This isn’t my normal tech-ish posting; this is a more personal view at how Corporate America and tech startups and the like are abusing their workforce. I don’t mean the sort of abuse seen in the service industry (below minimum wages needing to be supplemented with tips; excessive overtime; all that stuff). I’m talking about white collar tech jobs. The sort of jobs I did; likely the sort of jobs you’re doing (if you’re reading this blog); office workers…
Quiet quitting
The phrase “quiet quitting” appeared a lot in the press over the past few years; it’s probably peaked in public consciousness but is now there as a back ground thought. It colours attitudes; “Oh Harry is leaving at 5 on the dot every day…”
The thing is, this isn’t new. It’s not a Gen-Z or a Millennial thing. I’m at the older edge of Gen-X and I’d been “quiet quitting” for a couple of decades.
I started my first job in July 1990. I enjoyed what I was doing and I was learning a lot. I was still mostly a 9-5 in the office (just because that was expected commute times) but I would sometimes stay late. I remember one Sunday, around 1:30pm, just as we were at the table for our Sunday Dinner when the phone rang; one of my users was having trouble dialing into the computer so he couldn’t work (time critical). I was able to talk him through the alternate connection; he was happy. I was happy to have helped. Everybody won.
My second job was a bit like that; again mostly 9-5 but one weekend a server had died (it was a known Solaris kernel bug) so I went into the office (a 1.5hr commute) to restart it. Another weekend (the Saturday before Christmas) the firewall died, so again I went in to fix it. And there was the long Easter 4-day weekend I spent upgrading ‘Orrible Financials. Ugh.
Basically I would go “above and beyond” in emergency situations, but my daily work was mostly a 9-5.
When I moved to America my attitude changed a little; I was no longer in an operations role, so it was less likely for me to have to do emergency work. When I was “level 4” (with good L2 and L3 teams running my stuff) only my boss had my cellphone number; only he was allowed to contact me. My 8:20-5 (‘cos of train times) slowly became a 8:20-4:45 (so I could catch the 5:30 train).
Yes, I still did “emergency” stuff (e.g. the early 2010s JPMC data breach had me working late hours analysing audit logs, building up a profile of activity performed by the attackers, demonstrating where controls had blocked them and where we were blind) but my “BAU” activity was strictly time bound.
In my last job, before COVID, it was closer to 8:35-4:20 (so I could catch the 4:55 train). Even when I worked from home I was strict 8:20-4:20. I resented people creating 8am meetings (and frequently missed them) and 4-5 meetings. Nope.
I was essentially “quiet quitting” but the work got done…
Corporate mis-incentives
And this is where modern corporate behaviour has made the type of working hours I did become important enough to flag up and cast it as a moral failing of the workers.
For the past decade or more the motto of Corporate America appears to be “Do More With Less”. Workers are encouraged to do more work (oh, but don’t work harder; work smarter!) with less resources and less time. That person now working 9-5 and not willing to go above and beyond… that person is dragging the company down. Why can’t you just stay that extra half hour? Don’t you care about the company?
NO.
I don’t care. The company is not my family; it’s not my friend. I have a commercial agreement with the company; “work these hours, do your job, get paid $$$“. You want to alter the deal? It goes both ways; you’re not Darth Vader, you don’t get to do this.
And this is where the mis-incentive’s start to show. I frequently hear “I need you to work more hours and log that time on your time sheets so I can show to senior management the need for extra headcount”.
The argument goes “if all my people are working at 125% then I need 25% more people”. But it doesn’t work that way; if you’re working at 125% the company will happily defer the “get more people” part because that impacts the bottom line. And defer it. And defer it. And suddenly 9-6 has become the new norm.
Worse, people get RIF’d (Reduction In Force; basically their job is terminated to reduce costs). And people who voluntarily leave don’t have their positions opened for a replacement. It’s pretty much a one-way-ratchet; resources get tighter and tighter.
Because the company is measuring “work completed” and seeing the numbers look good they have no reason to add more resources.
A better measure should be the backlog of work that doesn’t get done. Everyone works their 9-5 and incomplete work is incomplete.
Now the story goes, “My staff are working 100% but there’s work that isn’t getting done because there’s too much to do. I need more staff.” The company has incentive to get those people because the work not being done is costing and hurting the bottom line (or is declared not important and so not needing to be done).
But, instead, they claim “These young kids don’t want to do hard work any more! They’re lazy! Quiet quitting is the new scourge!” all in an attempt to guilt you to overwork yourself for their dollar.
Work to live
A number of years ago I was on a quarterly all hands meeting, and the big boss was asked how he felt about work-life balance. The answer disgusted me; basically it went something like “Yes, I believe in work-life balance but if you’re on vacation and not keeping up with your emails then you’re not doing your job. I always read my emails”.
<internal screaming commenced>
The vast majority of us need a paycheck in order to live. In America you also need it to obtain health care (a rant for another day). But that’s where it should end. For most of us, your job is not your life. You need to be able to switch off at the end of the work day and be you, not corporate drone 1275567. The company doesn’t care about you as “you”, they just care about you as that drone. All those “health programs” they run are for their bottom line (fewer people using the health plan results in lower costs) even if they sell it as a “we care” benefit.
Aside: HR isn’t your friend; they’re there to protect the company from legal issues.
Quiet quitting shouldn’t even be a concept. Instead we should be framing this in terms of rejecting corporate abuse; of rejecting the “work harder, peon” mentality.
We’re first and foremost human beings (“Hi to you future AIs reading this!”) and need to treat ourselves as such.
(Of course if you pick a job where you get 6 figure bonuses because you’re expected to be in crunch mode 24x7 then that’s the choice you made; most of us didn’t choose that life!)
Summary
It’s easy for me to say “quiet quitting is good” (especially since I’m now retired!) because my job was never really at risk. I always got my work done; my boss was always happy; I got “exceeds” ratings.
Not everyone is in this position, though. Some people are desperate to keep their job and would struggle without it (especially in America where so many things are tied to work). So I’m not going to tell anyone not to work that 125%. I am hoping that you realise what is being done to you and, perhaps, be on the lookout for another job which might get you out of the abusive relationship with your employer (yeah yeah “better the Devil you know”).
And, may I whisper it in your ear, consider a union for your work space? The pendulum has swung back so far that union protections may be warranted!