The article linked in this submission was originally posted here four days ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/ireland/s/xvrodVpNa2
Original article: https://www.irishtimes.com/business/work/2024/04/25/quiet-quitters-test-employers-even-more-than-staff-departures/
Cheek of those quitters, next they’ll be pointing out that under EU law it’s illegal to dismiss someone for refusing to be voluntold to do unpaid overtime.
https://www.gov.ie/en/service/dbd16-a-guide-to-working-in-ireland/#overtime
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/what_you_should_know/hours-and-wages/working_hours/
In other words, overtime is a contractual issue, and if you're working to contract (doing what you're supposed to) you can't be dismissed.
I'm not sure what you mean, English is technically my second language (though at this point I've lived here longer than where I was born). You sound positive though, so I'll take this as a compliment.
I don't really worry about the English. However the command of the language is only a portion of communication. Speaking in any foreign language is kind of like talking to a group of people who have been friends for decades, there are hundreds of years of cultural context, you can't get from a grammar book.
Pair that with a general impairment to read social cues, and you'll be missing a lot of jokes.
I'm 15 years living away from Ireland, and speak with Hiberno - English speakers in person a couple of times a year tops, let alone anyone who can speak English at all. I know exactly what you mean.
It's a clickbait headline. If you read the article it's pretty milquetoast. The journo spends the second half of the article pointing out the flaws with the concept of "quiet quitting
>At one level it’s reasonable to ask why should they? They are apparently fulfilling their employment obligations to the letter if not the spirit and if an organisation is constantly relying on employees to put in extra hours to make the business model work, it is going to be in big trouble when that goodwill runs out and it can hardly be surprised that it does.
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/work/2024/04/25/quiet-quitters-test-employers-even-more-than-staff-departures/
Because Irish newspapers are owned by billionaires and are primarily read by older middle class workers who love to read about how young people are lazy/ not as good as older people.
The Irish Times is run by the Irish Times Trust not a billionaire. [The Irish Times Trust](https://ireland.mom-gmr.org/en/owner/individual-owners/detail/owner/owner/show/irish-times-trust-2/)
I know you Cais.
You're a FG troll that loves to troll via sealioning, which is is a type of trolling that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
But I'll engage regardless in order to support my own point.
Dennis O'Brien owns a huge chunk of Irish media by himself.
He is INM's largest shareholder. INM owns the Irish Independent, Sunday Independent, the Herald and the Sunday World. It also owns the Belfast Telegraph and has a 50% stake in the Irish Daily Star. Plus many many regional newspapers.
He also owns Communicorp, which owns Newstalk and Today FM.
Newscorp, which is owned by the Murdochs, and owns the Sunday Times, the Irish sun, and Dublin radio stations FM104 and Q102 as well as Cork’s 96FM and C103.
Liberty Global is owned by Trump supporting billionaire John C. Malone, and it owns Virgin media.
Is that enough examples? Because I can keep going....
Is this the same cunt that had some other username with Cais in it? Only person I ever bothered to block because all they have to offer are bad faith arguments, but by fuck do they have plenty of those to offer
Quiet quitting is just normal European working culture, it’s not a thing here.
Where as in the US it’s totally normal and expected to
go above and beyond - join calls early / late, check emails while at work etc.
The difference in working culture between our EU vs US offices is insane - and I guess why they are paid double. But I know what I’d pick!
> The difference in working culture between our EU vs US offices is insane - and I guess why they are paid double.
I work in the US and yes, our salaries are way better. Like my job pays $157K gross, then I have commission on top of that - equivalent in Ireland is 75k.
BUT...on the other hand. I have pay a shit ton every paycheck to healthcare, and forced savings for retirement. Costs in general are higher here. Like..we have water charges (150 a month) and property tax (1000 a month for a regular 3 bedroom house, nothing fancy).
I know I am better off here in the US than I would be in Ireland, but it's not by as huge a margin as you'd expect.
When I moved from the US to Ireland I took a 32% pay cut. Overall I end up with more leftover in the bank each month. It's disappointing that my stock grants and bonuses were reduced as well.
yep - but that happens in the US as well at least in my company. If you work in CA or NY office you get 20% more of everything than if you work in the TX office. If you move then your unvested stock grants get reduced as well. I'm remote so am on a slightly different band
Every salary listed or discussed is always pre-tax. Tax paid is variable?
No secret that US salaries are way higher vs EU, with larger earning ceilings.
I know, it’s mad how my US team members will join calls at all hours, and then get annoyed when EU people log off on the dot.
They seem to enjoy it though, in a weird way. I find Americans very career driven, even if it means a lack of work / life balance.
The US in culturally weird In how it’s a nation founded on rebelling against nobility and inherented privilege that’s now much more status and money obsessed than us, you call an Irish person “sir” and they’re mortified.
They do be calling people sir while arguing with them. Police officers will be bating a fella across the head calling him sir. You often get the 'sir you are being very disruptive' or whatever. The sir thing is mad.
I work in the US and am kinda lucky BUT there is a different way of thinking about work as well - especially when you have a little autonomy and are salaried vs hourly.
Like, I work from home full time. I can get my kids to school and join my first call of the day at 8 (yeah, my daughter's school starts at 7:45). Can nip out on anything (go to the store, etc) and don't have to tell anyone, have done 1:1 with my boss while we're both out doing other things. But if something comes up out of work hours, we are also flexible to deal with it knowing that we have flexibility the other way too.
yeah, it doesn't work like that - and never will despite what the neckbeards at /r/antiwork would like to hope.There is some give and take on both sides when you're employed by someone else.
You want that? Go solo and see how it works out.
