Quiet quitting?

[emtee]

Florida is an "at will" state. Not sure about the other states.

[Dublagent66]

Yeah, Stadler's right.  First off, there's no "contract" in most American employment, so I'm not going to address that nonsense.  I'm also not really interested in debating the semantics of the term this thread is about, as the thread starter made it pretty clear what they are talking about.  The definition I have seen that I am relying on is "doing the minimum amount of possible work while keeping the job."  That is similar to "having boundaries" and "not going above and beyond."  But, as Stadler rightly pointed out, it subtly includes a bit more than that.  As mentioned, employees are almost always expected to fill duties not expressly enumerated in their job descriptions.  Those additional duties are in fact part of the job, and not doing them can sometimes get one disciplined or even fired.  I handle cases like this all the time, and, unless there is more to the employer's decision that entails discrimination, etc., the employees usually lose them.

And, again, this isn't just about "having boundaries."  Provided it is the type of job that allows that (many jobs don't--you are essentially "on call" all the time), employees should have those boundaries and try to keep work life out of personal life.  That's healthy.  It's more about the attitude of "if it's not specifically enumerated in my job description, I'm not doing it even if you tell me to."  That attitude reveals a deeper character flaw and, more relevant to the discussion, often isn't going to fly if the supervisor wants to call the employee out on it.

Well, if you're mentioning subtleties, that's basically debating semantics isn't it?  For one thing, the OP is misleading.  The term "quiet quitting" (ridiculous as it is) is not about bad, lazy, deadbeat employees who don't want to work (while still keeping their jobs).  That's what the OP is implying.  Hence, the fair amount of confusion in this thread.  You're describing multiple scenarios and calling them the same thing.  They're not.  Work/life balance while fulfilling the job requirements is one thing (which is what this is actually about).  Doing a bad job and being called out is entirely another discussion.  Those scenarios don't intersect in the overall context of the term.  Also, the category of folks who say, "that isn't my job" or "I'm not doing that" have been around a long time.  That has nothing to do with this and is not relevant.

I just think it's too broad to judge that everyone who embraces the idea has a "character flaw".

It is very broad, but some like to lump everything into one category or turn it around and call it something else.  It's not that simple.

[RuRoRul]

Following the discussion earlier I was surprised that people said they had no contract, but assumed it was probably just a miscommunication over what was meant by having a contract.

For those who are employees with "no contract" - is there any documentation that either you or your employer have (or should have) that confirms you are indeed an employee? Let's say you went for a job interview, and then were told over the phone or in person that you were successful, what would you literally do to "accept" the job? Would you just show up somewhere on a verbal agreement? If you showed up and the employer said actually you don't work here, or actually your pay is half what you thought it was, would there be something you would be able to point to to contradict them?

(These are not rhetorical questions, I am just trying to establish what the actual differences are between these things).

I get where you are coming from, but we are kind of talking about two different things.  The employment "contract" we are talking about is a specific agreement about duties that must be performed and the employer's agreement not to discipline or terminate if the employee follows the letter of that.  That isn't the case in most jobs in the U.S.  The default is that employment is at-will and not by contract in most states, unless the employer and employee agree otherwise (which they are free to do, and does happen in some jobs). 

That being said, there is typically an offer letter specifying that the employee is hired, what the basic position is that he/she is being hired for, and what the starting pay is.  The employee typically signs an acceptance.  So, yes, that is by the letter of the law, a written "contract" because it involves offer and acceptance.  But the terms are typically VERY limited, and the offer letter will typically state explicitly that it does not create a contract of employment. Does that make sense?

Yes, that all makes sense. This is sort of what I guessed was the case where some earlier said they had no contracts and others were surprised by it. I suspect most people talking about doing what is in the contract are talking about some agreement similar to this, except maybe with more legal protections on how quickly or for what reasons the employer can just end the agreement, rather than having a contract guaranteeing they must work for a length of time.

