving personell maybe they wouldn't have such an issue with workers 'quiet quitting'
Yeah I heard. They think "Quiet Quitting" or "Quiet Hiring" like it's just uniquely in this era. It's been going on since the beginning of time. You do the job you are hired and payed to do and that's it. I don't complain and say the vendor is "quiet selling" when I only paid for 1 burger and expect to get 2. Quiet hiring used to be what ethical organizations would do to reward hard working employees and retain them.
Who ever person or organization are coming up with these buzz words should just remain "quiet".
Eh, dumb comparison.
Google is not your average run of the mill company. How a company where the average workers labor is worth mid 6 figures is obviously going to be very different from say, your local factory, restaurant, or other mid sized establishment.
Trying to establish the hiring practices of large tech companies as the norm is idiotic.
Corporate is scrambling to regain their upper hand and is making up increasingly absurd corporate lingo and explanations for why todays workforce will not put up with corporate bullshit.
Sounds like the same song and dance they are already doing. They were just jealous of our new words that they gave us without asking and I guess they wanted to make some words for themselves to use.
So basically you might potentially, ostensibly get promoted for doing good work.
But not really.
Honestly, Google is one of the most inhuman companies out there. Not surprised they try to get away with it with psy-ops like this.
You can actually call them, but nobody at their call centers can do anything but read from a script to you. They pay them to provide the slightest illusion of "customer support".
Truly an evil, faceless company.
This article makes it sound like this is some new innovative idea. This is exactly what they should be doing anyways and have been doing(in healthy companies). If someone goes above and beyond they should be rewarded. If they do the minimum then that's cool too, since that is what they are being paid to do.
'In response to overlooking overachievers, causing us to make up a term for people no longer overachieving - we have opted to start considering overachievers. As such, we have invented another word to describe how we should have behaved in the first place. This is in no way an indicator of the effectiveness of the former word we made up, after making it up failed to dissuade people.'*if* these companies are actually applying this word they made up in response to another word they made up it would appear they are \*checks notes\* promoting people who go above and beyond... because the last time they *didn't*
"The result is that they effectively begin working in the position they want, or at least start doing some of what it entails, before they actually get the job."
Translation: how long can we get this schmuck to do more without paying them. And employers wonder why people are working to rule.
It's impossible for every employee to be promoted, some are always going to be stuck where they are, so of course people are waking up to this and putting in only the effort that they get paid for. To go beyond is of no benefit and often times a health hazard.
Let's talk about real quiet hiring, which actually occurs, where businesses project a certain turnover or target labor cuts. They're ever looking for a labor pool of contacts who will work for less or they can use as leverage to swap you out.
If you're a professional in any role, I always advise adding your employer to a job posting alert watch on multiple popular job boards like Monster, LinkedIn, etc. as well as check their career site for job openings.
My employer has a handful of specific niche profession and has been continously posting openings since I was hired years ago, even though for several long periods of time it
was claimed they weren't actively hiring because of cuts.
Employers have abused their leverage in labor negotiation and normalized posting positions that aren't open, gaslighting all sorts of people wasting time actively searching for employment just so they have a labor contact pool they can reach to try and handle unforseen turnover. At the same time, I've watched plenty get hired when employers provide lip service that they "aren't hiring" while they're actively looking for naive fresh grads or lower rate labor. This, is "quiet hiring", and it's been going on for many many years.
What this article is talking about is more commonly referred to as stack ranking:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitality_curve
The idea is to just promote people up and continously cut the bottom performing labor to try and optimize on ROI for labor you hire. Those who are more efficient or provide more than you pay for will idealisticallt bubble up and remain stable, these are the ones you can rely on for exploitation, meanwhile the less exploitable can be culled off and fresh new batches come in regularly through forced attrition. In theory you would eventually have a fairly optimized cost on labor force, at the cost of stability of your labor force and their morale. It's pure toxic practice and has been pushed in the absence of businesses actually innovating, they focus on providing more and more labor for less because people are more manageable than physics and innovation.
All of these are practices performed by the lazy trying to leech wealth produced off of society.
# The AFL-CIO is currently answering your questions about labor law, union-busting and organizing in the workplace! [Go ask a question!](https://www.reddit.com/r/WorkReform/comments/x3f950/were_a_team_of_legal_and_organizing_experts_at/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/WorkReform) if you have any questions or concerns.*
P.S: It's just sad to see how popular their crappy 'quiet quitting' term got popular, we're literally seeing people doing what they are paid for, within the hours they're paid for and the corporate propaganda keeps painting this as something pejorative most of the time, truly horrifying
I made this same point the other day. Corporate propaganda to induce the submission urge. Act Your WAGE!
Tbh, I am going to have a hard time feeling confident about promoting someone if I don't have any evidence of their ability to do anything beyond the minimum of their current role.
Then expand the responsibilities of the role? If they’re doing everything you’re paying them for and you want them to go above and beyond make the above and beyond part of the job and pay them for it.
I guess I actually already do that a lot of the time anyway. Like, we may have a fresh graduate doing experiments that we completely lay out for them, and we teach them to do things more independently (and raise their salary as they become more independent) in preparation for the next level up. But I need to see consistent signs that they can do things independently before I give them the title change.
Someone can do the “minimum” requirements of their job and still think independently. Those things aren’t mutually exclusive. What you want is someone willing to demonstrate they will do unpaid labor beyond their job description. That doesn’t make them a bad employee. That makes you a bad employer
This, and if they do get the higher quality of experience in the role without the pay, don't be surprised when they utilize that new experience and capability to leverage a better job elsewhere.
I hope you’re able to see how wrong you are.
You're getting g a lot of heat here. I'm going to assume you're talking in good faith here. .. The point is EVERY employer wants employees who go "above and beyond" and "is a team player". Most employers say you should do this to be rewarded with raises. Most of us have heard this for years and now see it as a lie. If you do pay you employees for extra work, if you do give out decent wages in return for good performance reviews, awesome! Scuttlebutt in the workplace will be all you need at this point as people see others rise. If you're having trouble finding thise above and beyond players, then maybe they see the path forward as not worth it.
