A weird expression has appeared those last months: "Quiet Quitting". From the internet, the definition of it is something like:

The term “quiet quitting” refers to employees who put no more effort into their jobs than absolutely necessary. They don’t volunteer for extra work, and they don’t put in extra hours. They just do the bare minimum to get by.

The wording is an impressive combination of insult and bias while being extremely loaded.

This is related to the kind of wording you find in job offers "We look for someone that goes 'above and beyond'". It's a nice way to say "We look for someone that will put in extra hours" or other kinds of "extra" work - without corresponding additional compensation or benefits.

This is already bad enough (it should be taken as a red flag for anyone looking for work), but the "quiet quitting" expression is even worse.

"Not putting more effort than necessary" is called "working" - not "quiet quitting" or anything stupid like that. Same about "not putting in extra hours" or other things like that. A work relationship is a contract where the employer pays for a certain amount of work - not more, not less. Should the employer wants more - well they can enter a negotiation, which means bringing something to the table.

So - next time your employer asks about "going above and beyond", ask them what -they- are going to do to go above and beyond your compensation. Why should one party do more than the other? It's a contract, not a charity.

So - give me a break with this BS.

In the end, work relationships tend to be a leverage game. Contracts can only do so much - if an employee has no money reserve and is in no situation to find another job (easily), they'll tend to do whatever is needed to keep the job - whether fair or not.

This can happen on the other side too. In a market where a lot of companies are looking for a specific kind of talent (looking at you, software developers) the leverage is on the worker side - and it can also be abused.

Opinions? Let me know on LinkedIn!