"Quiet quitting": A revolution in how we work or the end of working hard?

When I entered the Army Civilian workforce, I first encountered employees who carefully did the minimum required work. I found there were three groups of Army Civilians: extremely dedicated employees who focused on mission success rather than job descriptions and work hours; job and work hour focused employees who set limits on the work they were willing to put in; burned out or otherwise underperforming employees who failed to meet the minimum job requirements. The third group was a minority but took up a lot of management time. They filed the most EEO, IG, or union complaints against management as management attempted to get them to perform to standard or leave civil service. The majority of civilian employees where I worked were in the middle group, they did what their job required to the extent it fit within their paid hours. If it was necessary for them to work overtime to accomplish the mission, then they expected compensation for the additional hours. Otherwise, forget it. Some would on occasion put in some "love time" (see below), but only infrequently. The third group was motivated by mission instead of work. They paid scant attention to the clock, or the number of hours worked in a week. They put in lots of "I love my job" time because of loyalty, dedication, and concern for the active and reserve component service members. Unless they were traveling, they probably logged only 40 hours per week, but often worked 50-60. They tended to be better educated, more experienced, and in the higher GS pay grades.

During my time in the military. I found the same three groups of people, but the differences were not as clearly defined as they were in civil service. The up-or-out policies tended to clean up the bottom third of military members eventually. The underperforming service members were likely to be invited to leave or disciplined, or both. The large do-your-job middle group prospered in peace time, but most joined the mission-oriented group as soon as a crisis or war came along. The highly motivated mission-oriented group tended to rise to the top of the rank structure.

In the private sector it was easier to get rid of underperforming employees because they could simply be fired. No extensive counseling, union, or EEO involvement. If they were conclusively not doing the job they were paid for, then they were gone in one pay period or less. Private enterprise tried pretty hard to place and retain workers in jobs they wanted to do. They were fairly compensated for the work; paid overtime according to law and contracts. There was no up-or-out policy, so some folks found a job they liked, did it well enough, and stayed for decades. The hard charging employees who did their jobs and extra work to grow the business were rewarded with promotions, bonuses, and raises.

The best part is that this is just going to ruin the work form home benefits they are all trying to get ... LOL

No one wants to work anymore...

Concur -- this is not new --