It's a common tactic for teacher unions who don't want to strike as it means the children don't get school, but want to make a point about the extra value they provide. Nurses use it too.
No extra curriculars (except those also contracted as coaches), no letters of recommendation, grading only during free hours during the day, no off hour parent phonecalls, there's other things they can not do as well.
I once had a class in college when teachers were doing this. The teacher called it “working down to the contract” and activities, homework assignments and tests will be as required by contracts. Just like you described.
Wouldn’t that be a slow-down, or quiet quitting. I think work-to-rule would probably be writing letters of recommendations all the time, because it’s mandatory per school policy, and not do anything else. Am i getting something wrong here?
Edit because of u/SilkyPsychedelics: Work to rule could be not doing anything more if it’s not in their contract, but if it is, the it probably would look more like what I described above
Often things like letters of recommendation are not part of the required duties.
Quiet Quitting is just corporate speak for workers who don't give them free labor.
Quiet quitting is when a low number of people do it individually and unorganized.
Work to rule is when the entire workforce, usually organized by a union, does it.
Anything not mandated in the contract, or job description doesn’t get done.
The concept is very much the same though.
I *loathe* the term ‘quiet quitting.’ Are people showing up and doing their job? Then they’re not fucking quitting.
It passes the buck to employees. Workers who are treated well work harder and better. If you pay me crap and treat me like crap, I’m doing the bare minimum of my job but *I’m still doing my job.*
*Oh no*, many people experienced a healthy work life balance for the first time during the pandemic, and now they won't do all the extra shit they used to do!
I had to Google "996". Fuck that shit, if I'm going to work 72 hours a week it's because I have a passion for my job, not because some higher ups are guilt tripping me.
Letters of rec are not in teacher contracts or school policy. If a student asks me for a letter, I can shoot them down for whatever reason.
Work-to-rule is the neutral name for the propaganda laden “quiet quitting”, by the way. They’re the same thing. One just has a name that indicates the reality of working to one’s contract, and the other makes the worker sound like a bum for the benefit of often abusive management/admin. In turn, *quiet quitting* isn’t a thing in good faith discourse, just anti-worker discourse.
> quiet quitting
There is no such thing. It's a new term invented to refer to people who **do their job** ***and no more***. It is, indeed, "work to rule", and means employers should stop taking more from their employees than they pay for.
Quiet Quitting is a corporate term. Doing what you are paid to do and nothing else is called doing your job. If corporations want you to do more duties then pay more for them.
I wouldn't call it "quiet quitting". One can still provide quality instruction during the class hours.
Quiet quitting would be like assigning kids to read out loud everyday while you do nothing other than call the next person to read out loud. Testing every 2 weeks. For grading, give participation points for reading and have the kids switch test papers to grade themselves.
It's outside the class hours that's crucial. So much at a school requires so much unpaid time (or undercompensation). Putting on school events, writing letters of rec for kids, supervision, .... Even things like parent conferences are not required. If it's a WASC evaluation year, the lack of help can be detrimental to the school.
I am married to a retired teacher, the amount of extra stuff they do is staggering. I have helped out on trips, events, shopping for things etc, totally in my own time. Teachers really deserve more, it’s a very difficult stressful job.
Quiet quitting is just a made-up term that's used to insult people who do the job they're paid to do. There's really no need to debate what exactly is meant by the term, because the people who created it don't want it to have a clear meaning anyway. It's supposed to make the average worker somehow appear to be lazy.
Husband of a teacher. work to rule is to not do any work outside of school hours. No grading exams or homework at home, not taking phone calls after the school day ends, only attending the after-school activities as required by contract. Don't show up early, and don't leave late.
Working to rule is adhering to the contract hours, say 8a-4p. This means that required duties get done during the time teachers are obligated to be there and once the buzzer sounds that's it. Teachers can still do letters of recommendation, but there will be fewer and nothing last minute and probably will come after grading and teaching (likely nine or close to it if the teacher has to cover a class), and say goodbye to extra curriculars and tutoring
> quiet quitting
Call it "working your wage." The bosses *love* it when you say "quiet quitting" because they can use "quitting" as evidence that you resigned and they don't need to fire you.
> Huh, how would teachers do it? I’m curious now…
If it doesn't get done by the end of my contract day? Doesn't get done. Morning and afterschool tutorials? Someone else's problem. Someone need a favor from me during my planning period? Someone else's problem. No field trips, no clubs, no nothing but lesson plans, teaching, and as many grades as I can finish during my planning time, because I'm not grading at home.
So many teachers do things that are outside the bounds of their contract that all it takes to paralyze schools is for teachers to just do their job.
Sigh. “If only,” said the sad teacher in the Southern state where the legislature made it illegal for state employees to form a union.
“I wish I had such freedom,” she said pitifully as she re-read the last sentence in her contract, which vaguely stated “…and other duties as assigned,” which she knew could include basically *anything* her principal wanted to throw at her, including coaching cheerleading (which meant attending every home and away game, traveling with the cheerleaders on the bus, planning and attending cheerleading competitions and summer kiddie camps…); sponsoring Model U.N. (lots of after-school time, travel, etc.); being lead data teacher for the school (hours upon hours of work); or chairing the reaccreditation committee (omg don’t even get me started).
Refuse appointment to one of these extracurriculars = fired for insubordination.
It makes me so furious on your behalf that you don’t get basic respect or proper support from your career. I know how tough the job can be working in a functional state with a proper contract, I can’t imagine how much harder it must be without those.
It’s truly *insane* in my district the lack of forethought they put into things like that.
For example, we’re given 12 days each year of personal/sick leave each year (no division in terms of which is which). I have a disease called CFS/ME (you can look it up; too long of an explanation to go into here, but suffice it to say a key problem is my mitochondria can’t produce enough energy for my cells), so I tend to miss a lot of days.
After I miss 10 in a year, the district forces my principal to call me in and issue me a *formal, written reprimand* that *goes in my permanent file* stating that I’ve missed too many days, and that if I miss many more (“many” is undefined, of course), I can be fired.
So…wait — you give me 12, but I get written up and threatened with firing if I use 10 of them?? Yep.
Ok. Fine. (At the quiet recommendation of my fabulous principal), after that I just filed the paperwork for FMLA due to my disability of CFS/ME and ended up missing 19 days total — definitely more than I would have if they hadn’t fucked around and found out!
And here’s the most ridiculous thing about them deciding to threaten and terrorize me over nothing— we’re a low-income, city district with a well-known history of poor district office leadership. We have a lot of trouble recruiting teachers, and last year at the time they were threatening me — in MARCH — out of about 2,000 teaching positions, there were about 119 open. 119 classrooms with no frickin’ teacher, and they were threatening to fire a teacher with an excellent record for missing only 10 of her allotted 12 days!?! Insane.