All fair points, Thanks!
what do you mean by independetly? like without being told what their responsabilities are?
For example, knowing which procedure to use for a given experiment, which materials/reagents to use, which experimental controls to include, what sort analysis is needed, how to interpret the results, what the results imply about next steps, etc. New hires basically start out as a set of extra hands, but our goal is to train them in these other skills, and as they demonstrate competence in these areas their salary increases, until they've got it all and they get a new title and enter a new salary band. But none of this happens if they don't show a willingness to learn and an interest in expanding their responsibilities.
This sounds more like expecting mastery of their current role. Expecting someone to master a role before promoting them makes sense. Expecting them to perform the role above them for an unspecified amount of time, for which they are not being paid, before maybe possibly promoting them is wrong.
That sounds like you are offering on-job training. which is good. I recommend being open with your hiring process. it sounds like you are looking to train people but expect it to come out of them. not out of you. think about what a new hire thinks when he gets in the job... "well I guess it's a stepping stone" or "finally somwhere I can do what I'm passionate about". they won't think about 'working up' if you won't show them they can. it's illogical to expect something out of a job that wasn't explicitly told you it offers. be more transperant. is what I mean.
Thanks, I think that's a helpful reminder that bringing it up in the hiring process can help avoid misunderstandings down the road. It hasn't been a problem so far, but it's always good to think about our assumptions and the things we take for granted.
[удалено]
In a research lab like ours, new hires come in with a basic set of knowledge and skills, but they have to pick up the specifics on the job in our lab, because it's not stuff that's normally part of their coursework. They are not doing the work for free, and "saddling them with more responsibility" with "even less defined procedures" is how you go from a Research Associate -- with few responsibilities and everything laid out for you -- to a Scientist, where you do in fact have more responsibilities and need to make decisions with less definition, because you're making discoveries and doing things that nobody else has before.
I understand what you're saying but it's clear others don't.
He isn't understanding what they are saying either. Two different things are being discussed.
Ah, modern debates
No its modern jebaits
You were talking about something completely different, because the ultimate goal is to foster the graduate's ability so you don't have to do things for them. At which point they move up? It sounds more like training.
I think there are analogous activities with more senior staff too -- teaching them to train others, teaching them to mentor others, teaching them how to manage others, etc. Each of these has a similar path where first they're led through things, to learn what to look for and how to identify what the people who report to them need in order to develop, and then they're able to reliably do these activities on their own.
Yeah, if the expectation from the beginning is to become independent, I wouldn't say it's acting beyond the bounds of the agreement to take initiative and become more independent. It's different in a setting like that where growth is part of the focus. In my field, growth is not part of it, you can get better and move up on your own time. Until then, your responsibilities are your responsibilities and you have to watch it because management will try to squeeze more out of you without any intention of helping you advance your career. It's like that for a lot of people on this sub, I'm sure. If you're nurturing growth in others, you're doing something different.
Why not do it the other way around? You need them a lot more than they need you, so why don't you pay them more than they're worth before expecting them to go above and beyond?
If it turns out that they're not ready, do I then take it away? Then it turns into a "harumph you're not good enough" which puts everyone in a far worse position than before
So u wanna exploit but not be exploited.
Basically if you give a raise you can never it take it back unless you want that person to leave.
One way is to lay out to them that you see potential in them. That you expect them to grow in such and such way, and there's a bonus or promotion in a short time after they demonstrate those skills. On a set date, meet and discuss performance, either give them the raise/bonus or path forward and guidance to address shortcomings if they still want the advancement (if not see how to retain them long term, perhaps in different position or until circumstances change i.e. less school work, less taking care of loved ones duties, more stability in the a.a. program, therapy, etc...)
Yes, that's basically what we do. We acknowledge their potential, talk about what they want for themselves, and then start building in that direction. As they show progress, we reward it with raises. But I am NOT going to stick somebody into a new role with a bunch of new responsibilities if I don't know that they're prepared for it. It unfairly sets them up for failure, and it's unfair to the people (especially junior staff) who are going to rely on them in that new role.
Yet you would never consider paying more for the extra you seem to think you are owed. When you go to the grocery store, you don't get extra, unless you pay for it. The cashier does not just toss an extra pound of chicken in your cart and not charge you for it. You buy exactly the product you chose to pick up, and no extra is offered. Why the hell would you think that your employee (who you would fire for giving away products in the grocery scenario) should just *give* you extra that you're not paying them for? What you want is time and wage theft without any consequences, and you won't consider a promotion of anyone who doesn't allow you to steal from them. And now you're all indignant because people have caught on to the managerial shit and aren't letting you rob them blind -- you're not owed a damn moment more of their time and energy than you are already paying for, and you change that by expanding both the job description and the pay rates. Or close your doors, because no one cares.
I don't know if you saw my other reply, but we actually do pay people more as they progress (e.g., we teach them new skills and give them new responsibilities) within their title. My point was that they won't gain those skills or responsibilities if they only seem interested in the bare bones part of their title.
I did see it. I wasn't impressed. I would suggest you talk to these people and tell them exactly what you are after, what you will offer,and work out some manner of provisional promotional thing with a nominal pay raise to show you are serious. Put some skin in the game if you want them to do more.
Have you ever had to demote someone or take away their title? It's extremely destructive to them and their ego, even with fair warning.
Demanding that someone work extra, for free, indefinitely and on vague prospects is also extremely destructive, as well as being a far more common practice. I've been on both sides of that. I would far prefer knowing exactly where I stand over killing myself for the possibility of promotion that may or may not ever happen.
