4 ms·

This is the fastest I've seen a term fracture. I've seen it both used as you describe (meeting expectations and doing nothing more) as well as to describe simp

This is the fastest I've seen a term fracture. I've seen it both used as you describe (meeting expectations and doing nothing more) as well as to describe simply doing no work and waiting to be fired while collecting a paycheck for the time it takes for your employer to fire you. This fracture has created a explosive discourse where each side calls the other side selfish idiots. If we can pivot this instead to "work-to-rule", which is less easy to fracture, then maybe we can get some actual productive discourse around unwritten and unpaid labor expectations that employers place on their employees.

mcv 4y ago
I'm all for it. "quiet quitting" is a stupid name, because it simply doesn't fit the bill. You're not quitting. You're still working. Just not doing anything extra.
hotpotamus 4y ago
I'd say "defund the police" went real fast as well, but it was pretty poor marketing if it should have said "reform the police". I think the Tang Ping movement in China really nailed it - lay flat probably captures the feeling best.
- MontyCarloHall 4y ago
  The difference with “defund the police” is that a sizable fraction of its supporters really did mean it literally, e.g. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abolish-defund-police.amp.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abol...
  - hotpotamus 4y ago
    If by "sizable fraction" you mean "one NY Times opinion columnist" then that is a good source. Nevertheless, I'm often surprised (but I guess not really) that when the time comes to actually shrink the government, people balk at it.
    - MontyCarloHall 4y ago
      A large enough number of people believe(d) it that the editorial board of one of the biggest newspapers of record deemed it worthy of publication. This isn’t some random blog link, it’s the New York Times.
      - hotpotamus 4y ago
        Interestingly, I suspect that the people who take the most issue with "defund the police" would also not see the NY Times as such an authoritative source as you seem to. Nevertheless, the editors published the article with a byline of an individual author. Typically if they wanted to publish an opinion intended to speak for the entire organization, they would sign it as "The Editors" or something to that effect. Even then you'd have a survey of what, a few dozen journalists?
    - gapplebees 4y ago
      If you think only one nytimes columnist thought the police should be defunded, you’re wrong, it was much more popular than that.
      - hotpotamus 4y ago
        Well, many people say they're for limited government until they're actually faced with it. On that I can certainly agree.
      - FunnyBadger 4y ago
        I wouldn't trust the opinion of NYT stenographer as far as I could throw them.
    - slowmovintarget 4y ago
      It feels like you're being deliberately obtuse. The Minneapolis city council tried to eliminate the Minneapolis police department. The voters shut them down. When that failed, the City Council removed $8 million from the policing budget. Leftists in power tried to actually make this happen, it wasn't just "one opinion columnist" claiming so.
jzb 4y ago
The thing is, the term sounds like "just waiting to be fired" but every thought piece I've seen about it is "employees are just meeting expectations and that's bad." The first crop of articles, etc. about this were all of the "meeting expectations" variety. But folks who only glanced at headlines interpreted it the other way. I would love it if people push back on this term and refuse to accept it. There's plenty of terms already in circulation that describe sandbagging or whatever. This is just another anti-worker trend that tries to blame workers for a rational decision to draw reasonable boundaries and refuse to do more work for the same money.
Apocryphon 4y ago
> describe simply doing no work and waiting to be fired while collecting a paycheck for the time it takes for your employer to fire you. That's more like "rest-and-vest."

mcv 4y ago

I'm all for it. "quiet quitting" is a stupid name, because it simply doesn't fit the bill. You're not quitting. You're still working. Just not doing anything extra.

hotpotamus 4y ago

I'd say "defund the police" went real fast as well, but it was pretty poor marketing if it should have said "reform the police". I think the Tang Ping movement in China really nailed it - lay flat probably captures the feeling best.

MontyCarloHall 4y ago
The difference with “defund the police” is that a sizable fraction of its supporters really did mean it literally, e.g. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abolish-defund-police.amp.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abol...
- hotpotamus 4y ago
  If by "sizable fraction" you mean "one NY Times opinion columnist" then that is a good source. Nevertheless, I'm often surprised (but I guess not really) that when the time comes to actually shrink the government, people balk at it.
  - MontyCarloHall 4y ago
    A large enough number of people believe(d) it that the editorial board of one of the biggest newspapers of record deemed it worthy of publication. This isn’t some random blog link, it’s the New York Times.
    - hotpotamus 4y ago
      Interestingly, I suspect that the people who take the most issue with "defund the police" would also not see the NY Times as such an authoritative source as you seem to. Nevertheless, the editors published the article with a byline of an individual author. Typically if they wanted to publish an opinion intended to speak for the entire organization, they would sign it as "The Editors" or something to that effect. Even then you'd have a survey of what, a few dozen journalists?
  - gapplebees 4y ago
    If you think only one nytimes columnist thought the police should be defunded, you’re wrong, it was much more popular than that.
    - hotpotamus 4y ago
      Well, many people say they're for limited government until they're actually faced with it. On that I can certainly agree.
    - FunnyBadger 4y ago
      I wouldn't trust the opinion of NYT stenographer as far as I could throw them.
  - slowmovintarget 4y ago
    It feels like you're being deliberately obtuse. The Minneapolis city council tried to eliminate the Minneapolis police department. The voters shut them down. When that failed, the City Council removed $8 million from the policing budget. Leftists in power tried to actually make this happen, it wasn't just "one opinion columnist" claiming so.

jzb 4y ago

The thing is, the term sounds like "just waiting to be fired" but every thought piece I've seen about it is "employees are just meeting expectations and that's bad." The first crop of articles, etc. about this were all of the "meeting expectations" variety. But folks who only glanced at headlines interpreted it the other way. I would love it if people push back on this term and refuse to accept it. There's plenty of terms already in circulation that describe sandbagging or whatever. This is just another anti-worker trend that tries to blame workers for a rational decision to draw reasonable boundaries and refuse to do more work for the same money.

Apocryphon 4y ago

> describe simply doing no work and waiting to be fired while collecting a paycheck for the time it takes for your employer to fire you. That's more like "rest-and-vest."