I knew about at-will employment in many US states but from my understanding I would have described that as meaning employment contracts were at-will, i.e. the employer could end it without any reason. It was only seeing some of this discussion I wondered if that meant there never was genuinely no contract or agreement of employment for those that were at-will employees.

With at-will employment being the default I can see why people would, when discussing employment, draw a stronger line between someone with a contract guaranteeing employment for a specific period of time and the usual at-will arrangement. But I would guess most people talking about an employment contract probably just mean whatever the agreement they signed when they accepted the job (at least that's what I would think of).

[ReaPsTA]

I would be curious to hear why you think that it's corporate america often at the forefront of absorbing so many of this stuff, whether it be I&D, BLM, whatever.

I'm not Stadler but the answers to this are not complicated:

- Amazon found that workers who are politicized by DEI are less likely to unionize. I'd bet other companies have either studied how DEI affects peoples' desire to ask the company for more money, or have intuited what I think is the obvious answer (less likely to ask)

- Especially for bigger companies, helps with ESG compliance, which makes them more visible to investors

- Corporate America is not known for its backbone in the face of zealotry. Better to give them their safe spaces than fight and risk a lawsuit. But they know not what they are unleashing internally

- In my experience at least, DEI programs are a way to smuggle in the kind of stuff that Stadler talks about, where you go to motivational seminars and feel like a beautiful snowflake. This causes workers to feel more like work is family, which makes them (IMO) less likely to leave or ask for higher salary. Corporate America knows not everyone grinds 100% anyway. It can accept that if it also means people aren't asking for too much (or, more darkly, corporate America is more willing to accept quiet quitting than it is having productive employees who think for themselves and ask for more money/better treatment)

- When you bring in any sort of DEI push, you're going to get a mix of cynics who go along with it for the money/power and the true believers. You might have a CEO who brings in a DEI team because they think it will make the company look good, but you bring in genuine believers who actually start changing the company top down with their HR power, and the CEO has now trapped themselves

- DEI is the current fad among, for lack of a better way of putting it, the upscale class. So for companies that want to hire those people, having a DEI culture looks more attractive

The error in thinking that businesses make (and one I see a lot of normal people make), is thinking that Woke/DEI is just the latest version of political correctness. Something that keeps people from saying outrageous things, you pay lip service to the underlying ideology, but society functions as normal. They do not properly understand that this kind of ideology, rather than clumsily papering over uncomfortable topics, openly brings them up in the most offensive way possible.

At my company, we had a big meeting about our new values where they began rolling out a new DEI push (something like, if you're not comfortable with these values you might want to consider your future with the company). But as a large % of the workforce is from red/purple America, it was met very poorly. The euphemism I heard used was "it wasn't really about business", but everyone understood the more central complaint. But I noticed that the topics have since not been pushed the same way. It also helps that my company is fully remote, which makes this stuff harder to execute.

I know a person at a different company who isn't so lucky. What started out as a few seminars has metastasized into a routine of messaging and meetings that sound like something the Babylon Bee would make up.

What's less clear is, almost none of what I've written about here has nothing to do with making money, which is the thing businesses live and die by. Why companies decided to care about all the things above rather than making money?

[KevShmev]

Genuinely wonder how you feel about other sort of "viral" trends young workers are doing like salary transparency.

I'd like to see this one unpacked a bit.

Maybe it is my age, but I feel that running your mouth too much about what you make or don't make is poor form.  I get venting if you feel you didn't get the raise you feel you deserved or expressing happiness because you got a whatever-percent raise, but throwing out "I make this much a year," with giving the exact figure?  I am not a fan.  Far too often, it feels like either humble bragging ("look at how much money I make!!") or complaining that one doesn't make enough ("look at the job I do and all I make is such and such.").  But, I know, it's a whole new world now, and everyone wants to put everything out there.

[ReaPsTA]

Genuinely wonder how you feel about other sort of "viral" trends young workers are doing like salary transparency.