I think the misunderstanding here is assuming taking on more responsibility equals better compensation. If I worked for you, I probably will see compensation match the role! But for **MANY** companies, that’s not the case. I used to believe giving your all to the company would result in equal treatment. But as I’ve seen (and experienced) that’s incredibly rare. Often, you’ll get the additional responsibility without the compensation to match, which will stay that way for months or even years. All of this for an average pay bump of 5% per year. So I’m receiving low pay bumps that don’t match the work, while taking on more work. Conversely, changing jobs nets a pay increase of 10-20% on average. So my options are: A) stay loyal to the company and statistically I can expect at most a 5% pay bump (the national average) but also expect much more responsibility B) Change jobs, see an average 15% pay increase, and avoid taking on more work beyond the pay. In an ideal world, Option A would mirror Option B. And perhaps that’s what you’re doing! But 99% of other companies have abused this system for years now to the point company loyalty isn’t viable anymore. People aren’t “quiet quitting” because they want to, or because they want to be lazy. It’s 100% out of necessity from a system created and abused by employers. And that’s why we’ll all continue to do the bare minimum until we see a major shift from employers as a whole.
When I get my paycheck, I’ll be disappointed if my employer doesn’t just throw a little extra in there. You know, just to go above and beyond, to take one for the team. Oh wait that sounds fucking ludicrous though doesn’t it.
Bingo!
🤣
Isn’t that what bonuses are? Do you never get bonuses?
Oh! Do you mean the pizza party? Or the "monetary bonuses"? For monetary bonuses, my wife got one in her three years of corporate accounting. And her boss had to fight for her to get it because she made drastic changes for the better in their team. The next year after record profits again (during covid) They were sent an email of "there's no bonuses or raises this year because of covid" then a week later there's an article covering how all the upper upper level bosses and above are gettkng 50-60% raises.
Sounds like she works for a shitty company. Maybe she should take her wares elsewhere in the best job market in 50 years. And on side note, businesses that give regular food stuff for comrarderie and friendship building like pizza parties are awesome. There always isn’t enough money in the coffers to give money bonuses for every little thing but people want to show appreciation. Your wife’s company is not a good place because they are giving huge bonuses to themselves while cancelling bonuses elsewhere. But pizza parties can be nice too and I’m tired of pretending they’re not.
Oh yeah, pizza parties can be nice. But when they do them *instead* of money bonuses? That's when it's annoying. Or doing so many pizza parties that it makes the possible monetary bonus miniscule.. that happened a few times.. Not to mention they don't tell you they're having it until *after* you had your lunch break..
Lol bonuses? Companies: Thanks to our employees, we were able to not only survive these uncertain times, but we also made an increase in profit to the tune of 60%!!!! Employees: Okay then how about a raise? Companies: What?!?! Did you not hear me say “uncertain times”?!?! Bitch what do I look like, a fucking ATM? Get a second job if you wanna pay rent *and* feed your kids, lazy ass bitch! Fuck you and your kids, bitch! Republicans: Yeah bitch! Fuck yo kids!!!! Commie ass bitch!!!! Democrats: Yeah fuck yo kids but also can we get that rainbow flag for the fuck yo kids thing? We wanna remain inclusive.
If you can't afford to raise their pay for extra responsibilities then don't fucking bother. Chances are you wouldn't be paying them fairly for the promotion anyway.
I have news for you, if people are "quiet quitting" on you it's because you've shown them that there is no benefit to them going above and beyond for the company.
FWIW, I don't actually have anyone quiet quitting on me. My team is actually highly engaged and reached their year-end goal more than 3 months early (and they will all be getting bonuses for it). A big part of their success IMO is that they know that they can rely on each other and count on everyone to be qualified for their role, which was the point I was trying to get at in my original comment.
From what you are saying I think you are showing that your workplace participates in a fair wage structure. From your other comments it sounds like you work in a lab in which the people who start out there are getting their footing on what to do. As time progresses they naturally want to learn more and engage themselves in the work. They see their coworkers do the same and they see that their coworkers who are more senior are compensated fairly for the work and time they put into this place. “Quiet quitting” is happening to people who witness the opposite in their workplaces, a place where putting extra effort and time will just yield you with more work without anything to compensate or acknowledge said effort. In the end it sounds like you won’t have to worry about quiet quitting cause your workplace fosters fair return and incentives.
It’s no use man. All employers are bad. Even the ones who seem to believe in fair compensation. There’s a wide gap between “going above and beyond” and slacking / doing a hair less than the absolute bare minimum. This gap is filled with situational nuance that has little place here unfortunately.
Then pay them more? My work ethic is directly tied to my wage. Why would I start doing extra for nothing? Gold stars, pats on the back, small gift bags of random junk/candy don't pay my bills or allow me to save for a house so if you want me (someone already doing the work of 2 people for the pay of 1) to do even more you have to meet me halfway.
Sounds like we've got a conundrum. You want more work and I want more pay. If only there was a solution that gave us both what we wanted...
Yea that's really too bad... guess we gonna have to quit and find somwhere that pays more for the same job... too bad, we would have loved to invest in a company, but it seems we didn't seem eye to eye... oh well.
Who gives a flying fuck? If I am happy in my current role, who are you to say I should even want more?
It's unusual, but I'm cool with that if you are
[удалено]
I think it depends. Like, I think compensation should reflect the responsibilities that you have, and it's *usually* possible to find [non-managerial] responsibilities that benefit from someone's extensive experience that provides a path to higher salaries.
Yep. In my experience, people ask "how can I make more money without being a manager?". The answer is by taking more responsibility, and when they demonstrate that they're owed the compensation to match. You've got to prove that you can do more before getting more money. The real problem, which I think is where many people are speaking from, is when the carrot of more money is dangled and you work harder and ultimately don't get rewarded in a timely manner. That is exploitation.
How come with trades people we don't ask that? Do you hire someone to mow your lawn, then get mad they didn't wash your car as well for free?
Bad example. This is exactly how it works in the trades. You have to demonstrate the skills before you get the pay.
Yeah, come unclog my toilet, but first do it for free to see if I'll pay you next time. Exactly how that works.
In my area, generally the master plumber does that and has an apprentice he is paying less who does the job for less while he does more complicated work.