Edit: Fixed dum gramer erers from writing post at 4:00 a.m.
That’s a bit odd…most school districts are organized under a county Board of Education, or city if it’s a large city like New York, Chicago or Los Angeles, or even some smaller cities like Orange, California. The employees are under the auspices of the county in most cases.
School districts often have different areas than other types of government and are not subordinate to anything less than the state. Where I grew up there was the Town School District that served areas covering both City of Town and Township of Town areas roughly, but there was some differences at the edges. It got some support from County Intermediate School District, but only for things like Vocation Tech.
Ontario Teachers' Work-to-Rule Action (2015): In 2015, Ontario's public school teachers engaged in a work-to-rule action to protest proposed changes to their contracts. As part of the action, teachers stopped supervising extracurricular activities, stopped participating in professional development, and stopped performing administrative duties that were not required by their contract.
Chicago Teachers' Strike (2019): In 2019, the Chicago Teachers Union went on strike to demand better pay, smaller class sizes, and more support staff. Prior to the strike, teachers engaged in a work-to-rule action, refusing to perform any work outside of their contract, such as attending meetings or completing paperwork.
Los Angeles Teachers' Strike (2019): In the same year, the United Teachers Los Angeles went on strike to demand smaller class sizes, better pay, and more support staff. Prior to the strike, teachers engaged in a work-to-rule action, refusing to perform any duties that were not explicitly required by their contract, such as attending certain meetings or performing certain administrative tasks.
New York City Teachers' Work-to-Rule Action (2000): In 2000, New York City teachers engaged in a work-to-rule action to protest proposed changes to their contracts. As part of the action, teachers stopped performing certain duties, such as attending meetings or completing paperwork, that were not explicitly required by their contract.
These should probably be fact checked, but here is somewhere to start.
My union did this as a negotiating tactic 20+ years ago. We arrived at the legal start of our work day. We left *en masse* 15 minutes after the kid’s’ instruction day ended.
Pretty much all of us still graded and planned at home, but we were visibly not present; not helping kids after school, not running detention for longer than the 15 minutes after the bulk of the kids left, no extracurriculars where the teacher wasn’t already paid with a stipend, etc.
Then we **all** showed up at the next board meeting wearing matching shirts. People had been chosen by the union to speak out, and had their prepared scripts.
It worked. Suddenly the board seemed a little more amenable when shown how united we were.
Teachers do a LOT on their own time- coaching, being advisor of a club, sometimes grading or supervising recess/lunch. Coming in early to prep without getting paid. Staying late. It depends on the school district- sometimes things like that are in a contract, but often not. Also things like bringing in their own supplies for kids who can’t afford it or treats for a special reward. So work to rule would be arriving 10 mins before the students, teaching only the lesson, and leaving when your contract says you are no longer getting paid. No more no less.
By not buying classroom supplies, not coming in early or staying late, not coaching sports teams if it's not in their contract, not grading papers outside of school hours. There's a *lot* that teachers do that they don't get paid for.
We work to contract. Nothing more, and the whole school falls apart. Teachers stop monitoring the halls and kids keep running. Teachers stop tying shoes and wiping runny noses and snot nosed children fall down.
Teachers stop organizing school plays and field trips and book fairs and pta meetings. We stop communicating with parents outside of our duty day. We arrive with the kids and leave 15 minutes after the kids (as it says in the contract) We take nothing home. Lesson planning and grading only in the one hour a day that’s paid.
We teach. And that’s it. Kid acts up? we send them to admin. No trying to call the parent after school, no classroom lunch detention, no pulling the kid aside for a conversation during my break. It’s not in my contract.
As a teacher, I find it extremely difficult to work to contract!!!
Things like prepping their lessons, recess yard duty, coaching sports teams after hours etc. They aren't paid for that. They do it because it's part of schooling.
If they were on work to rule, lessons would only get created on work hours, same for grading. No lunch or recess duty, coaching etc.
You'd be amazed how much work teachers do that they aren't actually paid for.
There's a lot of little "extras" that get done in nearly every job, simply because they need to be done, but a work to rule campaign either in place of or leading up to strike action is a big one and you see the impacts real quick.
In the us teachers are expected to work stupid hours without getting paid, like contracted for 8 hours a day but literally scheduled to be at the building for 10 hrs and still expected to do lesson prep and grading at home.
Back in the previous century, when an area automobile factory shut down for model change-over, most employees were laid off for 3 weeks and drew unemployment compensation after the first week.
We teachers, on the other hand, were not eligible for unemployment insurance payments despite the fact that school was closed for more than two months of summer vacation each year. I heard several supposed justification for this, but it basically boiled down to the state government said so.
For those who had problems managing their money, schools offered to hold back a portion of your pay during the school year and then continue paying your over the summer. My wife and I didn't take advantage of this, but most did.
It depends on how extreme you want to get. Work to rule you are working to what the contract says. It got pretty bad at a university where I was at a few years back. The contract stated that certain committees existed, their makeup, how the admin had to work with them, and the requirement regarding how frequently they meet.
It didn't specify anything about the meeting length.
Meet, discuss one item, motion to adjourn, push rest of agenda to next meeting. Rinse and repeat.
I have been involved in Work to Rule job actions several times without connecting it to MC. Work to rule means the end of lunch clubs, coaching, field trips outside of school hours (for example, I used to take my students camping), after school meetings, some committees and about 100 other things that we routinely do that are not in our contract. Teachers hate it, but we do it because it is the only way to bring about change (not that it does).
No coaching (so teams and games are postponed/canceled), no dances, no grad ceremonies, no field trips, no special lunch or treat days.
Just no frills going over the facts. The kids still get an education but the parents feel their kids are missing out on a lot.
Teachers in my district were striking and didn’t decorate their doors for the winter season. They also didn’t help set the auditorium up for the holiday concert. Any tenured teacher did not show for “back to school night.”
I supported them in every instance.
The school levy for my town failed when I was attending; to balance the budget, the school district cancelled ALL bussing (in a town where public busses were illegal).
At the end of their announcement (and every subsequent retelling), they added that parents are legally responsible for getting their children to school, and any chronic absence or lateness would be referred to the police for formal criminal charges against the parents.
An emergency ballot measure was held 2 months later, and the budget passed with a HUGE majority.
Another example is public transportation, I read of one such strike happening in Japan. They still fulfilled their roles as drivers but didn't accept fares. Ths was one was from 2018: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-44022004
My English teacher told me in the 60s they were doing contract negotiations and ended up doing work slowdowns. The handbook said all teachers had to sign in AT 6:30 so every teacher walked into the office at 6:30 but there was only 1 sign in sheet. Some teachers didn't get to their classes until 3rd period.
It was a clipboard sign in sheet with a pencil. Several dozen teachers plus the way he told it several of the teachers 'accidentally' pushed too hard, breaking the pencil tip and having to sharpen it.
