Quiet quitting?

[lordxizor]

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.

We have merit increases. But my experience is that 90% of people get the baseline raise our company recommends. A few people get higher and a few people get lower, but not a whole lot. Promotions are the only place where we can get more than a token 2-3% raise every year.

[Skeever]

Yep, I've long since decided that annual reviews are a formality. If the company like you, you get a little bit more. If they don't particularly care for you, you get what everyone else gets. The actual "process" part - looking at your goals over the last year, checking off which ones you have and have not accomplished - is pretty much just a bunch of BS. I never sweat my annual goals, because my I have a good relationship with my manager and they know what I have and have not done, as well as the million other tiny things that I HAVE done that are not in my formal goals.

[ReaperKK]

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.

We do at my company + bonus in most positions. The raises have been pretty spectacular for the past couple of years because our bank went through a large round of layoffs but then quickly faced the problem of people leaving on their own so we are short staffed. They are trying to retain people through pay increases. My raise was 13% this year, 8% last year.

Bonuses are just that. Picking up extra projects and things of that nature will get you bonus of up to 20% of your salary. Every position has difference bonus eligibility but that's covered when you're hired.

This is old man boomer Karolis talking but it's pretty wild to see how many people expect a bonus at my work while barely doing the things that they are tasked to do. I spent my 20's running a hotel and while it was fun, it was also brutal work, cleaning rooms sucks, hiring staff that didn't want to be there sucked, old people falling down stairs in the middle of the night sucks, having the us marshalls raid a room sucked. I'm in an office 8-5 typing away making double what I did work 6-7 days a week at the hotel. I feel some people need perspective.

[ReaPsTA]

Yep, I've long since decided that annual reviews are a formality. If the company like you, you get a little bit more. If they don't particularly care for you, you get what everyone else gets. The actual "process" part - looking at your goals over the last year, checking off which ones you have and have not accomplished - is pretty much just a bunch of BS. I never sweat my annual goals, because my I have a good relationship with my manager and they know what I have and have not done, as well as the million other tiny things that I HAVE done that are not in my formal goals.

Even worse is when some kind of political something influences how they go. I remember when me and the people I worked with all went from Meets Expectations one year to Above Expectations another year because of this. First year, we supposedly weren't going out of our way to do anything (don't mind the overtime being put in, some overtime is expected you see). Second year, we had just gone through layoffs and our manager needed the record to show why we were kept. If I remember right, he even said something like, "we kept you guys for a reason" when discussing the review.

[TheOutlawXanadu]

I am very lucky to work in a competitive industry where you can basically always find a higher-paying job. Because of this, my employer basically has no other option than to take care of their people as best they can. High performers typically receive some pretty decent merit increases to try and make sure they stay. It can still be tough though because inflation is so high right now. Five years ago, a 10% bump would have been a lot, but when factoring in inflation (and the fact my area is one of the fastest-growing in the country), it's not as glamorous as it appears. I don't envy HR for some of the conversations that they have to have with people about this stuff.

[XJDenton]

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.

In Sweden you are guaranteed 10 days of paid leave (i.e two full weeks) if a family member dies, by law. So while I am exceptionally glad Kev was in a position where a death did not see him out of pocket, I also think bereavement leave is not something that should be subject to the whims of your employer and their general opinion of you. You deserve time to mourn, regardless of how shit an employee you are.

[Stadler]

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.

In Sweden you are guaranteed 10 days of paid leave (i.e two full weeks) if a family member dies, by law. So while I am exceptionally glad Kev was in a position where a death did not see him out of pocket, I also think bereavement leave is not something that should be subject to the whims of your employer and their general opinion of you. You deserve time to mourn, regardless of how shit an employee you are.

We deserve nothing.  Discuss. 

[XJDenton]

Nah.

[Lonk]

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.

In Sweden you are guaranteed 10 days of paid leave (i.e two full weeks) if a family member dies, by law. So while I am exceptionally glad Kev was in a position where a death did not see him out of pocket, I also think bereavement leave is not something that should be subject to the whims of your employer and their general opinion of you. You deserve time to mourn, regardless of how shit an employee you are.

We deserve nothing.  Discuss.

Slaves?