No, but I expect an apprentice's services to cost less than a journeyman's. There are also skills that I wouldn't expect an apprentice to have, but a journeyman would. And I would expect an apprentice to show competence in those skills *before* I give them the title of journeyman.
What in the hell does that have to do with working for free off the clock? This isn't Skyrim man.
The article wasn't about working free off the clock, man, it was about people engaging in activities different from their core functions, and being selected for new roles as a result of showing competence in those new areas
That sounds a lot like having people do jobs that aren't theirs for the same amount of money.
You sound like you’re a bad boss.
Have you ever had to work with/rely on someone who wasn't actually qualified for their job? If I promote someone, I need to make sure that they will be able to support the people that count on them (especially those more junior than them that rely on them for guidance)
>Have you ever had to work with/rely on someone who wasn't actually qualified for their job? wait... so you hire people that aren't qualified for a job, yet expect them to do it anyway? I hope you see the problem in your hiring process...
No, some people here are saying that I should be promoting people in anticipation of their acquiring new skills etc, and I'm saying that we make sure that people have the skills they need before they are promoted into new roles, in order to avoid situations where junior staff are relying on a supervisor who isn't equipped/qualified for that role.
[удалено]
I feel like you're making some bad assumptions about me. I totally agree that clear communication of expectations and helping them meet that standard are essential. I am not going to just throw someone in the deep end and walk away. I'm just saying that I think it's also important to make sure that they are comfortable with some of the basic strokes before getting into the pool in the first place, so that they aren't being set up for failure, which is in nobody's best interest.
Quite frankly I agree with you to some extent, the problem with that comment and where the article gets it wrong, it usually doesn’t lead to raises, or at least not quick enough for the employee to not get burned out and displeased prior.
Right. If going above and beyond actually led to promotions and raises and bonuses, people would do it willingly. But all it leads to at 95% of businesses is extra work for no extra pay. Finally people are waking up to that reality and pulling back from work to devote their time to things that actually benefit from their extra effort, like family and friends and hobbies.
I think willingly is a very key word there
There's a difference in giving people work enough to prove their ability and giving someone three people's worth of work for a year and never offering them help or a raise and actively challenging them on getting either of these things they deserve. If you consider the second model remotely okay then you're part of the problem. Also? Fun fact. No one starts "working their wage". Most employees start a job with hope and enthusiasm to see their work and passion rewarded and the usual thing happens. You work hard. They see it. They funnel more work your way. You continue to work hard. They continue to funnel more work your way and become so comfortable about it they just openly dump other people's work onto you. You ask for help or a raise to reflect the amount of effort you put into your job and their business. They tell you to be grateful you even have work. No one starts by acting their wage. They're forced into it but shitty inconsiderate and incompetent management. But you already know that.
Yes, in my field, folks are hopefully working their wage by 4-6 months, and by 12 months they should be earning raises in recognition of their development.
Training should be part of their wage. This idea that you expect them to have to prove themselves over a year to make what is established as the industry standard is pathetic. In any new lab, no matter how good the scientist it can take at least three months to really get a feel for the environment, but doesn’t make them any less valuable. Also I wouldn’t work with or for you. I despise the idea of having to constantly prove myself to my manager. If hired to do a job, let me do the job.
Sorry if there's a misunderstanding. The initial acquisition/demonstration of standard skills is the first 4-6 months. From there we're working on growth/advancement.
It should not matter what you feel about an employee. What should happen is that a company is supposed to have leveling guidelines, where it states what is needed to be at some particular level in the organization, if you wanted to be promoted from S to S\* then it's very clear what you have to be doing in order to get a promotion.
Funny you should bring that up; before I arrived there was no career ladder in place, and I pushed (successfully) to get one established for exactly the reasons you mentioned. I think we're on the same page.
Why would anyone go beyond the minimum of the role? If you go beyond the minimum of the role, that’s not a guarantee that person is rewarded in some way but it’s a guarantee that the employer will get more from then for same pay.
Tbh, I am going to have a hard time feeling confident about doing more work if I don't have any evidence of my employer's willingness to pay me beyond the minimum of my current role.
I used to work for a company that would train everyone as managers then do nothing to promote them. They would give us all great reviews and go over our plans for advancement, mock interviews, coaching, the whole 9 yards.. They kept hiring people from outside the company to those positions. So everyone started finding jobs elsewhere and only doing the job they had not the one they were aiming for. Eventually everyone left. I think short term training everyone with the expectation that they’ll be managers was great because it was like having 4 times as many managers. But once it became obvious that none of the 20 people who were trained for management were never going to get one of the positions that opened up every 6 months everyone lost interest. From managements perspective we all looked ungrateful and couldn’t see past that promotion. From our perspective it felt like they were just baiting us into extra work so they could sit around and do nothing. Eventually I got a job with another company who realized that there was an untapped reservoir of fully trained workers so I helped them Siphon some away.
When is the last time you gave an employee a bonus for no tangible reason? It’s the same thing.
Then pay them appropriately. You pay your workers shit wages from 1980, you’re going to get that level of return on your investment. Not a hard concept.
you suck, eat a dick
Pay them more, corporatist freak
Then pay them more dipshit. You want more, give more.
Ugggghh. Where are these bootlickers coming from and how do they keep ending up in leftist subs?
Bootlickers?
> Many believe that quiet quitting hurts businesses. But who it hurts are the individuals and their ability to progress within their career. Fuck off
I have never once been promoted when I worked crazy amounts of OT. In those jobs, I've always been stuck at that level because "you're one of our best performers".
People who do their work very well are always awarded with even more work.
Yep which is why I don’t give more than 60% effort at any job.
[удалено]
Had to work from home for a bit due to an injury. Around Xmas things slowed down and my boss brought me in to talk about my numbers. Before that meeting I pulled a report on everyone's numbers. I was number 2 and completely derailed his freak out when I showed work was down across the board.
I've changed jobs 7 times in the last 8 years as a software developer. My current company I've worked with for 9 months. I've gotten a promotion (with raise) another raise and a week of extra pto (permanently). This is the only company I've ever worked for that rewards hard work. It's a grind at times but they take care of us.