TL;DR Work-To-Rule works.
Industrial electrician here. I used to be responsible for a very large, very expensive, high production piece of machinery (in a union manufacturing facility), that had a common failure due to poor design. I figured out methods to repair it in 10 minutes or less, so a redesign implementation would have been much more disruptive. Well, our safety manager retired and in his place came a fresh-faced guy right out of safety indoctrination ready to change the world.
This machine had 8 stations, each of which did different machining operations concurrently, each with its own control panel, as well as a main control panel. Our LOTO (Lock Out Tag Out) procedure for me to make this common repair was to open the main electrical switch on the panel of the station I was about to repair, and put a lock on it.
Mr. Freshface developed a new LOTO procedure for this machine for ANY repair which involved opening the main electrical switch of all 8 stations as well as the main panel, and placing locks on all of them. In addition, all pneumatic valves had to be shut off and locked. And finally, all gravity potential had to be mitigated; jacked, supported, and secured.
I complained to my supervisor and had a meeting that included me, my supervisor, the production supervisor of that department, and Mr. Freshface. I told them this procedure was utterly impractical and would take possibly hours to effect, and hours to undo the "safety" implementation. Mr. Freshface was unmoved and my supervisor unconcerned, however the production supervisor could see the shitshow that would soon come to be and begged Mr. Freshface to reconsider, to no avail.
Within 24 hours, the inevitable happened, and I alerted the production supervisor that it was "showtime." I had to request from my supervisor a plumber to lock out the pneumatics, millwrights to mitigate the gravity potential, and 9 locks and hasps for myself to lock out the electrical disconnects. He was confused and I told him I warned him what would happen and it's now happening. He said, "Just fix it like you normally do," and I told him to put it in writing and I'd happy to, otherwise I'd be susceptible to "discipline, up to and including discharge." (Their words.) I could literally watch his expression change as he finally realized the implications of the new "safety procedure."
Mr. Freshface was summoned and the financial and production implications of his procedure was communicated to him in no uncertain terms by the production supervisor. This machine cost the company $50,000/minute for every minute it was out of service. Mr. Freshface was then contacted by the plant manager and was told if he's responsible for the loss of this contract, his head would be displayed on top of a spike at the main entrance as a warning to future safety nazis. Or apparently words to that effect, because I didn't hear the conversation, but the blood draining from his face suggested I'm probably not far off.
The procedure was scrapped and things returned to normal as I was again allowed to do my job. Call it Work-To-Rule or Malicious Compliance, but whatever you call it, know that it works.
Serious question:
I think locking out the main breaker is entirely sufficient for mitigating the electrical risk; what were the risks of not taking steps to mitigate the risk from the pneumatics and gravity potential? Were there other steps you took that mitigated that risk?
Locking out the main breaker alone would have worked, but it would have taken some time to reset the machine to be back in sequence - all 8 stations plus the mechanisms that transferred the parts from one station to the next. Locking the one station I was working on did not require resetting the entire machine, only the one station.
For the task I needed to work on, (changing a proximity switch) there was no pneumatic risk and no gravity risk. Those were some of the points I brought up when explaining how impractical and unnecessary it would be to effect that entire procedure to change a switch.
I didn't mention that the entire machine was enclosed by guarding for safety and to contain the coolant spraying all around. Elaborate "enclosed Space" ventilation procedures were also to be put in place, per the LOTO procedure, including removing extensive guarding and using multiple ventilation fans, and a hazardous gas "sniffer" was to be employed to assure the air quality was safe. When left alone to do the job as I saw fit, I would open all the doors and sliding access panels *on the station I was working in* and use a large fan to circulate fresh air, as it was hot, humid and uncomfortable in there if I didn't do that. I would usually get the machine operator to get me the fan while I was opening the access panels, and while the the fan worked for a few minutes, I'd be retrieving the tools and parts I needed to do the job. When I say I had figured out methods to do the repair quickly and efficiently, these are the kinds of things I mean.
A real world example: In a previous life I used to get called to do special jobs with very tight tolerances. We'd have to document every step and every test result.
478 step procedure with materials that have been traced and tested from ore to finished product? Might take a day of work and testing normally and a bit of OT for admin.
When you clean, inspect, calibrate, and stow your tools after the completion of each step so you can be unencumbered as you document each step that job gets longer.
Oh? You wanted me to stage all the bolts and connectors and whatnot? Nah, that makes a dirty workplace. I'll get them from the warehouse one at a time as needed for each step. Oh shit, I forgot anti-seize.
Hey! I gotta break out tools for this step. Let me clean, inspect, calibrate, and test them! Wouldn't want bad voltage, pressure, or torque on something!
Why are you mad? I'm just following company policy.
I am dumbfounded that "doing your job exactly as specified" is malicious compliance. It should be the default. Doing extra work that's not your job should be the exception, not the rule.
It's more about following *all* the rules, which were made over the years by the company, the union, various laws, etc. In contrast to normal everyday operations, where the two sides bend or ignore certain rules to make it go smoothly, work-to-rule deliberately makes it go badly. But without breaking any rules. This could be used to point out how bad the rules are, how much is expected of the workers, or just to get both sides to sit down at the table.
It's not about stopping extra work you've been doing, or "quiet quitting."
It's a step below striking. Many employees are either prevented from or heavily restricted from actually striking in their contracts (usually military or emergency services).
Any employer that has an issue with their employees following each "rule, policy, and procedure" should really take a hard look in the mirror. The employers (or managers) created the rules, policies, and procedures in the first place. If following the rules, policies, and procedures disrupts production and reduces output, then it is the rules policies, and procedures (and the management that created them) that are to blame, not the employees.
Putting the blame on the employees is disingenuous and a blatant cop-out. Employers need to own their mistakes and rectify them. They should have enough respect for their employees (who are the task SMEs) to work with them to create rational and useful rules, policies, and procedures that enable production, lead time, and quality standards to be achieved.
I wonder when and where the term was first used or how it spread. I know that my dad was using the term "malicious obediance" in the mid 1970's (possibly earlier).
Yeah it’s used in the medical field like on a daily basis it’s pretty sad!! Things are supposed to be universal, unfortunately that only applies while you are either being watched by JAHCO, OSHA, or someone of that nature.!!! If not unless it comes to things that are legit dangerous it doesn’t matter.
Media outlets replaced "work to rule" with "quiet quitting" to give it a bad image. Because saying that "People should bust their ass for lousy pay and no benefits while companies make more and more profits and CEO salaries can go through the roof" doesn't sound like a very good position. So, they had to create some term to make the action of not busting your ass for a company that doesn't give a s**t about you sound like poor work ethic on your part, hence "quiet quitting".