[Stadler]

Well, that's part of the discussion.  I suppose there's a base level at which we all deserve to be treated as human beings; but what does that mean?  I hear this a lot lately; I "deserve" this or I "deserve" that, and I think if there is a bar to something that is by definition an ENTITLEMENT, it's a lot lower than what many Americans perceive it to be today.   Having just gone through the loss of a beloved parent, and being in some ways fucked up by it (my therapist is earning her stripes lately) and now watching my mom fading before my eyes, I don't know that I "deserve" time off.  Why is it my company's problem?  Why is it anyone else's problem but mine?   My boss is like Kev's boss - all the time you need, bro, no sweat - and I believe he means it, but the world goes on.

I can (and would, since I don't believe in slavery, as such) formulate an argument that certain rights are, as Jefferson said, inalienable, meaning they cannot be given or taken away.  We've codified them here as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".   But does that translate into time off for bereavement?  I watch a certain reality TV show and this one woman keeps calling herself a "boss" because she owns some rental property and keeps saying she "deserves" love.  Really?  I don't see how the three of those exist on the same plane. 

There's also the concept of sort of unofficially expressing support; I can say that kid who hugged the pitcher in the Little League world series "deserves" to win it all (his team lost) but does he REALLY.  He still has to play. He still has to be a teammate.  That's different; that's not an entitlement, that's a sentiment. 

[XJDenton]

"Deserve" just means what values, rights, and protections we, as members of our various societies and the human race, collectively decide we wish to value and ensure. The universe itself is an uncaring shit. When I say "humans deserve time to grieve their dead without fear of being fired" I'm just fighting to add something to the list.

[Skeever]

We deserve what we're willing to fight for and earn for ourselves, with no upper limits to what that might entail.

For some in this thread, it seems like the slider tipped so far in the direction of bias toward employers ("owners"), that the underlying assumption is actually that the employer "deserves everything", and that labor deserves nothing, except unlimited scorn for any demonstration of self-interest, let alone any earned protections.


Edit: This post is not meant to be inflammatory, but if you're going to levelset whatever discourse has occurred in the first 8 pages with "We deserve nothing", why do I have to accept that as the starting point? Let's flip it; employers deserve nothing. And go from there. We can play the same game from both sides of the polemic.

[Stadler]

We deserve what we're willing to fight for and earn for ourselves, with no upper limits to what that might entail.

For some in this thread, it seems like the slider tipped so far in the direction of bias toward employers ("owners"), that the underlying assumption is actually that the employer "deserves everything", and that labor deserves nothing, except unlimited scorn for any demonstration of self-interest, let alone any earned protections.

As a mind that tends to think strategically, your viewpoint is, I think (respectfully, I'm not digging at you) not widely shared.  By that definition, many of the rich deserve their wealth, but we certainly don't act that way.  And "deserve" seems to, in our society, work in another direction that your definition doesn't cover.  Did OJ "deserve" all that time in jail?  Did Epstein "deserve" to die in jail?  Many believe that.   Does Trump "deserve" the harassment he's undergoing now?  Many very MUCH think so, and in fact, don't think it's enough.   I have a really hard time when "deserve" really just boils down to one person's opinion one way or another. 

Edit: This post is not meant to be inflammatory, but if you're going to levelset whatever discourse has occurred in the first 8 pages with "We deserve nothing", why do I have to accept that as the starting point? Let's flip it; employers deserve nothing. And go from there. We can play the same game from both sides of the polemic.

Well, while you ask an exceedingly fair question, I'm not making the distinction between employers and employees.  In my question they were both included.   That's part of my overall point; "deserve" doesn't - or shouldn't - be directional or based on some third party's viewpoint.

[Stadler]

"Deserve" just means what values, rights, and protections we, as members of our various societies and the human race, collectively decide we wish to value and ensure. The universe itself is an uncaring shit. When I say "humans deserve time to grieve their dead without fear of being fired" I'm just fighting to add something to the list.

Other than I don't believe that your specific item should be there on the list, I can't argue with any of the rest of that, though.

[Skeever]

We deserve what we're willing to fight for and earn for ourselves, with no upper limits to what that might entail.

For some in this thread, it seems like the slider tipped so far in the direction of bias toward employers ("owners"), that the underlying assumption is actually that the employer "deserves everything", and that labor deserves nothing, except unlimited scorn for any demonstration of self-interest, let alone any earned protections.