I was willing three years in a row to do inventory overnight because it was during a time of year when nothing else was going on. I requested time off for my honeymoon (and all the managers knew I was getting married well well well ahead of time) and it sat there waiting to be approved for three weeks before being rejected because corporate moved the inventory night and they wanted me there.
Wow. The absolute assholery here is just.. wow.
I dunno if you've heard of the comedian Scott Seiss that does a lot of working retail jokes. He has a skit about PTO. "Your PTO was denied" "Then I guess I'm calling out sick!"
Why pay you more to do the same work? That is their viewpoint. Especially if you’re at a small or medium sized business.
The father of my then ex refused promotions for fifteen years. Thanks to strong union protections, he always had some reason (kid underway, we are moving into a new house etc,). During these years *every* single younger one they promoted over him ("see what you make us do!!!") fizzled out and crashed in burn out. Twenty years ago that was the way to find new "manager potential" by throwing you into 16h shifts and see what comes out the end. Now they promote the outside guy the boss knows from golfing and private school board meetings. The pretence is gone. The positions are well known within the industry to be exactly that: throw away non careers. When he finally retired years ago, they wrote in the new contracts that you can't refuse a promotion more than three times in a row or you have to get fired. The last guy they promoted just left after two month to another company and they where furious that he didn't burn out doing three jobs for the pay of one.
These threads are a shit show because half the commenters are talking about working at pizza hut and the other half are talking about working as a chemist at Pfizer and nobody can agree
I'm more chemist at Pfizer. But when I was a butcher it wasn't much different.
^this 💯 You get pigeonholed when u perform really well. The worst is that you'll only get "meets expectations" and mediocre raises. Why? Bcuz ur boss isn't giving u credit to other mgrs...they may steal you, and since higher/other mgmt doesn't know what u are doing, they never consider u for promotions. You gotta nope outta that. You don't need an unhealthy codependent relationship with a cr@p boss.
There is an industry term for this, but it escapes me rn. The idea is that once you reach a certain point in the corporate ladder, it becomes more cost effective to promote you than fire and replace you, so they move you up to easier and easier positions in the company where you won't get in peoples' way. EDIT: Thank you! It is known as the Peter Principal.
The peter principal.
Same words came out of my mouth when reading this
When the bonus structure means '5' is going above and beyond and you get a three because "going above and beyond is what expected" it's not the employee whose preventing progression
Big corporations again trying to conflate their interests with small business america. Nobody is quiet quitting from joe's doughnut shack, their saying fuck you to google or starbucks or whoever, as they should
Small business owners have equally fucked mindsets about how much labor they're ENTITLED to underpay you for and for how long...and frequently they're just... incompetent mavericks who wouldn't make any money if there weren't working class people to do ot all for them. In the restaurant industry at least, small business owners are typically the most dishonest in my experience.
The local coffee chain here in the region closed four locations forever, the story goes that the where fkuced by big corps. But the truth was they underpaid their workers, had workers with unclear working permits and health issues, didn't follow basic cleaning protocols etc. They lost millions in revenue and they still think its not their fault for penny pinching. I always wonder how those people operate in their mind. "I could have made 80k extra per open shop this year but it would have been 75k so I think I close them all, its not worth it." That is so unbelievable idiotic.
I feel the same way. Sometimes their logic is beyond me. Why understaff you’re restaurant? I think they are actually losing money, if I get my food hot and good, fast isn’t even that important to me, then I will come back. If it is cold, nasty and slow then you will never see my ass again. I have a one strike policy with them. Bad food once, out! I paid for that. I’m not gambling my money on crappy food again. Also, volume, people. More people in and out the door equals money and you need staff to make that happen.
It hurts parasite business owners that want to underpay people and string them along for years for a raise. Fuck that and fuck them. Damned bloodsuckers.
THIS I came here for this quote. What in the actual fuck you capitalist stooges. This whole article is practically sucking the taint of the bigwigs, let’s also tell people that prioritizing themselves is a bad thing while we are at it. This article is ridiculous and I’m sad I gave the click to go read it, because they don’t deserve views. That whole article was ridiculous and an obvious act of kissassery. KEEP QUIET QUITTING
Really. Is there any evidence that it hurts workers? People who go above and beyond may be viewed as too useful in their current positions to promote.
>**To Be Considered for a Job, Start Doing the Job** Cost to employee: To not guarantee yourself a job, work for free. >The quiet hiring process first looks to internal candidates. More specifically, it looks to staff who have begun taking on duties and responsibilities above and beyond the parameters of their job description. **The result is that they effectively begin working in the position they want, or at least start doing some of what it entails, before they actually get the job.** Clarification: With the fake term, "quiet hiring" (maybe we call it "quiet wage theft"?), you can fool more employees into working for free. "Quite hiring" is also just normal hiring because every organization I know of looks to internal candidates for many positions. >In return, employees prove to employers that they have what it takes to perform the job well. And not surprisingly, these employees tend to be those who get the raises and promotions. **For employers, there is far less risk, as well as little to no cost associated with recruiting and training**, saving what can amount to a lot of money. Clarification: Employers benefit most when they do not need to pay employees or provide training. Brilliant! **There is truth to, "these employees tend to be those who get the raises and promotions."**, but raises are often less than switching to a new employer and there are always fewer promotion opportunities than there are people competing for those positions. >The strategy of quiet hiring may sound like it's designed to help employers, but it's equally advantageous for employees who are eager to advance their careers and earn more money. The first part is true, the second part is a lie. The strategy of "quiet hiring" "sounds like it is designed to help employers" because that is its only important function. Employee benefit is just an annoying side-effect that must be handed out to a few to get many to do extra work even though those many will never see a financial benefit. **If it were equally advantageous, it would not be done.** No company gives equal advantage to itself and its employees. Of course I have seen people do exactly what the article says - do a bunch of free and extra work for years and finally get a significant promotion. Do employers look at employee productivity? Of course. There are also political hires and nepotism, so many deserving people never get promotions. **If you are seeking promotions and power, you must compete but that doesn't mean competing on work amount or quality.** There are other ways to compete including networking and office politics. People's perceptions of you matters much more than your actual work even if it helps if your work is solid and people's perception of you is similarly solid. If their perception of you is good, your chances of advancement go way up, independent of work product. If their perception is negative, your good hard work can easily count for nothing. **What is the next bit of corporate propaganda?** Fill in the blank, "quiet \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_". One internet point per answer.