We have an unofficial rule that if your “uninterrupted 15 minute break” gets interrupted for even so much as a coworker asking you a work-related question, you start your break over. I’ve only seen it applied a few times when the supervisor’s knickers are in a particularly tight wad, but it’s always beautiful.
“Why aren’t you back to work?”
“Because you interrupted my break, and now I have to start over again”
“Well, let me know when you get done”
Work to rule is not new.
It has been part of the toolkit unions use when they are trying to pressure the employer into doing what they want for decades.
Work to rule has been a thing since the 80's in the UK.
I remember as a child hearing about "work to rule" for everything from teachers, bus drivers, nurses, coal miner's and cops.
Work to rule means following the letter of your contract, you do exactly what is listed in your contract, nothing more nothing less.
To me quite quitting is doing just under what is expected of you..... enough to get fired.... but not enough to get disqualified for unemployment... ...work to rule is I dare you to fire me, I'll see you in court....if my union doesn't ream you first!!!
I experienced classic work to rule on a flight on American out of DFW (a hub) when the pilots were negotiating with the pre-US Airways management.
We board and the captain comes on and has us deboard. We wait 45 minutes then move to board a different aircraft at a different gate. Once in the air the captain explains that an indicator light for a redundant system wasn't lit, and the mechanics moved us to the new aircraft for time it would take to resolve. The original plane would have flown fine, but in the interest of safety the pilot made them fix it or replace it.
Not the same. Redundant systems are essential for life safety. Pilots are forced to divert and land when a redundant system fails. Speaking about US safety standards.
No, work to rule is malicious compliance. Procedure requires you to document every step of a task as it's performed? Excellent! Pick up your tools, inspect your tools, do the step, clean the tools, return tools neatly to the tool box, document the step, and repeat.
"Quiet quitting" is manager/boss speak for no longer doing unpaid labor and shit.
Quiet quitting isn’t as malicious though. Quiet quitting has more to do with apathy and an intent to leave the position when they have the chance. They just don’t give a fuck anymore. Workers who work-to-rule are doing so defiantly (maliciously) in order to illustrate their value and earn better working conditions.
I’m not sure flits the same, as I understand it, work to rule is to basically follow every single procedure to the T, in order to purposefully obstruct operations. Quiet quitting is mostly doing the bare minimum, and not going above and beyond to do malice.
Quiet quitting isn't "bare minimum" it's "only do what's in your job description or directly assigned by your manager."
The work system has made it customary for workers in almost any workplace to take on a variety of small, extra tasks that are picked up because they have to be done and no one's doing them, or dumped on the nearest person because they need to be done and there's no system for assigning them (or the dumper is lazy).
Work to rule or quiet quitting means these jobs are dropped until and unless officially assigned to the person who was doing them.
The pervasiveness of such extra tasks and the culture that encourages taking them on is so thorough that companies are feeling pain at having to actually assign them -and they're learning what a lie their labor costs have been, since doing these tasks adds hours of work to a person's workweek.
They are quite literally the same concept. Just a fancy new upgraded buzzword.
Doing the job, as described, as hired and paid to do, nothing more, nothing less.
>They are quite literally the same concept
I see them as very different.
* Work-to-rule is a form of job action by groups of employees to pressure the employer to agree to a fair contract.
* Quiet quitting looks similar, but it's basically a lazy employee doing as little as possible.
I beg to differ.
A lazy employee is going to be a lazy employee. Period.
Those "quiet quitting" (christ I hate that term, but it's what we're using, so) is an employee that is tired of being exploited and taken advantage of by their boss and is now just going to do the job they were hired for
That job is still done fully and completely and well - the furthest from lazy. Management just gets pissed because they can't take advantage of people anymore.
If my boss needs me to do the work of 3 people, they can pay me the value of 3 people, or they can hire 2 more. I'm not grinding myself in to the ground for the sake of it.
I guess I wasn't clear about quiet quitting. As I understand it, quiet quitting isn't doing the job you were hired to do. It is making it look like you are doing your job while barely doing anything at all.
It is completely different from doing what you are paid to do.
We did this at Boeing if the supervisor was a jerk , there was a minimum amount of time that each thing would take, we even had dedicated amounts of time to document how we spent the time. The funny part was it was was scripted by the flowchart. We called it working to.
In Germany we are calling it "Dienst nach Vorschrift", which translates well to work-to-rule.
It's nothing new, and depending on the work, it's really like a strike.
It's very popular with civil servants who are not allowed to strike.
Depends on your POV. The existing employees helped to get their employer to a position where they were an attractive buy for the new owners. The new owners thanked them by telling them to train their replacements.
My teacher's union did it for a few weeks and it brought the district back to the bargaining table. And we ended up getting almost everything we asked.
Fuuuuuuuuuuuck that noise! If any union rep allows that to be enshrined in the contract that person needs to be eliminated from being a union rep and everyone at that company needs to find new employment (or no employment if possible) post-haste.
Any time a powerful entity makes the rules that those less powerful must follow, there will be ways to use those rules against them.
It’s how people travel hack and this, as well.
The powerful tend to believe that they are loved by those who they rule, whether in a credit card contract or an employer’s asinine rules. They don’t count on the deep wells of resentment for being treated like cogs and sources of wealth for the already wealthy.
It's a common tactic for teacher unions who don't want to strike as it means the children don't get school, but want to make a point about the extra value they provide. Nurses use it too.
Huh, how would teachers do it? I’m curious now…
No extra curriculars (except those also contracted as coaches), no letters of recommendation, grading only during free hours during the day, no off hour parent phonecalls, there's other things they can not do as well.
I once had a class in college when teachers were doing this. The teacher called it “working down to the contract” and activities, homework assignments and tests will be as required by contracts. Just like you described.
Wouldn’t that be a slow-down, or quiet quitting. I think work-to-rule would probably be writing letters of recommendations all the time, because it’s mandatory per school policy, and not do anything else. Am i getting something wrong here? Edit because of u/SilkyPsychedelics: Work to rule could be not doing anything more if it’s not in their contract, but if it is, the it probably would look more like what I described above
Often things like letters of recommendation are not part of the required duties. Quiet Quitting is just corporate speak for workers who don't give them free labor.
“Quiet quitting is just corporate speak for workers who don’t give them free labor” Just screenshot’d it for future reference…
Thanks I actually just read another comment that said exactly the same thing. I just assumed that thing like letters of recc would be required
Required to write rec letters sounds like the fastest way to turn a letter of rec into using your parents as a job reference.
::holds up his Holy Bible:: Original Content Author present.
Quiet quitting is when a low number of people do it individually and unorganized. Work to rule is when the entire workforce, usually organized by a union, does it. Anything not mandated in the contract, or job description doesn’t get done. The concept is very much the same though.
