Slackers have always existed. So the prudent line of thought is to question what purpose the "quiet-quit" terminology serves? The first thing I notice is that

Slackers have always existed. So the prudent line of thought is to question what purpose the "quiet-quit" terminology serves? The first thing I notice is that it replaces a description of behavior with an external assessment of a motivation. I already begin to suspect this is one of those slippery words that will be abused for their vagueness by people pretending not to. But for now we'll go get a description from googling. Pretty wide definition, but seems to encompass: 1. Minmaxing. Doing as little work as possible for as much money as possible. 2. Burnout. 3. Employee lets their responsibilities slip because they're busy applying and interviewing elsewhere. 4. Social behavior that is actively against office collaboration and comradery. Those more specific issues translate to: 1. This is just wage negotiation. At the end of the day, someone performs to the standard of their role and remuneration, or they don't. If someone meets expectations without going above and beyond, calling it a "quiet-quit" is a management whinge. 2. Management is failing an employee. 3. Management has failed an employee. 4. Management has failed a workplace. QED: This is an HR word for management types to talk about low morale without admitting to their fuckup.