I'd like to see this one unpacked a bit.

Maybe it is my age, but I feel that running your mouth too much about what you make or don't make is poor form.  I get venting if you feel you didn't get the raise you feel you deserved or expressing happiness because you got a whatever-percent raise, but throwing out "I make this much a year," with giving the exact figure?  I am not a fan.  Far too often, it feels like either humble bragging ("look at how much money I make!!") or complaining that one doesn't make enough ("look at the job I do and all I make is such and such.").  But, I know, it's a whole new world now, and everyone wants to put everything out there.

Agreed with all of the above.

The problem though is lack of salary transparency gives negotiating leverage to the company. One way you could maybe fix this without getting into what you're talking about is for the company to be transparent about whatever its compensation rubric is. But that feels like the kind of over-engineered solution that has unintended consequences.

[XJDenton]

In Sweden salary information has been public information since the mid 1700s, so the culture regarding salary discussions is obviously quite different.

[ReaPsTA]

In Sweden salary information has been public information since the mid 1700s, so the culture regarding salary discussions is obviously quite different.

Employee info or the compensation systems?

[XJDenton]

In Sweden salary information has been public information since the mid 1700s, so the culture regarding salary discussions is obviously quite different.

Employee info or the compensation systems?

Probably both, because all tax return related documents are public.

[Skeever]

I would be curious to hear why you think that it's corporate america often at the forefront of absorbing so many of this stuff, whether it be I&D, BLM, whatever.

I'm not Stadler but the answers to this are not complicated:

- Amazon found that workers who are politicized by DEI are less likely to unionize. I'd bet other companies have either studied how DEI affects peoples' desire to ask the company for more money, or have intuited what I think is the obvious answer (less likely to ask)

- Especially for bigger companies, helps with ESG compliance, which makes them more visible to investors

- Corporate America is not known for its backbone in the face of zealotry. Better to give them their safe spaces than fight and risk a lawsuit. But they know not what they are unleashing internally

- In my experience at least, DEI programs are a way to smuggle in the kind of stuff that Stadler talks about, where you go to motivational seminars and feel like a beautiful snowflake. This causes workers to feel more like work is family, which makes them (IMO) less likely to leave or ask for higher salary. Corporate America knows not everyone grinds 100% anyway. It can accept that if it also means people aren't asking for too much (or, more darkly, corporate America is more willing to accept quiet quitting than it is having productive employees who think for themselves and ask for more money/better treatment)

- When you bring in any sort of DEI push, you're going to get a mix of cynics who go along with it for the money/power and the true believers. You might have a CEO who brings in a DEI team because they think it will make the company look good, but you bring in genuine believers who actually start changing the company top down with their HR power, and the CEO has now trapped themselves

- DEI is the current fad among, for lack of a better way of putting it, the upscale class. So for companies that want to hire those people, having a DEI culture looks more attractive

The error in thinking that businesses make (and one I see a lot of normal people make), is thinking that Woke/DEI is just the latest version of political correctness. Something that keeps people from saying outrageous things, you pay lip service to the underlying ideology, but society functions as normal. They do not properly understand that this kind of ideology, rather than clumsily papering over uncomfortable topics, openly brings them up in the most offensive way possible.

At my company, we had a big meeting about our new values where they began rolling out a new DEI push (something like, if you're not comfortable with these values you might want to consider your future with the company). But as a large % of the workforce is from red/purple America, it was met very poorly. The euphemism I heard used was "it wasn't really about business", but everyone understood the more central complaint. But I noticed that the topics have since not been pushed the same way. It also helps that my company is fully remote, which makes this stuff harder to execute.

I know a person at a different company who isn't so lucky. What started out as a few seminars has metastasized into a routine of messaging and meetings that sound like something the Babylon Bee would make up.

What's less clear is, almost none of what I've written about here has nothing to do with making money, which is the thing businesses live and die by. Why companies decided to care about all the things above rather than making money?

I agree with pretty much every word of this.