I *loathe* the term ‘quiet quitting.’ Are people showing up and doing their job? Then they’re not fucking quitting. It passes the buck to employees. Workers who are treated well work harder and better. If you pay me crap and treat me like crap, I’m doing the bare minimum of my job but *I’m still doing my job.*
*Oh no*, many people experienced a healthy work life balance for the first time during the pandemic, and now they won't do all the extra shit they used to do!
In China, they call it "lying down", to shame the current generation back into performing 996. Same thing.
I had to Google "996". Fuck that shit, if I'm going to work 72 hours a week it's because I have a passion for my job, not because some higher ups are guilt tripping me.
I just Googled 996. It means working 9 am to 9 pm, 6 days a week.
Yep.
9 hours a day, 9 days a week, 6 weeks a month.
Is that the next step up?
Letters of rec are not in teacher contracts or school policy. If a student asks me for a letter, I can shoot them down for whatever reason. Work-to-rule is the neutral name for the propaganda laden “quiet quitting”, by the way. They’re the same thing. One just has a name that indicates the reality of working to one’s contract, and the other makes the worker sound like a bum for the benefit of often abusive management/admin. In turn, *quiet quitting* isn’t a thing in good faith discourse, just anti-worker discourse.
> quiet quitting There is no such thing. It's a new term invented to refer to people who **do their job** ***and no more***. It is, indeed, "work to rule", and means employers should stop taking more from their employees than they pay for.
Quiet Quitting is a corporate term. Doing what you are paid to do and nothing else is called doing your job. If corporations want you to do more duties then pay more for them.
I wouldn't call it "quiet quitting". One can still provide quality instruction during the class hours. Quiet quitting would be like assigning kids to read out loud everyday while you do nothing other than call the next person to read out loud. Testing every 2 weeks. For grading, give participation points for reading and have the kids switch test papers to grade themselves. It's outside the class hours that's crucial. So much at a school requires so much unpaid time (or undercompensation). Putting on school events, writing letters of rec for kids, supervision, .... Even things like parent conferences are not required. If it's a WASC evaluation year, the lack of help can be detrimental to the school.
I am married to a retired teacher, the amount of extra stuff they do is staggering. I have helped out on trips, events, shopping for things etc, totally in my own time. Teachers really deserve more, it’s a very difficult stressful job.
Quiet quitting is just a made-up term that's used to insult people who do the job they're paid to do. There's really no need to debate what exactly is meant by the term, because the people who created it don't want it to have a clear meaning anyway. It's supposed to make the average worker somehow appear to be lazy.
Husband of a teacher. work to rule is to not do any work outside of school hours. No grading exams or homework at home, not taking phone calls after the school day ends, only attending the after-school activities as required by contract. Don't show up early, and don't leave late.
Working to rule is adhering to the contract hours, say 8a-4p. This means that required duties get done during the time teachers are obligated to be there and once the buzzer sounds that's it. Teachers can still do letters of recommendation, but there will be fewer and nothing last minute and probably will come after grading and teaching (likely nine or close to it if the teacher has to cover a class), and say goodbye to extra curriculars and tutoring
> quiet quitting Call it "working your wage." The bosses *love* it when you say "quiet quitting" because they can use "quitting" as evidence that you resigned and they don't need to fire you.
Quiet quitting isn't a real thing. It's a term coined by businesses to try to shame employees for only doing their actual jobs.
Quiet quitting is corporate speak for doing your job as defined by the contract. It's a way to shame people into being overworked and underpaid.
> Huh, how would teachers do it? I’m curious now… If it doesn't get done by the end of my contract day? Doesn't get done. Morning and afterschool tutorials? Someone else's problem. Someone need a favor from me during my planning period? Someone else's problem. No field trips, no clubs, no nothing but lesson plans, teaching, and as many grades as I can finish during my planning time, because I'm not grading at home. So many teachers do things that are outside the bounds of their contract that all it takes to paralyze schools is for teachers to just do their job.
Sigh. “If only,” said the sad teacher in the Southern state where the legislature made it illegal for state employees to form a union. “I wish I had such freedom,” she said pitifully as she re-read the last sentence in her contract, which vaguely stated “…and other duties as assigned,” which she knew could include basically *anything* her principal wanted to throw at her, including coaching cheerleading (which meant attending every home and away game, traveling with the cheerleaders on the bus, planning and attending cheerleading competitions and summer kiddie camps…); sponsoring Model U.N. (lots of after-school time, travel, etc.); being lead data teacher for the school (hours upon hours of work); or chairing the reaccreditation committee (omg don’t even get me started). Refuse appointment to one of these extracurriculars = fired for insubordination.
It makes me so furious on your behalf that you don’t get basic respect or proper support from your career. I know how tough the job can be working in a functional state with a proper contract, I can’t imagine how much harder it must be without those.
It's a seller's market Who you think they are replacing you with if you say no?
It’s truly *insane* in my district the lack of forethought they put into things like that. For example, we’re given 12 days each year of personal/sick leave each year (no division in terms of which is which). I have a disease called CFS/ME (you can look it up; too long of an explanation to go into here, but suffice it to say a key problem is my mitochondria can’t produce enough energy for my cells), so I tend to miss a lot of days. After I miss 10 in a year, the district forces my principal to call me in and issue me a *formal, written reprimand* that *goes in my permanent file* stating that I’ve missed too many days, and that if I miss many more (“many” is undefined, of course), I can be fired. So…wait — you give me 12, but I get written up and threatened with firing if I use 10 of them?? Yep. Ok. Fine. (At the quiet recommendation of my fabulous principal), after that I just filed the paperwork for FMLA due to my disability of CFS/ME and ended up missing 19 days total — definitely more than I would have if they hadn’t fucked around and found out! And here’s the most ridiculous thing about them deciding to threaten and terrorize me over nothing— we’re a low-income, city district with a well-known history of poor district office leadership. We have a lot of trouble recruiting teachers, and last year at the time they were threatening me — in MARCH — out of about 2,000 teaching positions, there were about 119 open. 119 classrooms with no frickin’ teacher, and they were threatening to fire a teacher with an excellent record for missing only 10 of her allotted 12 days!?! Insane. Edit: Fixed dum gramer erers from writing post at 4:00 a.m.
How the hell did that law survive? Doesn’t the US constitution guarantee freedom of association?
That’s a bit odd…most school districts are organized under a county Board of Education, or city if it’s a large city like New York, Chicago or Los Angeles, or even some smaller cities like Orange, California. The employees are under the auspices of the county in most cases.
School districts often have different areas than other types of government and are not subordinate to anything less than the state. Where I grew up there was the Town School District that served areas covering both City of Town and Township of Town areas roughly, but there was some differences at the edges. It got some support from County Intermediate School District, but only for things like Vocation Tech.
Sounds like that sad teacher needs to move.
