I mean no disrespect to anyone using all those terms, but you want to scare employers who are out to take advantage of you. . . Almost all of them. . . Quit cold, hard and unexpected, and unemotionally every time. Anything unprofessional out of them: Let's keep this professional it's just business.
I just feel we use these sentimented terms to describe them we give them negotiating leverage against any employee in negotiations with them.
Quiet quitting? I'm sorry but it's a term sentimented against emplyees. Rage apply. Again the same. They are meant to make the employee see insubordinate or irrational.
Working to rule is not a strike action, or a negotiating leverage. It's just not having your contract violated unfairly and unnilaterally by your employer who didn't negotiate it in good faith in the first place if they expected more than what the contract had in place, from you. The term is used by employers to inherently insinuate employee laziness, when the employers are in fact lazy and trying to take advantage of the employee with free work, while also underpaying them.
So when we hear these terms. . . Is it not better to rewrite everything the exact way the employer does by using those negatively sentimented terms, and instead use terms that call out the employer for what they are actually doing?
Using the terms meant to subjugate employees in the media seems to be doing far more to subjugate them.
So when someone says “work to rule” we should be saying “you meant exercising the terms of a contract in good faith?”. When someone says “quiet quitting” should we not say “you mean when there's no point putting energy into communicating to an employer trying to get free work out of you? That's not quiet quitting, that's establishing a barrier with an abusive employer.” Rage apply? “You mean getting out of a toxic relationship as fast as possible, like a rational person?”
The sentiment of our messaging matters.