If Ben was *required* to monitor Slack, then by ignoring it, he wasn't "quiet quitting", he was "not doing his job". That's a big difference.

I fully support "quiet quitting" for folks if that's the choice they want to make for themselves, given that they do it with both eyes open and recognize that if they felt under-rewarded before, they'll be even less rewarded when they do. I do agree with the reasons behind it; many (most?) employers will gladly pile work and responsibility onto people without giving them an extra dime, and usually paying them the same (or less!) than their coworkers who aren't taking on the extra.

But if something is an actual "you need to do this as part of your job", then not doing it isn't "quiet quitting".

That said, the "quiet quitting" folks seem to lean VERY heavily on their "job descriptions" and anyone who thinks that a JD is the actual reality (including legal reality) in the US outside of a few states or a union shop is absolutely delusional. Your actual, legally enforceable JD is, more or less, "whatever your supervisor tells you your job is" thanks to "right to work" laws. So for folks standing on their JD thinking it is going to provide them with legal cover, HR cover, etc... I don't think that's going to work out well.

For me, I usually take the experience and good will with my colleagues generated by these situations and parlay them into a better job with another company. Why "quiet quit" when you can get a shot at a better place? But I also recognize that not everyone has the luxury of doing that, for a variety of very valid reasons.

J.Ja