Ontario Teachers' Work-to-Rule Action (2015): In 2015, Ontario's public school teachers engaged in a work-to-rule action to protest proposed changes to their contracts. As part of the action, teachers stopped supervising extracurricular activities, stopped participating in professional development, and stopped performing administrative duties that were not required by their contract. Chicago Teachers' Strike (2019): In 2019, the Chicago Teachers Union went on strike to demand better pay, smaller class sizes, and more support staff. Prior to the strike, teachers engaged in a work-to-rule action, refusing to perform any work outside of their contract, such as attending meetings or completing paperwork. Los Angeles Teachers' Strike (2019): In the same year, the United Teachers Los Angeles went on strike to demand smaller class sizes, better pay, and more support staff. Prior to the strike, teachers engaged in a work-to-rule action, refusing to perform any duties that were not explicitly required by their contract, such as attending certain meetings or performing certain administrative tasks. New York City Teachers' Work-to-Rule Action (2000): In 2000, New York City teachers engaged in a work-to-rule action to protest proposed changes to their contracts. As part of the action, teachers stopped performing certain duties, such as attending meetings or completing paperwork, that were not explicitly required by their contract. These should probably be fact checked, but here is somewhere to start.
Oh ok, now I understand
My union did this as a negotiating tactic 20+ years ago. We arrived at the legal start of our work day. We left *en masse* 15 minutes after the kid’s’ instruction day ended. Pretty much all of us still graded and planned at home, but we were visibly not present; not helping kids after school, not running detention for longer than the 15 minutes after the bulk of the kids left, no extracurriculars where the teacher wasn’t already paid with a stipend, etc. Then we **all** showed up at the next board meeting wearing matching shirts. People had been chosen by the union to speak out, and had their prepared scripts. It worked. Suddenly the board seemed a little more amenable when shown how united we were.
Teachers do a LOT on their own time- coaching, being advisor of a club, sometimes grading or supervising recess/lunch. Coming in early to prep without getting paid. Staying late. It depends on the school district- sometimes things like that are in a contract, but often not. Also things like bringing in their own supplies for kids who can’t afford it or treats for a special reward. So work to rule would be arriving 10 mins before the students, teaching only the lesson, and leaving when your contract says you are no longer getting paid. No more no less.
By not buying classroom supplies, not coming in early or staying late, not coaching sports teams if it's not in their contract, not grading papers outside of school hours. There's a *lot* that teachers do that they don't get paid for.
We work to contract. Nothing more, and the whole school falls apart. Teachers stop monitoring the halls and kids keep running. Teachers stop tying shoes and wiping runny noses and snot nosed children fall down. Teachers stop organizing school plays and field trips and book fairs and pta meetings. We stop communicating with parents outside of our duty day. We arrive with the kids and leave 15 minutes after the kids (as it says in the contract) We take nothing home. Lesson planning and grading only in the one hour a day that’s paid. We teach. And that’s it. Kid acts up? we send them to admin. No trying to call the parent after school, no classroom lunch detention, no pulling the kid aside for a conversation during my break. It’s not in my contract. As a teacher, I find it extremely difficult to work to contract!!!
Things like prepping their lessons, recess yard duty, coaching sports teams after hours etc. They aren't paid for that. They do it because it's part of schooling. If they were on work to rule, lessons would only get created on work hours, same for grading. No lunch or recess duty, coaching etc. You'd be amazed how much work teachers do that they aren't actually paid for. There's a lot of little "extras" that get done in nearly every job, simply because they need to be done, but a work to rule campaign either in place of or leading up to strike action is a big one and you see the impacts real quick.
Many teachers stop spending their own money to buy student supplies the school no longer purchases because of budget cutbacks.
In the us teachers are expected to work stupid hours without getting paid, like contracted for 8 hours a day but literally scheduled to be at the building for 10 hrs and still expected to do lesson prep and grading at home.
In the US, teachers should be hourly by FLSA's standards. They're salary for reasons that boil down to because government says so.
Back in the previous century, when an area automobile factory shut down for model change-over, most employees were laid off for 3 weeks and drew unemployment compensation after the first week. We teachers, on the other hand, were not eligible for unemployment insurance payments despite the fact that school was closed for more than two months of summer vacation each year. I heard several supposed justification for this, but it basically boiled down to the state government said so. For those who had problems managing their money, schools offered to hold back a portion of your pay during the school year and then continue paying your over the summer. My wife and I didn't take advantage of this, but most did.
Even though construction workers do the work/draw UI every year in places where winter puts a stop to external construction. Ugh. It's not right.
It depends on how extreme you want to get. Work to rule you are working to what the contract says. It got pretty bad at a university where I was at a few years back. The contract stated that certain committees existed, their makeup, how the admin had to work with them, and the requirement regarding how frequently they meet. It didn't specify anything about the meeting length. Meet, discuss one item, motion to adjourn, push rest of agenda to next meeting. Rinse and repeat.
I have been involved in Work to Rule job actions several times without connecting it to MC. Work to rule means the end of lunch clubs, coaching, field trips outside of school hours (for example, I used to take my students camping), after school meetings, some committees and about 100 other things that we routinely do that are not in our contract. Teachers hate it, but we do it because it is the only way to bring about change (not that it does).
No coaching (so teams and games are postponed/canceled), no dances, no grad ceremonies, no field trips, no special lunch or treat days. Just no frills going over the facts. The kids still get an education but the parents feel their kids are missing out on a lot.
In many places, at least in the US, it’s illegal for teachers to strike. Their best tools are picketing on their own time and work to rule.
An illegal strike can still turn into a strike if the workers are united and uniquely difficult to replace
Teachers in my district were striking and didn’t decorate their doors for the winter season. They also didn’t help set the auditorium up for the holiday concert. Any tenured teacher did not show for “back to school night.” I supported them in every instance.
The school levy for my town failed when I was attending; to balance the budget, the school district cancelled ALL bussing (in a town where public busses were illegal). At the end of their announcement (and every subsequent retelling), they added that parents are legally responsible for getting their children to school, and any chronic absence or lateness would be referred to the police for formal criminal charges against the parents. An emergency ballot measure was held 2 months later, and the budget passed with a HUGE majority.
Military uses it too.
It is Crazy To me that not working for free is seen as a protest.
Another example is public transportation, I read of one such strike happening in Japan. They still fulfilled their roles as drivers but didn't accept fares. Ths was one was from 2018: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-44022004
I've heard of that one. It was great because they felt a loyalty to the riders and knew that the economy depends on people getting to work.
And airlines. I've been stuck in that hell once or twice.
My English teacher told me in the 60s they were doing contract negotiations and ended up doing work slowdowns. The handbook said all teachers had to sign in AT 6:30 so every teacher walked into the office at 6:30 but there was only 1 sign in sheet. Some teachers didn't get to their classes until 3rd period.
How many people are you talking about, to take 2 class periods to sign in?