As a mind that tends to think strategically, your viewpoint is, I think (respectfully, I'm not digging at you) not widely shared.  By that definition, many of the rich deserve their wealth, but we certainly don't act that way.  And "deserve" seems to, in our society, work in another direction that your definition doesn't cover.  Did OJ "deserve" all that time in jail?  Did Epstein "deserve" to die in jail?  Many believe that.   Does Trump "deserve" the harassment he's undergoing now?  Many very MUCH think so, and in fact, don't think it's enough.   I have a really hard time when "deserve" really just boils down to one person's opinion one way or another. 

Edit: This post is not meant to be inflammatory, but if you're going to levelset whatever discourse has occurred in the first 8 pages with "We deserve nothing", why do I have to accept that as the starting point? Let's flip it; employers deserve nothing. And go from there. We can play the same game from both sides of the polemic.

Well, while you ask an exceedingly fair question, I'm not making the distinction between employers and employees.  In my question they were both included.   That's part of my overall point; "deserve" doesn't - or shouldn't - be directional or based on some third party's viewpoint.

Ok, fair enough. Apologies if it seemed like I was interpreting your post in bad faith.

[Cool Chris]

In Sweden you are guaranteed 10 days of paid leave (i.e two full weeks) if a family member dies, by law. So while I am exceptionally glad Kev was in a position where a death did not see him out of pocket, I also think bereavement leave is not something that should be subject to the whims of your employer and their general opinion of you. You deserve time to mourn, regardless of how shit an employee you are.

XJ, is there any distinction there between large and small companies? I am by no means an expert but it seems like whenever a new law is passed with regards to employment it applies differently between large and small companies (I think the cutoff is 50 employees). For instance, my current company is family owned and employs 6 employees, plus the two owners. If one of us is off on paid leave for 2 weeks it is a more significant impact than if a Microsoft employee is out. 

[XJDenton]

In Sweden you are guaranteed 10 days of paid leave (i.e two full weeks) if a family member dies, by law. So while I am exceptionally glad Kev was in a position where a death did not see him out of pocket, I also think bereavement leave is not something that should be subject to the whims of your employer and their general opinion of you. You deserve time to mourn, regardless of how shit an employee you are.

XJ, is there any distinction there between large and small companies? I am by no means an expert but it seems like whenever a new law is passed with regards to employment it applies differently between large and small companies (I think the cutoff is 50 employees). For instance, my current company is family owned and employs 6 employees, plus the two owners. If one of us is off on paid leave for 2 weeks it is a more significant impact than if a Microsoft employee is out. 

Well turns out I misread the guidance on this, and its not actually law but instead collective bargaining agreements that cover the extended bereavement. (I am not fully fluent in Swedish, and it turns out the English language source I used was misleading, so I apologise for that.) So for extremely small companies that are not part of a union or have an industry representative, I would imagine it does not hold. However a significant majority of jobs in the country are subject to some sort of collective bargaining agreement, so I think its more common than not that this right would be extended to employees.

[KevShmev]

Ah yes, the necessary evil that are unions.

Not quite sure what the industry standard is for bereavement here in the States, but 10 seems on the absurdly high side. I think 3-5 sounds about right.  And I say that while conceding that you cannot put grieving on a time table.  It depends on what kind of job you have as well.  If you are working directly with the public, going back to work right away can be pretty difficult, as it is not always so easy to break away in an instant if you feel a moment coming on.  Since I have an office job, going back to work five days (three business days) was about right.  Working was a welcome distraction. 

[XJDenton]

Ah yes, the necessary evil that are unions.

Not quite sure what the industry standard is for bereavement here in the States, but 10 seems on the absurdly high side. I think 3-5 sounds about right.  And I say that while conceding that you cannot put grieving on a time table.  It depends on what kind of job you have as well.  If you are working directly with the public, going back to work right away can be pretty difficult, as it is not always so easy to break away in an instant if you feel a moment coming on.  Since I have an office job, going back to work five days (three business days) was about right.  Working was a welcome distraction. 

Well, you aren't required to take them, you just have them available. I think the 10 days per year also covers some other scenarios when it comes to family matters.

[Lonk]

Ah yes, the necessary evil that are unions.

Not quite sure what the industry standard is for bereavement here in the States, but 10 seems on the absurdly high side. I think 3-5 sounds about right.  And I say that while conceding that you cannot put grieving on a time table.  It depends on what kind of job you have as well.  If you are working directly with the public, going back to work right away can be pretty difficult, as it is not always so easy to break away in an instant if you feel a moment coming on.  Since I have an office job, going back to work five days (three business days) was about right.  Working was a welcome distraction.