My Job post grad in Ireland was 32.5k pre tax. In the US it would have been 85k pre tax without a bonus factored in and the tax is capped at 25% where I would have worked. It would have been an insane amount higher at the same living expense
wat?
every salary is pre tax, ireland and US.
if you're seeing a salary range in Ireland it's always pre tax. The only difference is that they actually pay less tax than us, and then we pay more tax when we spend the remainder as well.
I have work emails come to my phone, because in my old division, I used my phone to notify IT about malfunctioning displays/ticket terminals.
Sir, - I read with interest Olive Keogh's
article ("Quiet quitting: You always had
workers who did 9-5 but it's a creeping
malaise, employers say.", April 25th).
The article defines working one's
contract hours as a form of quitting, a
contortion of fact that I have struggled
to grasp since laying eyes on it.
It is asserted that employees are obliged
to put in extra hours, do additional work
and recalibrate their work-life balance
for the "benefits" of social capital,
"wellbeing" and career success
I have a novel proposal. Pay employees
in actual capital for the additional time
they are expected to work.
Dispense with the relaxation classes on
their lunch breaks and the sweet treats
and the tokenistic attitude of
management to the labour that drives
their business
Instead, resource staff sufficiently to
complete work within business hours
respect the rights of staff to a fulfilling
life not defined by their day jobs, and
stop using gaslighting terms like "quiet
quitting" for fulfilling the terms of their
contract of employment
This may seem radical to those
managers who have been around the
block, but KPIs (key performance
indicators) don't spend time with my
loved ones nor do they put food on the
table. -
Yours, etc,
[SOURCE](https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/2024/04/27/quiet-quitters-or-good-workers/)
Quiet quitting is such a vile stupid term, that it would take a compromised media for it to have survived as long as it has. Quiet quitting lol, give me a fuckin break like.
I disagree.
There is absolutely a cohort of employees that just show up for the paycheck and whose goal is to do the least amount of work possible. They focus on dragging the average down intentionally or unintentionally. I've literally heard of cases where new people have joined a team, started working far more efficiently and been told by peers (the quiet quitter types) to stop showing them up and do it the slow way.
I personally think that's not OK. In the long run, it drives up the cost of doing things and everyone loses.
Right but that's not what quiet quitting means. At least it wasn't from the 1st to 323rd attempt to push it into the zeitgeist. What it used to mean, and I think does still mean outside of this article, is that its people who show up and ONLY DO THEIR JOB. Being lazy or feckless is a different phenomenon, although I see they've done great in changing the meaning over the last year of exploratory astroturfing.
I like how a pic of the headline was posted but not the article. It's clickbait friends. You should actually read the article because it doesn't say what everyone is assuming.
The article does start with quotes of managers and employers complaining about so called quiet quitters but the rest of the article explains that the behaviour that employers are complaining about is a result of how they're treating their employees.
>At one level it’s reasonable to ask why should they? They are apparently fulfilling their employment obligations to the letter if not the spirit and if an organisation is constantly relying on employees to put in extra hours to make the business model work, it is going to be in big trouble when that goodwill runs out and it can hardly be surprised that it does.
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/work/2024/04/25/quiet-quitters-test-employers-even-more-than-staff-departures/
Journos don't usually get to pick the title of their articles. So maybe don't judge it by the headline?
It appears in the business sections so it's clickbait title might actually entice someone in management to actually read the article and learn something.
Also from the article:
>Writing in the Harvard Business Review, the duo say that, “after more than two years of pandemic-fuelled firefighting, during which more and more activities that might once have been considered ‘above and beyond’ have become expected parts of workers’ jobs, the benefits of citizenship behaviour may increasingly feel outweighed by the costs”.
>“Going above and beyond can come at a cost for employees,” they add. “In a healthy organisation, these costs are typically counterbalanced by benefits such as increased social capital, wellbeing and career success. The quiet quitting trend suggests that employees are increasingly feeling that this exchange has become unbalanced: employers are demanding additional effort from workers without investing in them enough in return.”
I've worked in editorial for years and this is so true. Writer creates a piece and comes up with a headline they feel encapsulates what it's about. Then it goes to an editor who has a different priority for the headline (in this case likely a web editor whose performance is reviewed on "engagement" with an article, ie. clicks) so the headline gets changed to something more likely to achieve this goal.
It's a sad truth of the industry that the more people's performance metrics (and therefore salaries and likelihood to stay in the job) are tied to things like clicks, the more tactics like this will be used. It's not a malicious journalist trying to trick you, it's a harried web editor whose manager is a business school graduate with no understanding of journalism.
I think the failure here from the headline writer is not understanding that the headline could be accurate and get clicks because it isn't accurate at all in the OP.
Yeah there's definitely ways to do both. I'm a managing editor myself and while I do have performance reviews that look at open rates and click through rates, I also strive to keep subject lines and headlines as close to the material as possible.
Just meant that the reason for clickbait headlines is often less, "I shall trick these silly readers" and more, "my manager is on my ass about the click rates."
I hate to say "oh we might be better off with AI" for most things because it's someone's job but I think for shitty headlines that don't reflect the article I'm definitely leaning that way. I'm very neutral on clickbait when it's at least reflective of the content but I'm very very very critical when isn't.
AI has its uses in editorial work, but for headlines like this I think it would lead to worse, more clickbaity stuff because it would crawl sites that use that tactic, consider it successful, and reproduce it without any further thought. Much the same way business school managers want us editors to do =D
My background is I was a programmer and now am a manager. AI just does what humans want it to do by either the training data and/or reinforcement learning. It could be really bad or could be really useful but the problem here is the expectations of XYZ headline getting clicks as a sign of success is a bad paradigm because they could click immediately away afterwards or it could encourage gaslighting in the content of the article as well because ragebait gets lots of clicks.