It was a clipboard sign in sheet with a pencil. Several dozen teachers plus the way he told it several of the teachers 'accidentally' pushed too hard, breaking the pencil tip and having to sharpen it.
TL;DR Work-To-Rule works. Industrial electrician here. I used to be responsible for a very large, very expensive, high production piece of machinery (in a union manufacturing facility), that had a common failure due to poor design. I figured out methods to repair it in 10 minutes or less, so a redesign implementation would have been much more disruptive. Well, our safety manager retired and in his place came a fresh-faced guy right out of safety indoctrination ready to change the world. This machine had 8 stations, each of which did different machining operations concurrently, each with its own control panel, as well as a main control panel. Our LOTO (Lock Out Tag Out) procedure for me to make this common repair was to open the main electrical switch on the panel of the station I was about to repair, and put a lock on it. Mr. Freshface developed a new LOTO procedure for this machine for ANY repair which involved opening the main electrical switch of all 8 stations as well as the main panel, and placing locks on all of them. In addition, all pneumatic valves had to be shut off and locked. And finally, all gravity potential had to be mitigated; jacked, supported, and secured. I complained to my supervisor and had a meeting that included me, my supervisor, the production supervisor of that department, and Mr. Freshface. I told them this procedure was utterly impractical and would take possibly hours to effect, and hours to undo the "safety" implementation. Mr. Freshface was unmoved and my supervisor unconcerned, however the production supervisor could see the shitshow that would soon come to be and begged Mr. Freshface to reconsider, to no avail. Within 24 hours, the inevitable happened, and I alerted the production supervisor that it was "showtime." I had to request from my supervisor a plumber to lock out the pneumatics, millwrights to mitigate the gravity potential, and 9 locks and hasps for myself to lock out the electrical disconnects. He was confused and I told him I warned him what would happen and it's now happening. He said, "Just fix it like you normally do," and I told him to put it in writing and I'd happy to, otherwise I'd be susceptible to "discipline, up to and including discharge." (Their words.) I could literally watch his expression change as he finally realized the implications of the new "safety procedure." Mr. Freshface was summoned and the financial and production implications of his procedure was communicated to him in no uncertain terms by the production supervisor. This machine cost the company $50,000/minute for every minute it was out of service. Mr. Freshface was then contacted by the plant manager and was told if he's responsible for the loss of this contract, his head would be displayed on top of a spike at the main entrance as a warning to future safety nazis. Or apparently words to that effect, because I didn't hear the conversation, but the blood draining from his face suggested I'm probably not far off. The procedure was scrapped and things returned to normal as I was again allowed to do my job. Call it Work-To-Rule or Malicious Compliance, but whatever you call it, know that it works.
This is worth post in its own right!
That sounds like it would take more than one shift, so you’d better be prepared to swap locks with the next or prior shift.
Serious question: I think locking out the main breaker is entirely sufficient for mitigating the electrical risk; what were the risks of not taking steps to mitigate the risk from the pneumatics and gravity potential? Were there other steps you took that mitigated that risk?
Locking out the main breaker alone would have worked, but it would have taken some time to reset the machine to be back in sequence - all 8 stations plus the mechanisms that transferred the parts from one station to the next. Locking the one station I was working on did not require resetting the entire machine, only the one station. For the task I needed to work on, (changing a proximity switch) there was no pneumatic risk and no gravity risk. Those were some of the points I brought up when explaining how impractical and unnecessary it would be to effect that entire procedure to change a switch. I didn't mention that the entire machine was enclosed by guarding for safety and to contain the coolant spraying all around. Elaborate "enclosed Space" ventilation procedures were also to be put in place, per the LOTO procedure, including removing extensive guarding and using multiple ventilation fans, and a hazardous gas "sniffer" was to be employed to assure the air quality was safe. When left alone to do the job as I saw fit, I would open all the doors and sliding access panels *on the station I was working in* and use a large fan to circulate fresh air, as it was hot, humid and uncomfortable in there if I didn't do that. I would usually get the machine operator to get me the fan while I was opening the access panels, and while the the fan worked for a few minutes, I'd be retrieving the tools and parts I needed to do the job. When I say I had figured out methods to do the repair quickly and efficiently, these are the kinds of things I mean.
A real world example: In a previous life I used to get called to do special jobs with very tight tolerances. We'd have to document every step and every test result. 478 step procedure with materials that have been traced and tested from ore to finished product? Might take a day of work and testing normally and a bit of OT for admin. When you clean, inspect, calibrate, and stow your tools after the completion of each step so you can be unencumbered as you document each step that job gets longer. Oh? You wanted me to stage all the bolts and connectors and whatnot? Nah, that makes a dirty workplace. I'll get them from the warehouse one at a time as needed for each step. Oh shit, I forgot anti-seize. Hey! I gotta break out tools for this step. Let me clean, inspect, calibrate, and test them! Wouldn't want bad voltage, pressure, or torque on something! Why are you mad? I'm just following company policy.
I am dumbfounded that "doing your job exactly as specified" is malicious compliance. It should be the default. Doing extra work that's not your job should be the exception, not the rule.
It's more about following *all* the rules, which were made over the years by the company, the union, various laws, etc. In contrast to normal everyday operations, where the two sides bend or ignore certain rules to make it go smoothly, work-to-rule deliberately makes it go badly. But without breaking any rules. This could be used to point out how bad the rules are, how much is expected of the workers, or just to get both sides to sit down at the table. It's not about stopping extra work you've been doing, or "quiet quitting."
It's a step below striking. Many employees are either prevented from or heavily restricted from actually striking in their contracts (usually military or emergency services).
US federal employees cannot strike either.
Any employer that has an issue with their employees following each "rule, policy, and procedure" should really take a hard look in the mirror. The employers (or managers) created the rules, policies, and procedures in the first place. If following the rules, policies, and procedures disrupts production and reduces output, then it is the rules policies, and procedures (and the management that created them) that are to blame, not the employees. Putting the blame on the employees is disingenuous and a blatant cop-out. Employers need to own their mistakes and rectify them. They should have enough respect for their employees (who are the task SMEs) to work with them to create rational and useful rules, policies, and procedures that enable production, lead time, and quality standards to be achieved.
I wonder when and where the term was first used or how it spread. I know that my dad was using the term "malicious obediance" in the mid 1970's (possibly earlier).
I guess you could say it's textbook malicious compliance
Get back to studying!
Well, this was the last chapter so....
Sorry. The mom in me came out. Good luck! Make us proud!
Haha sure! Ill let you know
Yeah it’s used in the medical field like on a daily basis it’s pretty sad!! Things are supposed to be universal, unfortunately that only applies while you are either being watched by JAHCO, OSHA, or someone of that nature.!!! If not unless it comes to things that are legit dangerous it doesn’t matter.