[Cool Chris]

I've only had a few jobs, all of them at-will, but I cannot immediately recall ever signing anything before starting a job other than the required government forms (W9 and such).

Regarding "job duties" I have always operated on the belief that my job duties are whatever my boss tells me to do. I've never been asking to do something I felt was beyond reason, so it's never been a problem for me.

[TAC]

Regarding "job duties" I have always operated on the belief that my job duties are whatever my boss tells me to do. I've never been asking to do something I felt was beyond reason, so it's never been a problem for me.

I've written people up for "Failure to respond to a reasonable request" before. AKA Insubordination.

[Awaken]

I've only had a few jobs, all of them at-will, but I cannot immediately recall ever signing anything before starting a job other than the required government forms (W9 and such).

Regarding "job duties" I have always operated on the belief that my job duties are whatever my boss tells me to do. I've never been asking to do something I felt was beyond reason, so it's never been a problem for me.

As far as I know, and I'll say I've been wrong before, the W-9 (TIN/ITIN verification) and W-4(Fed tax withholding instructions) docs are required at the start of employment.  If you live in a state w income tax, there may be an additional form (paper or online) to confirm State tax withholding, as well. 

[hefdaddy42]

Normally, other than the government/tax withholding docs you have to sign before getting paid, we have the offer letter that we send to new hires, which features the starting salary, benefits offered, and the job description for which they applied and we have accepted.  But nothing is official until they sign the letter and return it. 

Of course, these days it is normally sent by email in a DocuSign document, and they just click and send it back.

But that's not really a contract.

[ReaperKK]

I work for a large bank and when I was hired on I had to sign a 3 page document that basically said "This is what you're being paid, and these are the general expectations of you." I don't know if I'd call it a contract but rather an acknowledgement that xyz will happen if I don't do abc.

For example if I fail to appear at work with no communication to my boss for 3 days in a row it could be considering job abandonment. 

[TAC]

Many places provide an Associate Handbook with an acknowledgement form that the employee must sign. Your signature basically states that you have/will read the company's policies, and you will adhere to them.

[hefdaddy42]

Many places provide an Associate Handbook with an acknowledgement form that the employee must sign. Your signature basically states that you have/will read the company's policies, and you will adhere to them.

Yeah, we have something like that.

[cramx3]

Yeah, there's lots of formalities like signing a "rules handbook" or similar as well as an offer letter.  Also the tax papers you will have to sign.  None of that, as far as I understand, is a contract.  It's all just agreeing to the job/pay/rules and puts you in a position to be fired if you break the rules you signed the papers for.  I think the offer letter may also state "at will" employment.  I'd have to check, I had to recently sign an offer letter when my company was taken over a couple months ago. 

[Stadler]

Following the discussion earlier I was surprised that people said they had no contract, but assumed it was probably just a miscommunication over what was meant by having a contract.

For those who are employees with "no contract" - is there any documentation that either you or your employer have (or should have) that confirms you are indeed an employee? Let's say you went for a job interview, and then were told over the phone or in person that you were successful, what would you literally do to "accept" the job? Would you just show up somewhere on a verbal agreement? If you showed up and the employer said actually you don't work here, or actually your pay is half what you thought it was, would there be something you would be able to point to to contradict them?

(These are not rhetorical questions, I am just trying to establish what the actual differences are between these things).

I get where you are coming from, but we are kind of talking about two different things.  The employment "contract" we are talking about is a specific agreement about duties that must be performed and the employer's agreement not to discipline or terminate if the employee follows the letter of that.  That isn't the case in most jobs in the U.S.  The default is that employment is at-will and not by contract in most states, unless the employer and employee agree otherwise (which they are free to do, and does happen in some jobs). 

That being said, there is typically an offer letter specifying that the employee is hired, what the basic position is that he/she is being hired for, and what the starting pay is.  The employee typically signs an acceptance.  So, yes, that is by the letter of the law, a written "contract" because it involves offer and acceptance.  But the terms are typically VERY limited, and the offer letter will typically state explicitly that it does not create a contract of employment. Does that make sense?

