The Washington Post digs deeper:
Quiet quitting looks to many like a reasonable retreat from the round-the-clock hustle culture. But to others, quiet quitting represents disengaged employees sandbagging and shirking all but the minimum effort, not expecting — or not caring — that their employers might fire them for it.
But if we’re going to accuse workers of quiet quitting, we should also acknowledge the phenomenon of “quiet firing,” in which employers avoid providing all but the bare legal minimum, possibly with the aim of getting unwanted employees to quit. They may deny raises for years, fail to supply resources while piling on demands, give feedback designed to frustrate and confuse, or grant privileges to select workers based on vague, inconsistent performance standards. Those who don’t like it are welcome to leave.
Their article even provides an example. One reader (near retirement age) says their employer required them to return to the office for at least three days a week — “but those who left the area are allowed to continue to work fully remotely.”
Read more of this story at Slashdot.