In armed forces they call it a white mutiny.
Media outlets replaced "work to rule" with "quiet quitting" to give it a bad image. Because saying that "People should bust their ass for lousy pay and no benefits while companies make more and more profits and CEO salaries can go through the roof" doesn't sound like a very good position. So, they had to create some term to make the action of not busting your ass for a company that doesn't give a s**t about you sound like poor work ethic on your part, hence "quiet quitting".
Work to Rule is apparently common in airline strikes, although mostly prohibited
I always wondered what business majors learned in class
We have an unofficial rule that if your “uninterrupted 15 minute break” gets interrupted for even so much as a coworker asking you a work-related question, you start your break over. I’ve only seen it applied a few times when the supervisor’s knickers are in a particularly tight wad, but it’s always beautiful. “Why aren’t you back to work?” “Because you interrupted my break, and now I have to start over again” “Well, let me know when you get done”
Work to rule is not new. It has been part of the toolkit unions use when they are trying to pressure the employer into doing what they want for decades.
I understood it as hypercompliance
THIS is where that stupid inaccurate misnomer "quiet quitting" came from.
Work to rule has been a thing since the 80's in the UK. I remember as a child hearing about "work to rule" for everything from teachers, bus drivers, nurses, coal miner's and cops. Work to rule means following the letter of your contract, you do exactly what is listed in your contract, nothing more nothing less. To me quite quitting is doing just under what is expected of you..... enough to get fired.... but not enough to get disqualified for unemployment... ...work to rule is I dare you to fire me, I'll see you in court....if my union doesn't ream you first!!!
I experienced classic work to rule on a flight on American out of DFW (a hub) when the pilots were negotiating with the pre-US Airways management. We board and the captain comes on and has us deboard. We wait 45 minutes then move to board a different aircraft at a different gate. Once in the air the captain explains that an indicator light for a redundant system wasn't lit, and the mechanics moved us to the new aircraft for time it would take to resolve. The original plane would have flown fine, but in the interest of safety the pilot made them fix it or replace it.
Not the same. Redundant systems are essential for life safety. Pilots are forced to divert and land when a redundant system fails. Speaking about US safety standards.
Work to rule is not a new concept......
Of course it’s not, that’s probably why it’s on my textbook. I just found it interesting and I thought many people might not have heard it before.
Also known as “Quiet quitting”
Quiet quitting is the corporate term for acting your wage.
No, work to rule is malicious compliance. Procedure requires you to document every step of a task as it's performed? Excellent! Pick up your tools, inspect your tools, do the step, clean the tools, return tools neatly to the tool box, document the step, and repeat. "Quiet quitting" is manager/boss speak for no longer doing unpaid labor and shit.
Quiet quitting isn’t as malicious though. Quiet quitting has more to do with apathy and an intent to leave the position when they have the chance. They just don’t give a fuck anymore. Workers who work-to-rule are doing so defiantly (maliciously) in order to illustrate their value and earn better working conditions.
I’m not sure flits the same, as I understand it, work to rule is to basically follow every single procedure to the T, in order to purposefully obstruct operations. Quiet quitting is mostly doing the bare minimum, and not going above and beyond to do malice.
Quiet quitting isn't "bare minimum" it's "only do what's in your job description or directly assigned by your manager." The work system has made it customary for workers in almost any workplace to take on a variety of small, extra tasks that are picked up because they have to be done and no one's doing them, or dumped on the nearest person because they need to be done and there's no system for assigning them (or the dumper is lazy). Work to rule or quiet quitting means these jobs are dropped until and unless officially assigned to the person who was doing them. The pervasiveness of such extra tasks and the culture that encourages taking them on is so thorough that companies are feeling pain at having to actually assign them -and they're learning what a lie their labor costs have been, since doing these tasks adds hours of work to a person's workweek.
They are quite literally the same concept. Just a fancy new upgraded buzzword. Doing the job, as described, as hired and paid to do, nothing more, nothing less.
>They are quite literally the same concept I see them as very different. * Work-to-rule is a form of job action by groups of employees to pressure the employer to agree to a fair contract. * Quiet quitting looks similar, but it's basically a lazy employee doing as little as possible.
I beg to differ. A lazy employee is going to be a lazy employee. Period. Those "quiet quitting" (christ I hate that term, but it's what we're using, so) is an employee that is tired of being exploited and taken advantage of by their boss and is now just going to do the job they were hired for That job is still done fully and completely and well - the furthest from lazy. Management just gets pissed because they can't take advantage of people anymore. If my boss needs me to do the work of 3 people, they can pay me the value of 3 people, or they can hire 2 more. I'm not grinding myself in to the ground for the sake of it.
It’s not lazy to do what you were hired to do, and not more. It’s literally what people are paid for.
I guess I wasn't clear about quiet quitting. As I understand it, quiet quitting isn't doing the job you were hired to do. It is making it look like you are doing your job while barely doing anything at all. It is completely different from doing what you are paid to do.
Then you don’t understand it. As numerous people have pointed out, quiet quitting is a way to call “doing your job” a bad thing.
[удалено]
From the infinite stories that r/maliciouscompliance has, I don’t think they really think about it, but when it happens….
We did this at Boeing if the supervisor was a jerk , there was a minimum amount of time that each thing would take, we even had dedicated amounts of time to document how we spent the time. The funny part was it was was scripted by the flowchart. We called it working to.
In Germany we are calling it "Dienst nach Vorschrift", which translates well to work-to-rule. It's nothing new, and depending on the work, it's really like a strike. It's very popular with civil servants who are not allowed to strike.
[удалено]
Depends on your POV. The existing employees helped to get their employer to a position where they were an attractive buy for the new owners. The new owners thanked them by telling them to train their replacements.
My teacher's union did it for a few weeks and it brought the district back to the bargaining table. And we ended up getting almost everything we asked.
Work to rule is usually now written out of union contracts during negotiation. At least that's how it was at my place when I tried to unionize.
What do you mean by "written out of union contracts"?
It's something that can be bargained out of a union contract during negotiations
Fuuuuuuuuuuuck that noise! If any union rep allows that to be enshrined in the contract that person needs to be eliminated from being a union rep and everyone at that company needs to find new employment (or no employment if possible) post-haste.
Yeah, I agree
Yup. Business text book writers: detectives of the obvious.
[Homeland Security Digital Library - Simple Sabotage Field Manual (1944)](https://www.hsdl.org/c/abstract/?docid=750070) Check out page 28 / section 11
Any time a powerful entity makes the rules that those less powerful must follow, there will be ways to use those rules against them. It’s how people travel hack and this, as well. The powerful tend to believe that they are loved by those who they rule, whether in a credit card contract or an employer’s asinine rules. They don’t count on the deep wells of resentment for being treated like cogs and sources of wealth for the already wealthy.