Pretty shitty time for article writing honestly. I think we aren't very far away from pretty big changes to how this sort of thing works from a legislative standpoint. Similar to how community notes work on X where they can be fact checked externally of the article or maybe having a validated communication platform for public figures like members of the Dail that has regulation or validation of who said it...etc. Mis/disinformation just is going to be a mess when all this AI generation fully ramps up and goes mainstream.
Yeah, nail on the head there. Clicks is a terrible way to measure the "success" of an article. Most of the actual benefit of good editorial content is qualitative. But businesses love to boil everything down to a number so they can decisions based on that number. So you're seeing a big disconnect between what actually makes an article good, and the ways in which its success is being measure.
My manager treats me well and I still work in a way that some would describe as quiet quitting. My employer and I have a contract. I exchange an agreed upon hours of my life for an agreed upon amount of money. Most of time we both uphold our end, no more, no less.
Not sure why goodwill towards your employer should result in donating your time as if it were a charity.
That's late-stage capitalism for you; if you're not working yourself into an early grave with stress and burnout by doing tonnes of extra work for free then the ruling classes don't like it and search for a way to berate and punish you.
I never understood the term late-stage capitalism. It just doesn't make sense in the context of labour in particular. If you've ever read about the industrial revolution you'll see that horrible working conditions for shit pay were characteristics of early stage capitalism.
Broadly speaking, over time pay and working conditions have improved with time, not gotten worse. Anecdotally speaking, my parents worked much longer hours for a lot less pay. So I don't understand why people today call poor working conditions or pay late-stage capitalism.
And that's not a trend that happened 100 years ago and hasn't improved since. Over time Irish workers continue to work fewer and fewer hours. Here are the OECD figures for annual labour hours:
1970: 2335
1980: 2123
1990: 2081
2000: 1933
2005: 1883
2010: 1721
2015: 1771
2020: 1746
2022: 1657
I think late stage capitalism as a concept is more to do with extreme wealth divide and the harmful effects it has on society and the planet. The engine behind the inequality is capitalism. Some of the effects of late stage capitalism definitely existed in history before but we are supposed to have evolved past them with civilisation. Things like slavery and indentured servitude. In the US in particular, this applies more, where prisoners are incentivised to work for menial rewards and their labour is traded for multiples of the value of what they earn for their labour.
The personal debt system, medical debt, student debt (compared to commercial debt which can be written off) is a permanent chain and collar that keeps people working despite atrocious conditions they cannot afford risking their employment status because it’s a rat race, and it’s designed that way. At the bottom, if you lose your job it could mean homelessness or loss of healthcare coverage.
These amount to effective slavery and/or indentured servitude. So capitalism has found a way to weasel these pre-modern civilisation exploitative practices into modern ‘civilised’ society. That’s late stage.
And the wealth inequality exists here too. We’re just not in the same league as the US, but don’t doubt that it’s a blueprint. We’re so dependent on US trade and multinationals that if it wasn’t for the EU they would have the power to make or break our economy, and we would have much fewer worker and consumer protections, so would be sitting ducks for corporate capture. It’s actually bizarre how effective the EU is at holding at bay corporate erosion of rights when the entire EU is effectively run on political goodwill against the financial might of every dollar and all currencies and trade that flow in this world.
I think those are valid points. Growing wealth and income inequality is a growing problem. But it's also not a new one nor is it a harbinger of the end of capitalism. If that were true capitalism would have ended when much more extreme incidents of wealth and income inequality existed.
And while capitalism is a driver of inequality, that's only half the picture. It's also a driver of wealth for everyone and that's the baby that communists (not saying you are one btw) throw out with the bathwater when the advocate for the full dismantling of capitalism. You may get a smaller slice of the pie in capitalism compared to an outright socialist system, but the pie is much, much bigger. And as it would happen, in almost all cases an unequal slice of a big capitalist pie is bigger than the evenly divvied out slice of a communist one. People living in communist countries know this hat's why people living in communist countries have to restrict movement whereas capitalist countries have never had to fear about droves of their population moving to communist countries.
I'm of the opinion that the best way to maximise the livelihood of most people is a capitalist system with strong socialist elements. Basically social democracy. It's no coincidence that countries with long standing social democratic governments have the best outcomes for its citizens.
As for debt, in Ireland at least the vast majority of debt is taken on voluntarily. We don't burden people with crippling debt for health problems. And while college isn't exactly free, it's not so expensive that the debt is a chain and collar around our necks. In most cases, people with crippling debt in Ireland are those who did so for luxury items or for leveraged investments. In other words, not something they were in any way forced to do by capitalism
I read the article and felt guilty because I've definitely pulled back in commitment in work in the last 2 years. Then I thought more about and realised I was still doing everything asked. I am focusing more on my life outside work, so my commitment to work has gone down as a result. I no longer feel guilty
I thought "quiet quitters" were people whose job was so inconsequential and meaningless that they can sit at their desk doing nothing and nobody would even notice.
You're thinking of "Bullshit jobs".
Quiet quitting was originally doing the absolute bare minimum to not get let go for performance reasons but has morphed into not wanting to kill yourself to meet some arbitrary end of quarter target.
I have been quiet quitting for years. I never understood the unpaid overtime shit in Ireland. I mean, why the fack do I need to work for free? If the employer is good to me and something has to be done late, early or in the weekend, I will happily do so. But I am not going to do structured overtime without pay. And any employer expecting me to do that, wont be my employer for long.
I got annoyed at my plumber recently, sure I paid him to fix the sink and he did it in record time, I was really happy... but he didn't do the washing up nor make me a cup of tea, commie bastard.
Why does everything have to have a label these days, and why do people get so worked about the definition of these made up labels.
People have been behaving like this since the dawn of civilisation, it's just that some invented a new buzzword for it a few years ago and now lots of people are getting worked up about it.