Here in NYC, it's 3 days, but the employee can grant more at its own discretion. Honestly, to me, 3 is too little. I think 2 weeks is a fair amount to mourn the lost of a close relative. If the employee feels ready before the 2 weeks are done, then the employee can go back. But anything less than that feels insensitive to me. Just my opinion.

[lordxizor]

My wife, a child, or parent: 3 days is obsurdly low. Grandma, uncle Joe, etc: 3 days is either OK or too high. So it really depends on who the person is and the impact their death has on my family.

My wife dies and I'm for weeks largely to grieve, but also to figure out a lot of logistics of what to do with our kids since she's a stay at home mom.

[jammindude]

My wife, a child, or parent: 3 days is obsurdly low. Grandma, uncle Joe, etc: 3 days is either OK or too high. So it really depends on who the person is and the impact their death has on my family.

My wife dies and I'm for weeks largely to grieve, but also to figure out a lot of logistics of what to do with our kids since she's a stay at home mom.

I agree with the principle of this post completely with the caveat that individual relationships should be case by case. You can’t blanket familial relationships on the general public. What if my father was so abusive that I was taken away from him as a child and then raised by Uncle Joe? Maybe person A never knew grandma while person B grew up with grandma living with them and there was a much deeper bond than most people get with their grandma’s.

[Stadler]

And even within that it's person by person.  I know a person that on some levels hasn't fully come to grips with a death that happened in 1997.   I know I'm just basically starting the process.  I'm still very much in the denial phase and I'm north of two months now.  I just cannot believe my dad isn't here anymore.   But again, I feel that's a "me" problem, not a [Stadler's Company's] problem.

[KevShmev]

Agreed that it can often be a case by case thing.

Apologies if I am not remember it exactly correct, but there was a story from earlier this year about a family of six (married couple and four kids, IIRC) that were in Nebraska (I think) and a tornado struck and one of the parents and three of the kids died.  If you are the remaining parent and child, I cannot imagine how you go on living after that, much less the living parent finding a way to work again any time soon.  Granted, most deaths do not occur as the result of (what I would call) a random tragedy like that, but I think you will all get what I am saying. 

I asked my cousin, who is an HR guru, about this, and he said 5 days seems to be the industry standard now here in the US, but the company for which he works is located all over the world, and he did say that the people in Europe always marvel at how limited our vacation and bereavement days are compared to theirs, so it is definitely different here vs there, and I think that explains the disconnect we are seeing between some of us here, as we all look at it through the lens of how it is in our country, job, state, etc.

[lordxizor]

My wife, a child, or parent: 3 days is obsurdly low. Grandma, uncle Joe, etc: 3 days is either OK or too high. So it really depends on who the person is and the impact their death has on my family.

My wife dies and I'm for weeks largely to grieve, but also to figure out a lot of logistics of what to do with our kids since she's a stay at home mom.

I agree with the principle of this post completely with the caveat that individual relationships should be case by case. You can’t blanket familial relationships on the general public. What if my father was so abusive that I was taken away from him as a child and then raised by Uncle Joe? Maybe person A never knew grandma while person B grew up with grandma living with them and there was a much deeper bond than most people get with their grandma’s.

Yeah, it is really an individual thing relationship to relationship. I know if I brought it up with HR at my company they'd say "that's why you have PTO" if I need more time off than the bereavement policy allows. My boss would probably cut me some slack and not be too picky about it. But in the end HR is right. I have a pool of time off that isn’t just there for vacations as I'd like it to be, but for any reason I need time off.

[TAC]

Saw this in my Youtube feed this morning. It's Mike Rowe on the Brian Kilmeade show talking about Quiet Quitting, and a little bit about paying off debt.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e62M3_pwuBI
Rowe comes in about the 35s mark.

He says something quite interesting. "We believe today that job satisfaction has something to do with the job, and it really doesn't."

[KevShmev]

Saw this in my Youtube feed this morning. It's Mike Rowe on the Brian Kilmeade show talking about Quiet Quitting, and a little bit about paying off debt.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e62M3_pwuBI
Rowe comes in about the 35s mark.

He says something quite interesting. "We believe today that job satisfaction has something to do with the job, and it really doesn't."