Yes, that all makes sense. This is sort of what I guessed was the case where some earlier said they had no contracts and others were surprised by it. I suspect most people talking about doing what is in the contract are talking about some agreement similar to this, except maybe with more legal protections on how quickly or for what reasons the employer can just end the agreement, rather than having a contract guaranteeing they must work for a length of time.

I knew about at-will employment in many US states but from my understanding I would have described that as meaning employment contracts were at-will, i.e. the employer could end it without any reason. It was only seeing some of this discussion I wondered if that meant there never was genuinely no contract or agreement of employment for those that were at-will employees.

With at-will employment being the default I can see why people would, when discussing employment, draw a stronger line between someone with a contract guaranteeing employment for a specific period of time and the usual at-will arrangement. But I would guess most people talking about an employment contract probably just mean whatever the agreement they signed when they accepted the job (at least that's what I would think of).

But don't fill in what Bosk said with what you think might be the case. There is no employment contract in most of the "at-will" situations in the States.  He was describing California, and was clear that there was no set process.  I've paid income taxes in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and Connecticut, based on where I lived, and in all of those states I never signed ANYTHING that could be construed as an "employment contract".  I have signed on-boarding documentation, I have signed paperwork to start healthcare coverages, I have signed acknowledgements of receipt of phones and computers.  There are of course documentations of my employment, and they might even be "contracts" in the sense that Bosk stated (offer, acceptance, consideration), but they just don't serve as "employment contracts" in the strict legal sense of the words, and no spin of "well, that's sort of what I meant" changes that.

[RuRoRul]

Following the discussion earlier I was surprised that people said they had no contract, but assumed it was probably just a miscommunication over what was meant by having a contract.

For those who are employees with "no contract" - is there any documentation that either you or your employer have (or should have) that confirms you are indeed an employee? Let's say you went for a job interview, and then were told over the phone or in person that you were successful, what would you literally do to "accept" the job? Would you just show up somewhere on a verbal agreement? If you showed up and the employer said actually you don't work here, or actually your pay is half what you thought it was, would there be something you would be able to point to to contradict them?

(These are not rhetorical questions, I am just trying to establish what the actual differences are between these things).

I get where you are coming from, but we are kind of talking about two different things.  The employment "contract" we are talking about is a specific agreement about duties that must be performed and the employer's agreement not to discipline or terminate if the employee follows the letter of that.  That isn't the case in most jobs in the U.S.  The default is that employment is at-will and not by contract in most states, unless the employer and employee agree otherwise (which they are free to do, and does happen in some jobs). 

That being said, there is typically an offer letter specifying that the employee is hired, what the basic position is that he/she is being hired for, and what the starting pay is.  The employee typically signs an acceptance.  So, yes, that is by the letter of the law, a written "contract" because it involves offer and acceptance.  But the terms are typically VERY limited, and the offer letter will typically state explicitly that it does not create a contract of employment. Does that make sense?

Yes, that all makes sense. This is sort of what I guessed was the case where some earlier said they had no contracts and others were surprised by it. I suspect most people talking about doing what is in the contract are talking about some agreement similar to this, except maybe with more legal protections on how quickly or for what reasons the employer can just end the agreement, rather than having a contract guaranteeing they must work for a length of time.

I knew about at-will employment in many US states but from my understanding I would have described that as meaning employment contracts were at-will, i.e. the employer could end it without any reason. It was only seeing some of this discussion I wondered if that meant there never was genuinely no contract or agreement of employment for those that were at-will employees.

With at-will employment being the default I can see why people would, when discussing employment, draw a stronger line between someone with a contract guaranteeing employment for a specific period of time and the usual at-will arrangement. But I would guess most people talking about an employment contract probably just mean whatever the agreement they signed when they accepted the job (at least that's what I would think of).