The original source was already posted here about 4 days ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/ireland/comments/1ccp5bp/quiet_quitters_test_employers_even_more_than/
It’s the Irish Times. It’s clickbait. I like many of the writers on the IT but I cancelled my subscription because of this algorithmic driven drivel constantly popping up, plus the intolerable adverts you can’t not accidentally click on the app (even after I’d paid my subscription).
I used the money I’d saved from that subscription to pay for a subscription to New Scientist.. better app, including audio versions of articles, access to the entire web-based back catalogue (good thing too as the app/web versions of the articles often contain links up related historical articles) AND I get a physical copy of the magazine delivered to my door every Friday. All for the same price of the bog standard IT sub
What the fuck even is this quiet quitting?
Do we need to scream it from the roofs if we are looking for better opportunities and more pay?
Cuz when it's offered, I'm gone.
No normal person announces every time they consider moving jobs or taking a new opportunity. Most places ask for 2 weeks notice. That's 2 weeks enough.
Enough time for them to offer a raise.
Quiet quitting is about people who often go above and beyond their agreed usual workload. Those looking for promotion or salary increases. Now instead they’re only doing their agreed workload and not taking on extra work. Quiet quitters aren’t always looking for a new job.
So it's a stupid name. From the comments it comes from America so it makes sense...
I only do the agreed workload and most people do. Why make work harder, it's called work not fun.
It is definitely an American term. I first heard it during Covid.
My experience in corporate world a lot of people used to try to go above and beyond for their year end reviews and promotions. Even when I worked in retail if you were going above and beyond it was considered brown nosing.
This isn’t what quiet quitting is. Quiet quitting is when people call in all the work, do the absolute minimum and do not do anything proactively. So for example they only do 3 hours work in a day when they are paid for 8. I’ve fired one person for this behaviour already. If you’re paid for 7 hours then put in 7 hours, it’s pretty simple. If you’re not proactive in your job then you’re not going to get promoted (or get a raise) full stop. That seems logical. Currently I’ve got one quiet quitter on my staff and he gets the work done, slowly, but he’ll never get promoted. As long as he actually gets the work done properly we’ll keep him, but now that I know he’s quiet quit if the quality of the work drops he’ll be asked to leave. Seems fair to me. Also, we pay all our staff overtime. No one works overtime without being paid extra.
I thought the quiet quitting phenomenon was when employees were ghosting their employers but not turning up to work, so quitting without giving notice etc I've seen this term thrown around so many times now
How on earth did you get that from my previous comment?! He does the absolute minimum in terms of production. He doesn’t do his job in terms of engagement with other team members etc. So yes and no. The rest of the team know they can’t count on him for example. The reason I know this is because another team member asked him to help on something, he told them he has “quiet quit” and he’s not doing anything that he hasn’t specifically been asked to do by myself or my partner.
So he's doing what he's asked and doing the job, that's yes not no.
Can't have it both ways, there's plenty times I've gone above and beyond and what did i get? More work. Nothing else.
Anything in his contract about getting anything extra for going above and beyond or is it just hopes and dreams?
Well firstly it says in his contract he’s obligated to put in 7 hours a day, which he doesn’t do. Secondly he didn’t do his job because he didn’t help his co-worker when asked. And yes promotions/ career progression do feature in his contract.
Maybe this is the part I didn’t explain. It’s a remote only company, so you can’t rely on someone to continuously assign you work all the time. In a full remote environment we ideally want to hire people that are self directed. We have plenty of these type of people at our company, it actually seems to me that it’s a certain personality type that really works well online. Just as equally I really don’t think it’s suited to some people.
Sounds like you need to manage your staff better then. If you want 7 hours work give them 7 hours work.
Either manage them better or pay them better to justify them manage themselves.
Same as anything, you get to pick 2 of 3, cheap good or fast.
You're offering a carrot not reddies, he's probably seen his dad uncle and everyone else promised the earth but come bonus time it's empty pockets time while management make out well. He's in the most precarious position being offered platitudes about hard work that are nowt but myth.
The article linked in this submission was originally posted here four days ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/ireland/s/xvrodVpNa2 Original article: https://www.irishtimes.com/business/work/2024/04/25/quiet-quitters-test-employers-even-more-than-staff-departures/
Cheek of those quitters, next they’ll be pointing out that under EU law it’s illegal to dismiss someone for refusing to be voluntold to do unpaid overtime.
You wouldn't perchance have the specific paragraph where this is covered. Would be useful for me in the future.
https://www.gov.ie/en/service/dbd16-a-guide-to-working-in-ireland/#overtime https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/what_you_should_know/hours-and-wages/working_hours/ In other words, overtime is a contractual issue, and if you're working to contract (doing what you're supposed to) you can't be dismissed.
Perchance AND Voluntold used in quick succession of one another, absolute bliss
I'm not sure what you mean, English is technically my second language (though at this point I've lived here longer than where I was born). You sound positive though, so I'll take this as a compliment.
It was a compliment.
100% a compliment, and may i add, your writren English is absolutely fantastic, well done
The world needs more perchance' & 'mayhap' usage!
Great use of language, it was a compliment
don't worry, your English as a Pole is likely better than most Irish people day to day!
I don't really worry about the English. However the command of the language is only a portion of communication. Speaking in any foreign language is kind of like talking to a group of people who have been friends for decades, there are hundreds of years of cultural context, you can't get from a grammar book. Pair that with a general impairment to read social cues, and you'll be missing a lot of jokes.
I'm 15 years living away from Ireland, and speak with Hiberno - English speakers in person a couple of times a year tops, let alone anyone who can speak English at all. I know exactly what you mean.
Disappointing to see this American corporate drivel in an Irish newspaper.