There's something to be said about finding ways to make life better for the working man and working woman, instead of too many being worked to death for peanuts, but there is value in hard work and going the extra mile, and it feels like that is lost on too many people.  In their effort to make things better, the quiet quitters are swinging the pendulum too far to the other side. 

[TAC]

Well, I suppose it's possible for someone to really hate their job. Go find another one.
You cash 100% of your check, then I'm not accepting 50% of your effort.

You show me a quiet quitter, and I'll show you a slacker.

[jammindude]

Friend and I were just talking the other day and I mused out loud that I truly feel bad for the workers on the lower rungs of the ladder. Because that work *IS* abusive in nature. No matter what you choose to do, low end jobs always have been intrinsically intertwined with either an abusive boss or an abusive public…sometimes both. But when I was doing those jobs, I at least took home enough pay to be relatively independent. I could afford my rent, my bills, and still scrape together couch change for that new CD or show. I lived in a cheap apartment in the ghetto parts of the suburbs and my apartment complex had roaches, but it was mine and I got by.

But today, crap jobs don’t even allow you to do that. Today’s crap jobs expect you to go through that same horrible abusive situations…and then to find out that your pay DOESN’T give you enough to make ends meet? It’s no wonder people are just saying “F this” and moving back home.

[TAC]

But don't you know how much you're going to be paid before you take the job?

And how do you define a "shit job"?

[Skeever]

Well, I suppose it's possible for someone to really hate their job. Go find another one.
You cash 100% of your check, then I'm not accepting 50% of your effort.

You show me a quiet quitter, and I'll show you a slacker.

Quiet Quitting is not the same thing as "slacking" or "putting in 50% effort".
It's saying "I'll put in 100%, but maybe not 110%". It's saying "I could stay late and answer a few more emails, but the difference to the business is negligible whether that happens at 6pm today or 8am tomorrow."

There's no reason to name-call like that, and be judgmental. People have explained what it means. If you don't get it, or don't want to get it, fine, but to call someone a "slacker" is just totally untrue.

[jammindude]

I could go down a laundry list of reasons. But it’s usually a variation of young people getting jobs with an idealized version of how it will work and then finding out it won’t. Or being promised that something has a future when it may or may not. And then there’s just the expectation that “this is what you’re supposed to do”

After going through a smattering of throw away jobs, I finally landed myself in the trades (electrician) and while I’m thankful today that my knowledge of the industry has allowed me to be in the comfortable job I’m in today, I wouldn’t wish what I went through to get here on my worst enemy. One of my first bosses called all apprentices “poop-stain” and ALL construction bosses give the apprentices the crappiest work on the job site that no one wants to do. But it’s the culture of “paying your dues” and toughening you up that’s been around for decades.

It’s no wonder women very often don’t stick with the trades. They often sign up because they hear how much money you can make, and often walk away because of the abuse. And I personally think they are smart for leaving and men are dumb for staying…but here we are.

[TAC]

Well, I suppose it's possible for someone to really hate their job. Go find another one.
You cash 100% of your check, then I'm not accepting 50% of your effort.

You show me a quiet quitter, and I'll show you a slacker.

Quiet Quitting is not the same thing as "slacking" or "putting in 50% effort".
It's putting in "100% effort", but not always "110%".

I really don't understand the need to be outraged, upset, judgmental about something you clearly do not understand.
Plenty in here and out there have tried to explain what it means, you just want to ignore it and keep rolling with your initial biases not even trying to come to some kind of mutual understanding with what others are saying.

Well, if you're giving 100%, then I have no problem at all.


Actually, there seems to be some confusion ITT about the actual definition. Maybe it's in the term, "quiet quitting". Quitting to me means pulling back. Not failure to reach forward. You are telling me I have this wrong?

And sorry, I don't equate doing the "bare minimum" with 100% at all.

[TAC]

It’s no wonder women very often don’t stick with the trades. They often sign up because they hear how much money you can make, and often walk away because of the abuse. And I personally think they are smart for leaving and men are dumb for staying…but here we are.

Then there's a lot of dumb men driving around because all I see are plumbing vans, construction company vans, electrician vans...

[TAC]

And Skeever, you're right. I have biases. I admit it.

If you're at Work Level 1, let's call it, and you have no desire to get to Work Level 2, does that fall into Quiet Quitting? And if so, I have no issue with that. We need people in ALL roles, even in Work Level 1. But my expectation is that if you're in Work Level 1, then you're giving 100% in your role.

Does that make sense?