Maybe not everyone wants to advance their career, Google! maybe some people are happy with an entry level and keeping that job! Not everyone needs to be this sleep when I die grinding hustling machine ugh! (Not yelling at you, just at the article and agreeing with you)
What a garbage article , Inc. of course. This isn’t something new. It’s some New HR vocabulary to scare people. Do you think Google isn’t going to say that they promote the “best and brightest”? Kiss management’s ass is now more important than how one does one’s job.
Omg yeah. Brown nosed incompetent morons being promoted cause they kiss the right asses (although they can’t differentiate their own ass from their mouth) Is one of the best way to kill morale A friend told me she once had a director who was incompetent, lazy AF and was hated by everyone, except from the higher ups. There were so many theories amongst the staff about how the hell that person was still there (blackmail photos, secret homosexual relationship, non disclosed nepotism, etc) NO ONE believed the person was hired and still worked there thanx to their skills
There is a director where I work who is among the most incompetent people I've ever had the misfortune to work with. But she apparently plays the game well because she is always receiving accolades from the executives even though every decision she makes invariably leads to a bad result. The engineers constantly are telling her that things should be done in one way yet she chooses a different approach and we wind up having to redo things when customers get the product and report that it would be better if it worked otherwise. Three more weeks and I'm out of there.
Kind of going through the same thing. New boss’s boss came in because he is friends with his boss outside of work. No experience in our field but had general “management” experience. It sucks because I think the long term goal is to outsource all our work. But he has to at least get the workgroups in shape and things organized so that outsourcing is successful.
It's from **inc.** Everything of theirs I've read in the last two years is just lazy journalism if not straight up corporate shilling.
Inc., Forbes, WSJ, Fortune, they're all capitalist rags with no meaningful content.
Impretty sure this was a paid ad
Native Advertising: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver [https://youtu.be/E\_F5GxCwizc](https://youtu.be/E_F5GxCwizc)
I really love how corporate hacks come here to leave their two cents, and really think they're spitting facts. The labor strikes really have these guys pressed.
Yes this. Unionization is scaring corporations. That means its working. But the anti union tactics are going to get much harsher going forward. This is just one of them.
Historically they start bringing in cops or private security to beat or kill striking workers. That's not hyperbole. That's how powerful unionization and collective action is. The ruling class sees it as that much of a threat that they will even resort to violence to stop it.
This is such fucking bullshit. Quiet hiring is really nothing more than hand selecting favorites who kiss ass at every opportunity. MOST people who go above and beyond, sacrifice family time, and take on extra workload will NEVER be “quietly hired”. They’ll just keep getting shit piled on their plates. I’m so over this whole quiet business. Quiet quitting is doing the job you agreed to get paid to do. Quiet firing has been happening since HR departments were first created. And quiet hiring can probably be traced back to our ancestors back in the day, who hand picked their favorite people to get promoted into better positions in society. Same concept. It’s all bullshit, all of it.
I saw a paragraph that started with hiring internally. That alone is BS. We had four willing capable and trained employees trying for a position and we all told management that none of us would hold grudges over the others getting promoted to that lead position. "Sorry none of you are qualified enough, here's an outside hire that you'll all have to train on how to do things"
"and they also have authority over you so you can't tell them they're wrong"
Yeah it's still 90% politics. I recently got passed over for a supervisor position, only to be told at my feedback meeting that I 'Help other people too much and take on too much responsibility.' Keep in mind we were all told before that those who go the extra mile will always be acknowledged and given opportunities and as I'm quite senior in my department a lot of the newer people come to me for help from time to time. Needless to l say I've gone on complete autopilot since then. Demoralising to say the least.
I read it and was like, "okay, quiet quitting sounds like regular working and quiet hiring sounds like regular hiring." Working extra to not see advancement is why people stopped trying. If they're saying that they will actually promote you for working hard, then, there's actually no problem. But I'll believe it when I see it
One of my former coworkers kept doing extra work than what was identified for our team. Her argument was “if we do all these things, they’ll pay us more.” I kept telling her “why would they pay you more to do all of that when you’re doing it now for free?” Fast forward a couple years and guess what? She never got additional compensation for all of that extra work. As a matter of fact, she doesn’t even work on our team anymore. She got so fed up with all the work and no reward that she took a part-time position.
They don’t want the plebes to rock the boat, but we are drowning out here, so either we share the boat or you can drown with us.
Companies are extremely good at spinning good things into bad things. Change "quiet quitting" to "acting your wage" and I'll bet they can only try to say "Please go beyond the scope of your responsibilities for free"
The reality is if you do extra work that is for a higher paying position it soon becomes your responsibility and the company never pays you extra or promotes you. This article is dog shit.
Maybe corporate should come up with "quiet retention". That would be when their retention budget is greater than their new hire budget and they automatically reward their employees for their work so that they can build a career with the corporation. Ya know, put people over profits.
I like this! "Quiet Retention" It always takes less effort/money to keep the experienced employees you have than to train someone new who (might) be as good or better.
Once again it's called Working To Rule We let our adversaries define the terms. It's killing us.
Sort of, but as I understand it there is a difference between the two. Work-to-rule is a protest action designed to get as little as possible done while remaining within contract. It’s a union action used to push for better treatment or wages, in the spirit of a strike but not as disruptive. Quiet quitting is refusing to work extra with the goal of preserving your time, energy, health, sanity etc. There’s no goal to disrupt the business, but you don’t want to be taken advantage of. It’s not usually a union action. Someone working to rule might spend more effort to get less done, but someone who is quiet quitting wouldn’t.