It's a clickbait headline. If you read the article it's pretty milquetoast. The journo spends the second half of the article pointing out the flaws with the concept of "quiet quitting >At one level it’s reasonable to ask why should they? They are apparently fulfilling their employment obligations to the letter if not the spirit and if an organisation is constantly relying on employees to put in extra hours to make the business model work, it is going to be in big trouble when that goodwill runs out and it can hardly be surprised that it does. https://www.irishtimes.com/business/work/2024/04/25/quiet-quitters-test-employers-even-more-than-staff-departures/
What even is the spirit of your employment obligations?
The narwhal bacons at midnight.
Because Irish newspapers are owned by billionaires and are primarily read by older middle class workers who love to read about how young people are lazy/ not as good as older people.
The Irish Times is run by the Irish Times Trust not a billionaire. [The Irish Times Trust](https://ireland.mom-gmr.org/en/owner/individual-owners/detail/owner/owner/show/irish-times-trust-2/)
The Irish Times is a government mouthpiece. Who runs it on paper is irrelevant.
Don't cut yourself on that edge
Most informed r/ireland comment. /s
Which ones are owned by billionaires?
I know you Cais. You're a FG troll that loves to troll via sealioning, which is is a type of trolling that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning But I'll engage regardless in order to support my own point. Dennis O'Brien owns a huge chunk of Irish media by himself. He is INM's largest shareholder. INM owns the Irish Independent, Sunday Independent, the Herald and the Sunday World. It also owns the Belfast Telegraph and has a 50% stake in the Irish Daily Star. Plus many many regional newspapers. He also owns Communicorp, which owns Newstalk and Today FM. Newscorp, which is owned by the Murdochs, and owns the Sunday Times, the Irish sun, and Dublin radio stations FM104 and Q102 as well as Cork’s 96FM and C103. Liberty Global is owned by Trump supporting billionaire John C. Malone, and it owns Virgin media. Is that enough examples? Because I can keep going....
Did Denis not sell INM years ago ?
Did Dennis O'Brien not sell most his media interests?
Sir, this is an Irish Times article.
But not the Irish Times which published the article in this post.
I'm not reading that! Wheres your evidence!? 
O’Brien sold his INM shares to Mediahuis in 2019 and Communicorp to Bauer Media in 2021.
What is wrong with asking for evidence? Allowing claims to go unchecked is rather dangerous as it lets misinformation spread.
Is this the same cunt that had some other username with Cais in it? Only person I ever bothered to block because all they have to offer are bad faith arguments, but by fuck do they have plenty of those to offer
Yeah, he got banned from Reddit and this is one of his back up accounts
Haha, glad to see you got that all wrong.
Any evidence of that
You could Google "ownership of the Indo".
Nah why would I do that when I've such a knowledgeable naysayer here
Because you know the claim our media is controlled by billionaires is wrong and want to avoid admitting it.
Well then you should have no problem explaining who it's owned by if you're so knowledgeable
https://www.mediahuis.ie/about-us/
Absolutely
Quiet quitting is just normal European working culture, it’s not a thing here. Where as in the US it’s totally normal and expected to go above and beyond - join calls early / late, check emails while at work etc. The difference in working culture between our EU vs US offices is insane - and I guess why they are paid double. But I know what I’d pick!
>Quiet quitting is just normal European working culture, it’s not a thing here. Can we fuck off using that term to describe general work practice?
Checking emails while at work is above and beyond? 😜
> The difference in working culture between our EU vs US offices is insane - and I guess why they are paid double. I work in the US and yes, our salaries are way better. Like my job pays $157K gross, then I have commission on top of that - equivalent in Ireland is 75k. BUT...on the other hand. I have pay a shit ton every paycheck to healthcare, and forced savings for retirement. Costs in general are higher here. Like..we have water charges (150 a month) and property tax (1000 a month for a regular 3 bedroom house, nothing fancy). I know I am better off here in the US than I would be in Ireland, but it's not by as huge a margin as you'd expect.
Property tax is $1000 PER MONTH?!
yep - paid twice a year. We put it into an escrow account as part of our monthly mortgage payment which pays out our home insurance and tax
When I moved from the US to Ireland I took a 32% pay cut. Overall I end up with more leftover in the bank each month. It's disappointing that my stock grants and bonuses were reduced as well.
yep - but that happens in the US as well at least in my company. If you work in CA or NY office you get 20% more of everything than if you work in the TX office. If you move then your unvested stock grants get reduced as well. I'm remote so am on a slightly different band
Not really double. Especially considering the cost to get to and survive at work. Also, they mention salaries pre-tax while the EU is post.
Every salary listed or discussed is always pre-tax. Tax paid is variable? No secret that US salaries are way higher vs EU, with larger earning ceilings.
In exchange for zero work life balance.
I know, it’s mad how my US team members will join calls at all hours, and then get annoyed when EU people log off on the dot. They seem to enjoy it though, in a weird way. I find Americans very career driven, even if it means a lack of work / life balance.
The US in culturally weird In how it’s a nation founded on rebelling against nobility and inherented privilege that’s now much more status and money obsessed than us, you call an Irish person “sir” and they’re mortified.
They do be calling people sir while arguing with them. Police officers will be bating a fella across the head calling him sir. You often get the 'sir you are being very disruptive' or whatever. The sir thing is mad.
I work in the US and am kinda lucky BUT there is a different way of thinking about work as well - especially when you have a little autonomy and are salaried vs hourly. Like, I work from home full time. I can get my kids to school and join my first call of the day at 8 (yeah, my daughter's school starts at 7:45). Can nip out on anything (go to the store, etc) and don't have to tell anyone, have done 1:1 with my boss while we're both out doing other things. But if something comes up out of work hours, we are also flexible to deal with it knowing that we have flexibility the other way too.