But don't fill in what Bosk said with what you think might be the case. There is no employment contract in most of the "at-will" situations in the States.  He was describing California, and was clear that there was no set process.  I've paid income taxes in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and Connecticut, based on where I lived, and in all of those states I never signed ANYTHING that could be construed as an "employment contract".  I have signed on-boarding documentation, I have signed paperwork to start healthcare coverages, I have signed acknowledgements of receipt of phones and computers.  There are of course documentations of my employment, and they might even be "contracts" in the sense that Bosk stated (offer, acceptance, consideration), but they just don't serve as "employment contracts" in the strict legal sense of the words, and no spin of "well, that's sort of what I meant" changes that.

Point being that I suspected that the other people talking about what it says in their contracts were referring to something closer to the ' "contracts" in the sense that Bosk stated (offer, acceptance, consideration)' than the stricter "employment contract" you refer to here. Though I can easily see why there might be more detail and terms in the offer of employment in countries where at-will employment is not the default.

It was only seeing a few posts saying people never signed anything that made me question for a moment that people actually didn't usually have any written offer letter or equivalent in the US - one of those things that you don't realise is different in another country until you hear about it. But bosk's description was close to what I originally assumed to be the case and I believe I understand the differences that were explained in bosk's post. If you want to refer to me saying that as "spin", I'll leave that to you.

[XJDenton]

None of that, as far as I understand, is a contract.  It's all just agreeing to the job/pay/rules and puts you in a position to be fired if you break the rules you signed the papers for.

In a formal sense that may be correct, but to me it sound a bit like saying "She's not my girlfriend, she's just a woman I live with, go out on dates with, make love with, and am comfortable enough to fart in front of".

[Adami]

None of that, as far as I understand, is a contract.  It's all just agreeing to the job/pay/rules and puts you in a position to be fired if you break the rules you signed the papers for.

In a formal sense that may be correct, but to me it sound a bit like saying "She's not my girlfriend, she's just a woman I live with, go out on dates with, make love with, and am comfortable enough to fart in front of".

How did you get your hands on my vows?!

[XJDenton]

None of that, as far as I understand, is a contract.  It's all just agreeing to the job/pay/rules and puts you in a position to be fired if you break the rules you signed the papers for.

In a formal sense that may be correct, but to me it sound a bit like saying "She's not my girlfriend, she's just a woman I live with, go out on dates with, make love with, and am comfortable enough to fart in front of".

How did you get your hands on my vows?!

I can neither confirm nor deny.

[Dublagent66]

None of that, as far as I understand, is a contract.  It's all just agreeing to the job/pay/rules and puts you in a position to be fired if you break the rules you signed the papers for.

In a formal sense that may be correct, but to me it sound a bit like saying "She's not my girlfriend, she's just a woman I live with, go out on dates with, make love with, and am comfortable enough to fart in front of".

Goddamn Doc, you're killin' me man!

[Stadler]

None of that, as far as I understand, is a contract.  It's all just agreeing to the job/pay/rules and puts you in a position to be fired if you break the rules you signed the papers for.

In a formal sense that may be correct, but to me it sound a bit like saying "She's not my girlfriend, she's just a woman I live with, go out on dates with, make love with, and am comfortable enough to fart in front of".

How did you get your hands on my vows?!

I thought I was writing your vows?!?!?

[Nick]

I'm available to write the rest of the wedding, Adami, as several can attest to.

[Adami]

I'm available to write the rest of the wedding, Adami, as several can attest to.

We definitely took a few ideas from yours.

[XJDenton]

I have written and delivered a best man's speech which was received well. The first 2 minutes of the speech was a detailed description of the scientific capabilities, hull specifications and characteristics of the  RSS Sir David Attenborough, but it was received well.

[ReaPsTA]

Something I can't discern when reading this thread - Who here lives/works in America and is talking to get some kind of shared understanding of their experiences with employment vs. the foreigners who are genuinely unfamiliar with American law/work culture.