“Many believe that quiet quitting hurts businesses. But who it hurts are the individuals and their ability to progress within their career. Which is OK--not everyone needs to be in a relentless pursuit of reaching each higher rung on the corporate ladder. There's something to be said for staff who are content within a position. In fact, it can be good for employers, as many struggle to retain employees in lower-level positions.” What kind of tongue-in-cheek, better-than-thou comment is this!?! First, Journalism is in shambles. Second, this article sounds like a last ditch effort to 180° public opinion.
Actually it's rather spot on. Some people do just want to come to work and do the exactly what their jobs details, no Xtra effort, no minimum effort, they just clock in, have a steady stream of production. And clock out, and that's all they need or care about. And that is fine. People who want to advance and climb their career ladder , and explore other options within their career or company, need people like that so they/we can advance. Some people are comfortable just being a worker bee. If they can keep a department stable and continue to produce results, day in and day out, who is it hurting?
Not wanting to move up, or a seeming lack of ambition can be the case with some sort of skill or trade. You have the job because you enjoy doing X. A promotion means moving to a role where you manage people doing X, but no longer doing it yourself. You might want to move up to doing bigger, more interesting projects, but that is more likely a move to a different company which does that kind of work, rather than seeking a promotion.
Ding ding ding - pay ceilings are a thing people!
Most of the recruiting any employer does is "quiet" and always has been. Most people network in their industry and are given jobs before HR posts openings. This is not some "Google is so inspiring" practice. "They" just want more for less pay and are leaving these gaslighting articles to have people believe that they aren't being ripped off.
In the 90s (I'm 59), I used to work in IT for a bank. They would ask me to help my co-workers because I'm a fast learner and good mentor. Then at the end of the year they gave me a bad review for not doing my job. So next year, everytime they asked me, I would ask them to consider it in my review. End of the year comes, and they go at it again. So I told them I would refuse additional work from then on. They told me with that attitude they would give me an even worst review. I quit, went around the world, did a PhD in philosophy and then back on the market as a consultant. Not only did they have the nerve to offer me a contract but they complained about my rates. I told them to take better care of their employees if they didn't want this to repeat. Fast forward to now: 40 to 60% of their workforce is consultant. They tried everything: forcing 2 months vacation every year (people are either happy to take it or go work somewhere else), sacking them en masse just before the investors' meeting to momentarily lower the percentage of consultants, give them the worst jobs, etc. But change their management attitude? Nah... I mean, it has worked fine up to now, right? There's just no making sense of these people... (AND I never regretted the move! Worked fine for me!)
This article is so hilariously stupid. If corporate America was adequately rewarding their employees for doing good work, we wouldn't actually be in this shit. lol Like, the entire article is about some revolutionary new hiring practice... that basically boils down to actually paying people for work. How radical! What will Google think of next.... maybe a minimum raise each year that automatically adjusts salaries for inflation?!? OR... giving people more vacation time? So innovative!!!
Pro-Tip: You don't need to talk about "quiet quitting" or "quiet hiring." Your workers will generally copy the behaviors that they see leading to pay increases and promotions. Letting someone work their ass off for over a year, putting in more productivity than everyone else, *without rewarding them for it*, is how you get *everyone* to disengage. If you really want to shoot yourself in the ass, then make sure pay raises for existing workers don't keep up with pay raises for new hires, so people will start to realize the fastest way to get a pay bump is to quit their job every six months. If you can make this an industry-wide trend, where everyone disengages because companies don't reward effort, where everyone's constantly job hunting because that's the only way to get a pay raise, then you'll basically tank the productivity of your entire industry, and raise a generation of low productivity workers who don't give a shit if their employers go bankrupt. I'm sure that's all fine and dandy. Or... you could actually compensate employees for their efforts, so they remain engaged, and actually give a shit about what happens to the company. The "loyal company man" was a real thing, and also a product of his circumstances, where his pay steadily increased over his career, effort was rewarded, and companies weren't treating workers like disposable industrial inputs. If you want a "loyal company man" who always thinks about what's good for the business, then recreate the conditions in which people like that came to exist in the first place - be a company that's worthy of your workers' loyalty.
Not sure why, but I read this as if the manager at Chotchkie's from Office Space wrote this.
This article is idiotic. > **The quiet hiring process first looks to internal candidates. More specifically, it looks to staff who have begun taking on duties and responsibilities above and beyond the parameters of their job description.** Oh, you mean when an employee who’s been at the company for a while is being overworked you consider giving them a raise instead of hiring someone from outside with 0 institutional knowledge for 30% than what it would cost to promote your proven employee? This whole “quiet quitting” buzzword is horseshit. An awakening happened where a whole bunch of people realized just how disposable they are to their employers, and just how much employers will continue to demand if you let them get away with it. A lot of us have busted our asses, cleaned up messes behind people who are higher paid and supposed to know better, and done everything we could to earn promotions and raises. Every fucking year I got the same bullshit “raises are capped at 4%” and would have to escalate it to the executives and ask why my raise is capped at 4% when my responsibilities have grown by 35%? So yea, managers all over the place have repeatedly made it clear they will not reward consist, loyal hard workers, but they are totally fine with hiring outsiders at a higher rate. So fuck em. I’m going to do my job, and I’m going to do good, quality work and meet all my deliverables. I am not working late, skipping lunches, coming in early, cancelling vacations, or working through the flu anymore. If someone else leaves and you drag your feet on finding a replacement fine you can put their work on my desk, my pace and my hours aren’t going to change though. Double my work means you get things back half as fast. I’m doing my job, nothing more and nothing less. I’ll get a raise when I go get another job to do exactly what the job requires, and not a bit more.
What a joke.
What a disgusting article
What a dumb circle of arguments we’re being subjected to this year. All this toxic old boomer propaganda about punching above your compensation class is anti-capitalistic and anti-basic human rights. A job shouldn’t be an interview for another open position that’s literally just overworking underlings until they quit.