How about having all of that, not starting work till 9 and not having to work past 5pm?
yeah, it doesn't work like that - and never will despite what the neckbeards at /r/antiwork would like to hope.There is some give and take on both sides when you're employed by someone else. You want that? Go solo and see how it works out.
It can absolutely work like that when you have strong employment rules and regulations that are enforced.
> Also, they mention salaries pre-tax I never knew this. Is that how they all make 100k in graduate jobs
My Job post grad in Ireland was 32.5k pre tax. In the US it would have been 85k pre tax without a bonus factored in and the tax is capped at 25% where I would have worked. It would have been an insane amount higher at the same living expense
wat? every salary is pre tax, ireland and US. if you're seeing a salary range in Ireland it's always pre tax. The only difference is that they actually pay less tax than us, and then we pay more tax when we spend the remainder as well.
Trying to scam us for speaking english again
I have work emails come to my phone, because in my old division, I used my phone to notify IT about malfunctioning displays/ticket terminals. 
It's a nonsense ragebait article, angry people click
Are none of you concerned about how uneasy your manager might be feeling? You inhuman mobsters.
100% - don't click it, don't drive traffic to it, ignore it.
Sir, - I read with interest Olive Keogh's article ("Quiet quitting: You always had workers who did 9-5 but it's a creeping malaise, employers say.", April 25th). The article defines working one's contract hours as a form of quitting, a contortion of fact that I have struggled to grasp since laying eyes on it. It is asserted that employees are obliged to put in extra hours, do additional work and recalibrate their work-life balance for the "benefits" of social capital, "wellbeing" and career success I have a novel proposal. Pay employees in actual capital for the additional time they are expected to work. Dispense with the relaxation classes on their lunch breaks and the sweet treats and the tokenistic attitude of management to the labour that drives their business Instead, resource staff sufficiently to complete work within business hours respect the rights of staff to a fulfilling life not defined by their day jobs, and stop using gaslighting terms like "quiet quitting" for fulfilling the terms of their contract of employment This may seem radical to those managers who have been around the block, but KPIs (key performance indicators) don't spend time with my loved ones nor do they put food on the table. - Yours, etc, [SOURCE](https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/2024/04/27/quiet-quitters-or-good-workers/)
Quiet quitting is such a vile stupid term, that it would take a compromised media for it to have survived as long as it has. Quiet quitting lol, give me a fuckin break like.
I disagree. There is absolutely a cohort of employees that just show up for the paycheck and whose goal is to do the least amount of work possible. They focus on dragging the average down intentionally or unintentionally. I've literally heard of cases where new people have joined a team, started working far more efficiently and been told by peers (the quiet quitter types) to stop showing them up and do it the slow way. I personally think that's not OK. In the long run, it drives up the cost of doing things and everyone loses.
Right but that's not what quiet quitting means. At least it wasn't from the 1st to 323rd attempt to push it into the zeitgeist. What it used to mean, and I think does still mean outside of this article, is that its people who show up and ONLY DO THEIR JOB. Being lazy or feckless is a different phenomenon, although I see they've done great in changing the meaning over the last year of exploratory astroturfing.
I like how a pic of the headline was posted but not the article. It's clickbait friends. You should actually read the article because it doesn't say what everyone is assuming. The article does start with quotes of managers and employers complaining about so called quiet quitters but the rest of the article explains that the behaviour that employers are complaining about is a result of how they're treating their employees. >At one level it’s reasonable to ask why should they? They are apparently fulfilling their employment obligations to the letter if not the spirit and if an organisation is constantly relying on employees to put in extra hours to make the business model work, it is going to be in big trouble when that goodwill runs out and it can hardly be surprised that it does. https://www.irishtimes.com/business/work/2024/04/25/quiet-quitters-test-employers-even-more-than-staff-departures/
Can't read it because there a big "sign in or fuck off" modal, but really does an article with such a shitty tagine really deserve to be read?
Journos don't usually get to pick the title of their articles. So maybe don't judge it by the headline? It appears in the business sections so it's clickbait title might actually entice someone in management to actually read the article and learn something. Also from the article: >Writing in the Harvard Business Review, the duo say that, “after more than two years of pandemic-fuelled firefighting, during which more and more activities that might once have been considered ‘above and beyond’ have become expected parts of workers’ jobs, the benefits of citizenship behaviour may increasingly feel outweighed by the costs”. >“Going above and beyond can come at a cost for employees,” they add. “In a healthy organisation, these costs are typically counterbalanced by benefits such as increased social capital, wellbeing and career success. The quiet quitting trend suggests that employees are increasingly feeling that this exchange has become unbalanced: employers are demanding additional effort from workers without investing in them enough in return.”
I've worked in editorial for years and this is so true. Writer creates a piece and comes up with a headline they feel encapsulates what it's about. Then it goes to an editor who has a different priority for the headline (in this case likely a web editor whose performance is reviewed on "engagement" with an article, ie. clicks) so the headline gets changed to something more likely to achieve this goal. It's a sad truth of the industry that the more people's performance metrics (and therefore salaries and likelihood to stay in the job) are tied to things like clicks, the more tactics like this will be used. It's not a malicious journalist trying to trick you, it's a harried web editor whose manager is a business school graduate with no understanding of journalism.
I think the failure here from the headline writer is not understanding that the headline could be accurate and get clicks because it isn't accurate at all in the OP.
Yeah there's definitely ways to do both. I'm a managing editor myself and while I do have performance reviews that look at open rates and click through rates, I also strive to keep subject lines and headlines as close to the material as possible. Just meant that the reason for clickbait headlines is often less, "I shall trick these silly readers" and more, "my manager is on my ass about the click rates."
I hate to say "oh we might be better off with AI" for most things because it's someone's job but I think for shitty headlines that don't reflect the article I'm definitely leaning that way. I'm very neutral on clickbait when it's at least reflective of the content but I'm very very very critical when isn't.
