Job and General Employment Thread

[faftorial]

I understand it to mean doing what's required and nothing above that. I'm not sure that's shirking.

[dodint]

Maybe that's why 'quiet quitting' is a dumb phrase. Quitting implies doing less than required, and also giving up a paycheck. 'Quiet Quitting' as its being used is just...working. This means we've probably come full circle.

[NTP66]

Exactly.

[Morkle]

Right, quiet quitting is people getting upset for you doing your responsibilities and nothing more, for free.

[NAN]

I've never heard the term "quiet quitting".

[faftorial]

I've never heard the term "quiet quitting".

It's all the rage with the kids these days.

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

[count2infinity]

Quiet quitting is just establishing a boundary between work and your personal life... no more, no less. It's a dumb phrase to emphasize that people have lives outside of work that need attention and work should not encroach on that. No I'm not responding to e-mails outside of business hours, no I'm not volunteering to come in on weekends, no I'm not doing writing in the evening or weekends. You pay me to do my job, you want me to do more, pay me more. That's what I interpret "quiet quitting" to be.

[NTP66]

There was no reason to not call it work/life balance.

[NAN]

I've never heard the term "quiet quitting".

It's all the rage with the kids these days.

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

Gotcha. Personally, I think there is a happy medium between "quiet quitting" and "grind culture" (first I've heard of that too in that link you sent).

[faftorial]

Quiet quitting is just establishing a boundary between work and your personal life... no more, no less. It's a dumb phrase to emphasize that people have lives outside of work that need attention and work should not encroach on that. No I'm not responding to e-mails outside of business hours, no I'm not volunteering to come in on weekends, no I'm not doing writing in the evening or weekends. You pay me to do my job, you want me to do more, pay me more. That's what I interpret "quiet quitting" to be.

Well said.

[Morkle]

Well that, and doing more than what your job description allows for.

No, I'm not taking on more responsibility at work without being paid for.
Yes, I'm doing exactly what my JD says and nothing more.
No, I will not help the business by taking on extra tasks because Timmy left the company and the company doesn't want to hire someone new.

[nocera]

Right. It's work/life balance but spun in a way to make it seem like a negative.

[NAN]

Quiet quitting is just establishing a boundary between work and your personal life... no more, no less. It's a dumb phrase to emphasize that people have lives outside of work that need attention and work should not encroach on that. No I'm not responding to e-mails outside of business hours, no I'm not volunteering to come in on weekends, no I'm not doing writing in the evening or weekends. You pay me to do my job, you want me to do more, pay me more. That's what I interpret "quiet quitting" to be.

Based on the link Factorial put, it's a little more than that. It's doing the bare minimium at your job as to not get fired, and nothing more.

What you describe, outside of "pay me more to do more" is work life balance IMO.

[NTP66]

Source of the post No, I will not help the business by taking on extra tasks because Timmy left the company and the company doesn't want to hire someone new.

We're down 3 people on my team overall, and 2 in my stack alone, and not a single interview has been had yet to fill any of the positions. Everyone's getting buried, and the work just keeps getting piled up. I'm 99% sure one other guy on my team is also looking, and if we both leave, it will leave my team with one guy in the Windows stack. One. For a place with over 15k users and nearly 30k devices.

[nocera]

I'll gladly help out anybody with work outside of my job description if I have the time and it won't sacrifice any of my typical responsibilities. I will not stay late or take on additional permanent responsibilities without compensation. That's not quitting. That's doing the job you pay me to do.

[Morkle]

I've got a person on my team, HR willingly has made it a path to quiet quit and it infuriates me as a manager because they won't give him a deserved band bump.

He's a guy who's been a top performer, and they continue to eff him over and tell him no when it comes to getting outside bonuses etc. They'll blame him when it's all said and done, but HR helps me zero when it comes to motivating with money.

[nocera]

That sounds more like quiet firing.

[Morkle]

I'll gladly help out anybody with work outside of my job description if I have the time and it won't sacrifice any of my typical responsibilities. I will not stay late or take on additional permanent responsibilities without compensation. That's not quitting. That's doing the job you pay me to do.

Right, this is how I feel.

Lumping that in as a negative is crazy town, and if there's leadership that feels otherwise, why don't they go ahead and take on those responsibilities then?

[NTP66]

HR is about as useless as Project Management.

[Morkle]

Agreed. As of this moment. They've been nothing but detrimental to me and the employees I manage. I know everyone can't have more money etc - but I've only seen one time in my 10 year career here someone get something outside of cycle. It's practically a miracle.

[robbiestoupe]

In the same boat as just about everybody else. But it's been this way for quite some time now. People quit, and the work is just divided amongst those remaining. I work my 8 hour day and that's it. The only thing that changes is the number of things on my plate. Which pushes back deadlines. Which upsets the customer. I spend more time going to meetings to appease the customer than I do getting the actual job done.

What really pisses me off is when somebody in another department that is unwilling to do their own job tries to pawn it off on me. They're busy too, but you just don't do that. If it's your job description, you do it. Just say that it'll be a couple days before you get to it, don't try offloading it on me.

[NAN]

What really pisses me off is when somebody in another department that is unwilling to do their own job tries to pawn it off on me. They're busy too, but you just don't do that. If it's your job description, you do it. Just say that it'll be a couple days before you get to it, don't try offloading it on me.

Been there. Honestly, I think if you are up front with most people, and say "hey, I'm not going to hit this initial deadline, but I'll have it to you by XX date", and it's reasonable my experiences are that they are typically accepting of that.

So if I'm in the situation, I'll reprioritize, and get to it, but I will not pawn it off on someone else (there is a difference between pawning crap off and delegating legit work to your team). I've had it happen to me and I've been fortunate that I've built up enough good will and have gotten my deliverables complete that my managers and even the other managers for the people pawning off crap know that is exactly what it is, they are pawning off crap.

[NTP66]

Is it appropriate to also ask questions in your interview thank you letter? Starting to wonder if etiquette is to simply thank them, and that's it.

[robbiestoupe]

Is it appropriate to also ask questions in your interview thank you letter? Starting to wonder if etiquette is to simply thank them, and that's it.

Let those questions fly if/when they offer you. Or if they left you with a way to contact them, just shoot an email/give a call.

[Beveridge]

The questions won't matter if they don't offer you the position so hold off until that time.