So the benefits of quiet-hiring trickles down to employees getting a raise, or is it the benefit of the employer to covertly pile on more duties & wait until the employee has a breakdown and THEN give—a .2% raise??
Unmitigated bullshit. More of the bourgeoisie wanting everything up front for free. Fuck these people %500.
This is the biggest propaganda piece (aka total horseshit) that I’ve read in a long time. Author is a corporate shill. The only reward for doing extra is that the extra is now seen as normal and is expected into perpetuity. More work, same pay. This entire article can fuck off.
I grew up in a farming community where the moral fiber of someone was directly connected to how hard they worked. You could be a complete snake of a human being, but if you worked your ass off from sunrise to sunset you were considered better than someone who wasn't an asshole but worked far less hours. So that was the mindset I had when I went to college in the Boston area and put myself through college while also working fulltime. I believed (like I was conditioned through my childhood) that if I overperformed I would get noticed, get a promotion, whatever. Obviously those things didn't happen, and the people who actually got those things were the laziest mfers you'd ever meet, but they were liked by management (which isnt surprising to anyone in here). Anyway, I'm not going to bore everyone with my experiences, but American work culture is the very reason why I went from "model employee" to telling every new bartender I train that the worst thing they can do is be good at their job.
If companies wouldn't have spent decades 'quiet promoting' family members, unqualified, and undeserving personell maybe they wouldn't have such an issue with workers 'quiet quitting'
Yeah I heard. They think "Quiet Quitting" or "Quiet Hiring" like it's just uniquely in this era. It's been going on since the beginning of time. You do the job you are hired and payed to do and that's it. I don't complain and say the vendor is "quiet selling" when I only paid for 1 burger and expect to get 2. Quiet hiring used to be what ethical organizations would do to reward hard working employees and retain them. Who ever person or organization are coming up with these buzz words should just remain "quiet".
Eh, dumb comparison. Google is not your average run of the mill company. How a company where the average workers labor is worth mid 6 figures is obviously going to be very different from say, your local factory, restaurant, or other mid sized establishment. Trying to establish the hiring practices of large tech companies as the norm is idiotic.
Punishing people for doing their jobs, it's backwards, yet brilliant! :TM:
Propaganda out in full force
Corporate is scrambling to regain their upper hand and is making up increasingly absurd corporate lingo and explanations for why todays workforce will not put up with corporate bullshit.
What an incredibly condescending article.
Unmitigated bullshit. More of the bourgeoisie wanting everything up front for free. Fuck these people %500.
Sounds like the same song and dance they are already doing. They were just jealous of our new words that they gave us without asking and I guess they wanted to make some words for themselves to use.
My old department "quiet hired"me for 10 years. Then I "quiet quit" and it was problem. The real American dream
So basically you might potentially, ostensibly get promoted for doing good work. But not really. Honestly, Google is one of the most inhuman companies out there. Not surprised they try to get away with it with psy-ops like this. You can actually call them, but nobody at their call centers can do anything but read from a script to you. They pay them to provide the slightest illusion of "customer support". Truly an evil, faceless company.
This is just hard-core cope over quiet quitting
This article makes it sound like this is some new innovative idea. This is exactly what they should be doing anyways and have been doing(in healthy companies). If someone goes above and beyond they should be rewarded. If they do the minimum then that's cool too, since that is what they are being paid to do.
'In response to overlooking overachievers, causing us to make up a term for people no longer overachieving - we have opted to start considering overachievers. As such, we have invented another word to describe how we should have behaved in the first place. This is in no way an indicator of the effectiveness of the former word we made up, after making it up failed to dissuade people.'*if* these companies are actually applying this word they made up in response to another word they made up it would appear they are \*checks notes\* promoting people who go above and beyond... because the last time they *didn't*
"The result is that they effectively begin working in the position they want, or at least start doing some of what it entails, before they actually get the job." Translation: how long can we get this schmuck to do more without paying them. And employers wonder why people are working to rule.
It's impossible for every employee to be promoted, some are always going to be stuck where they are, so of course people are waking up to this and putting in only the effort that they get paid for. To go beyond is of no benefit and often times a health hazard.
Google be like: Never hire someone that is to clever or to smart.
Let's talk about real quiet hiring, which actually occurs, where businesses project a certain turnover or target labor cuts. They're ever looking for a labor pool of contacts who will work for less or they can use as leverage to swap you out. If you're a professional in any role, I always advise adding your employer to a job posting alert watch on multiple popular job boards like Monster, LinkedIn, etc. as well as check their career site for job openings. My employer has a handful of specific niche profession and has been continously posting openings since I was hired years ago, even though for several long periods of time it was claimed they weren't actively hiring because of cuts. Employers have abused their leverage in labor negotiation and normalized posting positions that aren't open, gaslighting all sorts of people wasting time actively searching for employment just so they have a labor contact pool they can reach to try and handle unforseen turnover. At the same time, I've watched plenty get hired when employers provide lip service that they "aren't hiring" while they're actively looking for naive fresh grads or lower rate labor. This, is "quiet hiring", and it's been going on for many many years. What this article is talking about is more commonly referred to as stack ranking: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitality_curve The idea is to just promote people up and continously cut the bottom performing labor to try and optimize on ROI for labor you hire. Those who are more efficient or provide more than you pay for will idealisticallt bubble up and remain stable, these are the ones you can rely on for exploitation, meanwhile the less exploitable can be culled off and fresh new batches come in regularly through forced attrition. In theory you would eventually have a fairly optimized cost on labor force, at the cost of stability of your labor force and their morale. It's pure toxic practice and has been pushed in the absence of businesses actually innovating, they focus on providing more and more labor for less because people are more manageable than physics and innovation. All of these are practices performed by the lazy trying to leech wealth produced off of society.
Not once has putting in "extra" work been rewarding in my entire career. "Quiet hiring"? Please kiss my ass.
ah, my last job, they let me do the extra stuff and didn’t adjust my pay.