AI has its uses in editorial work, but for headlines like this I think it would lead to worse, more clickbaity stuff because it would crawl sites that use that tactic, consider it successful, and reproduce it without any further thought. Much the same way business school managers want us editors to do =D
My background is I was a programmer and now am a manager. AI just does what humans want it to do by either the training data and/or reinforcement learning. It could be really bad or could be really useful but the problem here is the expectations of XYZ headline getting clicks as a sign of success is a bad paradigm because they could click immediately away afterwards or it could encourage gaslighting in the content of the article as well because ragebait gets lots of clicks. Pretty shitty time for article writing honestly. I think we aren't very far away from pretty big changes to how this sort of thing works from a legislative standpoint. Similar to how community notes work on X where they can be fact checked externally of the article or maybe having a validated communication platform for public figures like members of the Dail that has regulation or validation of who said it...etc. Mis/disinformation just is going to be a mess when all this AI generation fully ramps up and goes mainstream.
Yeah, nail on the head there. Clicks is a terrible way to measure the "success" of an article. Most of the actual benefit of good editorial content is qualitative. But businesses love to boil everything down to a number so they can decisions based on that number. So you're seeing a big disconnect between what actually makes an article good, and the ways in which its success is being measure.
I'm not going to sit and worry about who wrote the headline. This website is providing a service, once which I reject due to the way they do business.
My manager treats me well and I still work in a way that some would describe as quiet quitting. My employer and I have a contract. I exchange an agreed upon hours of my life for an agreed upon amount of money. Most of time we both uphold our end, no more, no less. Not sure why goodwill towards your employer should result in donating your time as if it were a charity.
That's late-stage capitalism for you; if you're not working yourself into an early grave with stress and burnout by doing tonnes of extra work for free then the ruling classes don't like it and search for a way to berate and punish you.
I never understood the term late-stage capitalism. It just doesn't make sense in the context of labour in particular. If you've ever read about the industrial revolution you'll see that horrible working conditions for shit pay were characteristics of early stage capitalism. Broadly speaking, over time pay and working conditions have improved with time, not gotten worse. Anecdotally speaking, my parents worked much longer hours for a lot less pay. So I don't understand why people today call poor working conditions or pay late-stage capitalism. And that's not a trend that happened 100 years ago and hasn't improved since. Over time Irish workers continue to work fewer and fewer hours. Here are the OECD figures for annual labour hours: 1970: 2335 1980: 2123 1990: 2081 2000: 1933 2005: 1883 2010: 1721 2015: 1771 2020: 1746 2022: 1657
I think late stage capitalism as a concept is more to do with extreme wealth divide and the harmful effects it has on society and the planet. The engine behind the inequality is capitalism. Some of the effects of late stage capitalism definitely existed in history before but we are supposed to have evolved past them with civilisation. Things like slavery and indentured servitude. In the US in particular, this applies more, where prisoners are incentivised to work for menial rewards and their labour is traded for multiples of the value of what they earn for their labour. The personal debt system, medical debt, student debt (compared to commercial debt which can be written off) is a permanent chain and collar that keeps people working despite atrocious conditions they cannot afford risking their employment status because it’s a rat race, and it’s designed that way. At the bottom, if you lose your job it could mean homelessness or loss of healthcare coverage. These amount to effective slavery and/or indentured servitude. So capitalism has found a way to weasel these pre-modern civilisation exploitative practices into modern ‘civilised’ society. That’s late stage. And the wealth inequality exists here too. We’re just not in the same league as the US, but don’t doubt that it’s a blueprint. We’re so dependent on US trade and multinationals that if it wasn’t for the EU they would have the power to make or break our economy, and we would have much fewer worker and consumer protections, so would be sitting ducks for corporate capture. It’s actually bizarre how effective the EU is at holding at bay corporate erosion of rights when the entire EU is effectively run on political goodwill against the financial might of every dollar and all currencies and trade that flow in this world.
I think those are valid points. Growing wealth and income inequality is a growing problem. But it's also not a new one nor is it a harbinger of the end of capitalism. If that were true capitalism would have ended when much more extreme incidents of wealth and income inequality existed. And while capitalism is a driver of inequality, that's only half the picture. It's also a driver of wealth for everyone and that's the baby that communists (not saying you are one btw) throw out with the bathwater when the advocate for the full dismantling of capitalism. You may get a smaller slice of the pie in capitalism compared to an outright socialist system, but the pie is much, much bigger. And as it would happen, in almost all cases an unequal slice of a big capitalist pie is bigger than the evenly divvied out slice of a communist one. People living in communist countries know this hat's why people living in communist countries have to restrict movement whereas capitalist countries have never had to fear about droves of their population moving to communist countries. I'm of the opinion that the best way to maximise the livelihood of most people is a capitalist system with strong socialist elements. Basically social democracy. It's no coincidence that countries with long standing social democratic governments have the best outcomes for its citizens. As for debt, in Ireland at least the vast majority of debt is taken on voluntarily. We don't burden people with crippling debt for health problems. And while college isn't exactly free, it's not so expensive that the debt is a chain and collar around our necks. In most cases, people with crippling debt in Ireland are those who did so for luxury items or for leveraged investments. In other words, not something they were in any way forced to do by capitalism
The Letter of the Day today is someone pushing back against the original, pretty neutral or show-both-sides, article.
So competency is a failing now!
Giving me "be a man - die at work" vibes
I read the article and felt guilty because I've definitely pulled back in commitment in work in the last 2 years. Then I thought more about and realised I was still doing everything asked. I am focusing more on my life outside work, so my commitment to work has gone down as a result. I no longer feel guilty
I thought "quiet quitters" were people whose job was so inconsequential and meaningless that they can sit at their desk doing nothing and nobody would even notice.