[TAC]

I'm in America!
Live a half hour south of Boston, and work in the Hyde Park section of the city.

[King Postwhore]

All cultures and religions. I have a Nigerian working for me now.  He is so introverted and doesn't respond to communication with others that it causes issues. No one wants to work with him.

He wants to do things his way without being a team player with others.  I've had many conversations with him. Counseled him a few times too with his actions.

All employees are on equal footing and need to be team players. How I handle them is different but with the same goals.

[KevShmev]

Many places provide an Associate Handbook with an acknowledgement form that the employee must sign. Your signature basically states that you have/will read the company's policies, and you will adhere to them.

Yep.

And to circle back to benefits that Bill referred to for doing your best (vs doing the bare minimum), our handbook clearly states that all employees get two paid days off for bereavement for a close family member (spouse, parent, sibling).  As many of you know, my mother passed away earlier this year.  I left work on a Wednesday morning about an hour or so into my shift when I found out the end was near (it happened that evening). My boss texted me and told me to take as much time as I needed (and he meant it, as he even said when I was back that I ever needed to leave if I was ever having a bad day while still dealing with it, it would be fine). I went back to work the following Monday (there is no way I could have worked that Thursday or Friday) and then the funeral was eight days later on a Tuesday, so, all in all, I missed almost four days of work...and I was paid for all of it and did not have to use any vacation or sick/personal time.  And that is obviously not meant to be a "I am such a good employee, look at what I got!" post, but merely meant to illustrate that there are benefits to going the extra mile sometimes. 

[Stadler]

All cultures and religions. I have a Nigerian working for me now.  He is so introverted and doesn't respond to communication with others that it causes issues. No one wants to work with him.

He wants to do things his way without being a team player with others.  I've had many conversations with him. Counseled him a few times too with his actions.

All employees are on equal footing and need to be team players. How I handle them is different but with the same goals.

I believe Kev to be right, and as for the above, when I worked for GE it was like being in a gang of sorts.  It wasn't JUST about you or your review...  there was a feeling from most of the people that "I don't want to be the weak link, I don't want to be the guy that let's the team down".   My best working years were the first five or so I was at GE, and while I know you can never go back, and right now I'm a better employee (with better balance) than I was then, that was a magical time.   The magic didn't adhere to a strict, 9:00a to 5:00p with a half hour for lunch format.

[Skeever]

Many places provide an Associate Handbook with an acknowledgement form that the employee must sign. Your signature basically states that you have/will read the company's policies, and you will adhere to them.

Yep.

And to circle back to benefits that Bill referred to for doing your best (vs doing the bare minimum), our handbook clearly states that all employees get two paid days off for bereavement for a close family member (spouse, parent, sibling).  As many of you know, my mother passed away earlier this year.  I left work on a Wednesday morning about an hour or so into my shift when I found out the end was near (it happened that evening). My boss texted me and told me to take as much time as I needed (and he meant it, as he even said when I was back that I ever needed to leave if I was ever having a bad day while still dealing with it, it would be fine). I went back to work the following Monday (there is no way I could have worked that Thursday or Friday) and then the funeral was eight days later on a Tuesday, so, all in all, I missed almost four days of work...and I was paid for all of it and did not have to use any vacation or sick/personal time.  And that is obviously not meant to be a "I am such a good employee, look at what I got!" post, but merely meant to illustrate that there are benefits to going the extra mile sometimes.

Glad that your boss gave you a few extra days, but two days for the death of a parent is pathetic. To me this just highlights how much things are tilted in favor of the employer. As an employee you are guaranteed the bare minimum, and anything more that you get is a perk that your employer will never be held to. We see this with the entire discussion that people are having about contracts also. I for one am glad that I live in a state where the state guarantee strong family leave.

[Lonk]

Are merit increases still a thing? While I get that the normal yearly raise is usually not a substantial amount of money, going the extra mile could get you a little more.