Critical Analysis: “Bare Minimum Mondays,” “Quiet Quitting,” and “The Great Resignation”

Introduction

The workplace is changing due to employees’ demands for more freedom and responsibility and a better work-life balance. As a result, we have seen the rise of concepts like “Bare Minimum Mondays,” “Quiet Quitting,” and “The Great Resignation.” Nonetheless, these developments have sparked extensive discussion about the ethical implications for the workplace. A critical analysis usually attempts to weigh the pros and negatives of these movements from a moral standpoint. The critical analysis draws on ethical theories and relevant sources to provide an informed appraisal of the ethicality of current trends in the workplace. Therefore, the ultimate objective is to present a fair and reasoned analysis of the ethical consequences of workplace developments from the employee’s, employers, and societal viewpoints.

Section 2

Esapada opposes employees quitting their jobs without giving notice or explaining in her article.[1]. Esapada says this conduct is unethical and detrimental to the employee and the company. According to the author, quitting quietly is against the law and goes against the moral code of fidelity. Additionally, it is claimed that quiet resignation is unfair to the employer because it makes it challenging to organize and manage their employees efficiently. The author further contends that bad management techniques and a breakdown in communication between employers and employees are to blame for quiet resignations. Esapada makes a strong case against the practice of Quiet Quitting; overall, emphasizing how detrimental it is to employers and people.

The article “Disability, Diversity, and Corporate Social Responsibility” makes the case that disability should be recognized as a crucial aspect of diversity within the context of corporate social responsibility (CSR)[2]. The authors argue that it is not only morally and ethically necessary to include disability in CSR but also a legal requirement. They contend that businesses must offer those with impairments equal employment opportunities and that doing otherwise amounts to discrimination. The authors emphasize the significance of disability inclusion for organizations and society, stating that it can result in better performance, greater creativity, and a more inclusive and equal workplace. Ultimately, Harris et al. thesis makes a compelling case for including disability in CSR by highlighting firms’ moral and ethical duties to foster an inclusive workplace.

Section 3

One objection against Esapada’s primary defense of ” Quiet Quitting ” in their paper is that companies shouldn’t be held liable for their workers’ emotional labor. This argument contends that it is not the employer’s duty to guarantee that the workers are content with their jobs and lives. Employees should be in charge of controlling their emotions and figuring out how to deal with their dissatisfaction without ” Quiet Quitting ” instead¹. This argument is founded on the notion that feelings are inherently private and personal experiences, so employers shouldn’t be concerned about them. Esapada can respond to this criticism by saying that emotional labor is necessary for most employment, especially in service industries where employees must present a warm and good image to consumers. Employees are forced to maintain an outward appearance of happiness and joy while suppressing their genuine sentiments and emotions, which can be extremely taxing and cause burnout. This emotional labor is influenced by organizational elements, including workload, work schedule, and job security, in addition to being a personal problem. Thus, employers must establish a work environment that promotes employees’ mental health and reduces burnout.

The main contention of the essay on disability, diversity, and corporate social responsibility is that businesses have a moral duty to support diversity and inclusivity in the workplace, particularly concerning workers with disabilities². According to the authors, businesses are abusing their social obligations and perpetuating systemic discrimination by failing to offer disabled employees equitable opportunities and accommodations. The authors provide several best practice examples that businesses may use to promote disability inclusion and make the case that doing so will benefit impaired workers and improve organizational performance. One counterargument to this claim is that businesses might lack the resources or knowledge necessary to accommodate disabled employees. It can be expensive and labor-intensive to provide accommodations, including accessible facilities, adjusted work schedules, and assistive technology. In addition, providing accommodations may come with legal and regulatory challenges for businesses. Hence, expecting all organizations, especially small and medium-sized ones, to implement best practices for disability inclusion may not be reasonable. In response, Harris et al. can assert that advancing disability inclusion is not only an issue of moral obligation or legal compliance but also a business necessity. Disability inclusion has been found to promote consumer loyalty, decrease absenteeism, and increase employee morale and productivity. In addition, many adjustments are inexpensive to build and simple to provide, like accessible online platforms and flexible work schedules. Hence, by implementing best practices for disability inclusion, businesses can reap social and financial rewards.

Section 4

Esapada’s argument of ” Quiet Quitting” is not on the same page as the potential for exploitation due to the employer’s power dynamic. Although Esapada persuasively argues why “quiet quitting” is terrible for everyone involved, including the corporation, the topic raises essential considerations about the power dynamic between employers and employees. Workers should be aware that they may be exploited if they are required to perform labour that isn’t part of their job description or for which they aren’t compensated and that employees sometimes have different levels of bargaining leverage than their employers.

Despite this, reading the article by Esapada about “quiet quitting” is not an honest answer to the issues of today’s workplace. Collaborative problem-solving between management and staff is essential. Employees have to express their needs and concerns to their superiors. To reduce employee burnout and turnover, businesses must simultaneously value workers’ contributions and provide them with adequate resources. A relationship in the workplace that prioritizes honesty and openness would reduce the frequency with which “quiet quitting” or other forms of disengagement are necessary. Even if the objection raises valid points, Esapada’s argument provides a more compelling moral foundation for addressing workplace difficulties.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the ethical debate surrounding workplace fads like ” Quiet Quitting,” “The Great Resignation,” and “Bare Minimum Mondays” has prompted severe reflection on the roles of employers and employees in the 21st-century workplace. It is evident that there are reasonable worries and objections on both sides of the discussion after examining Esapada’s argument against the reimagining of the workplace and Harris et al. essay on disability, diversity, and corporate social responsibility critically. Harris et al. underline the necessity of accommodating varied demands and encouraging inclusivity in corporate social responsibility, while Esapada contends that these trends are immoral since they may harm enterprises and undermine workplace norms. Evaluating workplace trends from an ethical perspective is complex and situational. Despite this, employers and employees must have frank discussions about workplace expectations and obligations, with moral standards as a compass for all working choices. Only by making such an effort can workplaces become more fair, welcoming, and productive for all employees.

Bibliography

Espada, Mariah. Employees Say ‘Quiet Quitting’ Is Just Setting Boundaries. Companies Fear Long-Term Effects, 2022.

Gould, Robert, Sarah Parker Harris, Courtney Mullin, and Robin Jones. Disability, Diversity, and Corporate Social Responsibility: Learning from Recognized Leaders in Inclusion, 2019.

[1] Espada, Mariah. Employees Say ‘Quiet Quitting’ Is Just Setting Boundaries. Companies Fear Long-Term Effects, 2022.

[2] Gould, Robert, Sarah Parker Harris, Courtney Mullin, and Robin Jones. Disability, Diversity, and Corporate Social Responsibility: Learning from Recognized Leaders in Inclusion, 2019.