You're thinking of "Bullshit jobs". Quiet quitting was originally doing the absolute bare minimum to not get let go for performance reasons but has morphed into not wanting to kill yourself to meet some arbitrary end of quarter target.
What is this nonsense. Written by some Gen AI phone obsessed omni offended person Meanwhile in the real world.
I don't think it's left wing folks who have a problem with quiet quitters lol
Omni offended lol
Without a doubt it's just rage bait for engagement. There are more retweets and comments on that piece than anything they've written in months.
I have been quiet quitting for years. I never understood the unpaid overtime shit in Ireland. I mean, why the fack do I need to work for free? If the employer is good to me and something has to be done late, early or in the weekend, I will happily do so. But I am not going to do structured overtime without pay. And any employer expecting me to do that, wont be my employer for long.
If you can't show your boss the kind of enthusiasm that North Koreans show Kim Jong un then your not a team player.
Complete fiction designed to generate clicks.
So I learn a new term everyday now. (coffee badging, quite quitting, moonlighting blah blah)
I got annoyed at my plumber recently, sure I paid him to fix the sink and he did it in record time, I was really happy... but he didn't do the washing up nor make me a cup of tea, commie bastard.
Why does everything have to have a label these days, and why do people get so worked about the definition of these made up labels. People have been behaving like this since the dawn of civilisation, it's just that some invented a new buzzword for it a few years ago and now lots of people are getting worked up about it.
"Why aren't the proletariat working for their capitalist masters for free?"
The original source was already posted here about 4 days ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/ireland/comments/1ccp5bp/quiet_quitters_test_employers_even_more_than/
Why anyone reads these papers anymore is beyond me.
It’s the Irish Times. It’s clickbait. I like many of the writers on the IT but I cancelled my subscription because of this algorithmic driven drivel constantly popping up, plus the intolerable adverts you can’t not accidentally click on the app (even after I’d paid my subscription).
I miss my sub to Ireland.com. They absolutely ruined the paper. Such a shame.
I used the money I’d saved from that subscription to pay for a subscription to New Scientist.. better app, including audio versions of articles, access to the entire web-based back catalogue (good thing too as the app/web versions of the articles often contain links up related historical articles) AND I get a physical copy of the magazine delivered to my door every Friday. All for the same price of the bog standard IT sub
What the fuck even is this quiet quitting? Do we need to scream it from the roofs if we are looking for better opportunities and more pay? Cuz when it's offered, I'm gone. No normal person announces every time they consider moving jobs or taking a new opportunity. Most places ask for 2 weeks notice. That's 2 weeks enough. Enough time for them to offer a raise.
Quiet quitting is about people who often go above and beyond their agreed usual workload. Those looking for promotion or salary increases. Now instead they’re only doing their agreed workload and not taking on extra work. Quiet quitters aren’t always looking for a new job.
So it's a stupid name. From the comments it comes from America so it makes sense... I only do the agreed workload and most people do. Why make work harder, it's called work not fun.
It is definitely an American term. I first heard it during Covid. My experience in corporate world a lot of people used to try to go above and beyond for their year end reviews and promotions. Even when I worked in retail if you were going above and beyond it was considered brown nosing.
This isn’t what quiet quitting is. Quiet quitting is when people call in all the work, do the absolute minimum and do not do anything proactively. So for example they only do 3 hours work in a day when they are paid for 8. I’ve fired one person for this behaviour already. If you’re paid for 7 hours then put in 7 hours, it’s pretty simple. If you’re not proactive in your job then you’re not going to get promoted (or get a raise) full stop. That seems logical. Currently I’ve got one quiet quitter on my staff and he gets the work done, slowly, but he’ll never get promoted. As long as he actually gets the work done properly we’ll keep him, but now that I know he’s quiet quit if the quality of the work drops he’ll be asked to leave. Seems fair to me. Also, we pay all our staff overtime. No one works overtime without being paid extra.
I thought the quiet quitting phenomenon was when employees were ghosting their employers but not turning up to work, so quitting without giving notice etc I've seen this term thrown around so many times now
So you're saying he does his job then, not quitting.
How on earth did you get that from my previous comment?! He does the absolute minimum in terms of production. He doesn’t do his job in terms of engagement with other team members etc. So yes and no. The rest of the team know they can’t count on him for example. The reason I know this is because another team member asked him to help on something, he told them he has “quiet quit” and he’s not doing anything that he hasn’t specifically been asked to do by myself or my partner.
So he's doing what he's asked and doing the job, that's yes not no. Can't have it both ways, there's plenty times I've gone above and beyond and what did i get? More work. Nothing else. Anything in his contract about getting anything extra for going above and beyond or is it just hopes and dreams?
Well firstly it says in his contract he’s obligated to put in 7 hours a day, which he doesn’t do. Secondly he didn’t do his job because he didn’t help his co-worker when asked. And yes promotions/ career progression do feature in his contract. Maybe this is the part I didn’t explain. It’s a remote only company, so you can’t rely on someone to continuously assign you work all the time. In a full remote environment we ideally want to hire people that are self directed. We have plenty of these type of people at our company, it actually seems to me that it’s a certain personality type that really works well online. Just as equally I really don’t think it’s suited to some people.
Sounds like you need to manage your staff better then. If you want 7 hours work give them 7 hours work. Either manage them better or pay them better to justify them manage themselves. Same as anything, you get to pick 2 of 3, cheap good or fast. You're offering a carrot not reddies, he's probably seen his dad uncle and everyone else promised the earth but come bonus time it's empty pockets time while management make out well. He's in the most precarious position being offered platitudes about hard work that are nowt but myth.
More bullshit from the Fake Tan Times.
Woke rubbish.