Quiet quitting has always referred to the extra bullshit that employers pressure employees into doing.
In America we've fallen into this work culture that implies you aren't really part of a team unless you are constantly putting forth more than what the employer is paying you for.
The undertone of this headline is that managers feel uneasy because so-called "quiet quitters" won't take on extra work or unpaid hours or exhibit overwhelming enthusiasm, but just do literally what they have to at a passable or high quality.
The gaslighting part is that those workers aren't doing anything wrong, but they aren't bending over backwards for their employers, so corporate America wants to paint the picture that those workers are awful time thieves instead of just burnt out wage slaves.
Oh absolutely. In Japan for example if you are unable to work or you get removed from your career, it is socially understandable for you to consider suicide. Lots of Japanese citizens put their job before even their families or the potential of having a family.
It's actually pretty fuckin crazy what Japanese work culture does to their citizens.
I've been reading Graeber's Bullshit Jobs and evidently they don't fire people in Japan. If they want rid of you, they just give you less and less to do until you're sitting in the office all day getting paid to do nothing, and the cultural expectation is that you quit out of shame rather than just accepting money for nothing.
Heh. I already am that, but I do have to work. It's not as hard as when I was digging ditches for a living, but it's definitely still work. Sometimes it's slow, sometimes there's a million things to do.
I'll be honest, I don't know if I have to work. I do, because I like the work and I like the company I work for a lot, but I'm fairly confident that I could just show up to meetings twice a week and fudge paperwork for quite a while before anyone caught on that I'm just a hole they're dumping money into.
I wonder if this also has something to do with the company itself avoiding shame too. Like firing an employee is a sign of weakness, that you hired someone like that in the first place? Or potentially a difference in benefits or a pension that they have to pay?
That's a thought I had as well, and based on my extremely limited knowledge and research I think it's the conflict that's being avoided. Rather than dealing with the person directly, you use indirect actions that signal the expected result when taken in that social context and then let the pressure of those expectations generate the result you need without you ever directly doing anything. My understanding is that the pressure is pretty enormous, your coworkers will basically shun you out of fear of being targeted themselves and resentment for all the work you're not doing that they have to pick up instead.
Look up China's 669 practice. South Korea is also known for having an especially brutal work culture. The two manage to make even Japan's work culture look almost reasonable by comparison (Japan famously requiring long hours and lifelong dedication to your employer).
The idea is that they complete tasks ahead of schedule and then slow play results to the predetermined deadlines. It's hilarious to me that people are saying this is a genZ thing, since this shit has been going on in tech fields forever. Literally everyone I have ever known has taken "working vacations" by pretending some work is taking longer than it really is.
Bonus points if you are smart enough to still turn it in a day early to keep the heat low.
Yep just me doing extra work for no salary... well. I dunno. Company just implemented a new bonus structure based on the hours you record per project. I know it's just so they can see who's underperformed to fire, but I might get quarterly bonuses now for working longer hours.
