Lori Falce: Quiet quitting needs a different name

I am annoyed by all the attention being given to the trendy workplace phenomenon of quiet quitting.

It’s the latest in the post-pandemic upside-down world where workers are recognizing their power in a workplace where many industries are struggling to fill jobs.

What annoys me is the wording itself. Quiet quitting suggests an overall strategy of leaving, as though employees were silently disappearing. But it isn’t about failing to call off or just not showing up for a shift. Sure, that is happening because there will always be people who are not reliable at every job, leaving their co-workers to shoulder the added burden.

Those people are — and I can’t stress this enough — awful. If there is a ring of hell reserved for those who make their equally underpaid fellow employees’ lives more difficult by their irresponsibility, I have to imagine it involves spending eternity cleaning out grease traps — and those people deserve every minute of it.

No, the phrase actually doesn’t involve quitting. Or being quiet. It’s about being firm in setting boundaries.

It’s something employers have always been good about. No phones on the sales floor. Wear a shirt that covers your tattoos. Clock in no earlier than this time and no later than that time. Break the rules, and get written up or fired.

All of that makes sense. Employers are paying for a job, and they should be clear about expectations and parameters.

But the shock and dismay some employers — as well as managers and higher-­level workers — are displaying when confronted with the idea of quiet quitting shows they have clearly bought into the idea of boundaries as a one-way street. It shouldn’t be.

Boundaries are not about punishment or slacking. They are about mutual respect, like two neighbors agreeing on the fence that separates their yards. If Jim builds the fence, that doesn’t mean he gets to tell Bob what he can do on his side of it. And if Bob decides to have a barbecue on his side, he’s not being a bad neighbor just because he’s not feeding Jim.

For most, quiet quitting is about abiding by that fence built by the boss. Showing up on time, doing the job required and then going home. It’s about rejecting the idea that your work is your life and accepting the idea of work-life balance.

My biggest problem is that I am defined by my job and find it all but impossible to detach myself from it. I was raised by a mother whose work ethic resembles Stockholm syndrome and regularly works hours for which she isn’t paid. She is in her 70s and will tell you at length that she will never get to retire. She is absolutely one of those people who will die if she does.

Journalism is an industry where it is hard to just clock out and go home. I am lucky to finally work for an organization that doesn’t just support work-life balance but encourages it. However, old habits are hard to break.

This new trend shouldn’t be called quiet quitting because that’s not what it is. It’s entering into an agreement and following its terms. Doing that is good for the employee, but it is also good for the employer, which should be able to better retain staff in an environment of mutual respect.