Quiet firing is more common than you think — and much harder to fight

On July 3, a Singapore-based Reddit user shared a situation that felt both familiar and deeply disorienting. Posting under the name u/Educational_Dress692, they described being in a strange employment purgatory: not fired, but not really employed either. Their company — a struggling ad agency — had been shedding staff. Instead of formally retrenching them, management handed the poster more responsibilities from departing colleagues, then placed them on indefinite no-pay leave.

“I haven’t officially resigned,” the user wrote, “but it feels like they’re trying to avoid paying severance or making things official while pushing me out the door.”

This account, while personal, touched a nerve. Many commenters chimed in with advice, caution, and commiseration. Some advised legal recourse. Others said the quiet part out loud: “This is happening more often than people think.” The key theme? A growing awareness of quiet firing — the shadowy counterpart to “quiet quitting,” in which the employer, not the employee, disengages first.

While “quiet quitting” described workers doing the bare minimum to maintain work-life boundaries, “quiet firing” flips the script. It’s when employers deliberately sideline, overwhelm, or neglect workers — not firing them outright, but making conditions so unfavorable they eventually leave of their own accord.

Tactics can include:

• Removing responsibilities or job titles without communication
• Cutting pay or benefits subtly (e.g. through unpaid leave)
• Excluding the employee from meetings or communication loops
• Failing to offer support, feedback, or performance reviews
• Leaving career advancement paths unclear or stagnant

In the Reddit case, the user was first asked to absorb the work of laid-off colleagues. Then they were placed on indefinite unpaid leave, with no confirmation of future plans. This effectively suspended their employment while denying them the rights and protections of retrenchment. From the employer’s perspective, this move delays cash outflows (like severance or notice pay) and avoids triggering formal retrenchment disclosures. From the employee’s perspective, it’s a limbo — with unclear rights, disrupted income, and no end in sight.

Singapore's employment law framework offers limited mandatory protections when companies choose not to fire employees formally.

According to the Ministry of Manpower (MOM):

“Severance pay is not mandatory unless specified in the employment contract or collective agreement.”
— MOM Retrenchment Guidelines

That means companies aren’t legally bound to pay retrenchment benefits unless they voluntarily offer them, or the worker qualifies under specific union agreements. In practice, this makes Singapore’s labor market one of the most flexible — and vulnerable — in the developed world. Quiet firing thrives in this ambiguity.

A key problem is “no-pay leave.” If the employee agrees (or doesn't actively contest), companies can place them on unpaid leave indefinitely — effectively suspending employment obligations without a formal termination. The employer avoids paying out severance or notice period compensation, and because the worker technically isn’t fired, there's no legal or regulatory retrenchment to report.

This loophole is especially common in cash-strapped companies. An industry peer in the Reddit thread explained it bluntly:

“Severance is typically offered only if you’re officially retrenched, have served at least three years with them, AND if the agency has liquidity. Most of the time, ailing agencies can’t even afford to pay out someone’s notice period.”

It’s not illegal. But it is quietly exploitative.

What makes quiet firing uniquely cruel is its lack of closure. There’s no termination letter, no severance, no next steps. Just silence — and the implicit pressure to leave. Employees subjected to quiet firing report symptoms similar to burnout and emotional distress:

• Loss of professional identity
• Guilt or confusion for “not being needed”
• Anxiety about future employability
• Difficulty explaining gaps or transitions to future employers

In the Reddit post, the user clearly still wanted to stay:

“I genuinely enjoy working here.”

That sentiment only deepens the confusion when an employer appears to push someone out quietly. It replaces clarity with psychological doubt. For many professionals, especially mid-career workers trying to build stability, this erosion of trust and dignity can be more damaging than a formal retrenchment.

In the absence of clear legal recourse, workers caught in quiet firing situations are left with three unenviable choices:

1. Resign voluntarily — regaining control, but forgoing potential severance or compensation.
2. Push for formal retrenchment — risky and time-consuming, especially if HR stalls or refuses.
3. Wait indefinitely on unpaid leave — holding out for company revival or clarity, often to their own financial detriment.

In this case, the Reddit poster is considering a fourth path: negotiating freelance work with the same employer while job hunting. This hybrid solution may offer income continuity — but it depends on trust, leverage, and the employer’s willingness to engage.

One of the most upvoted responses in the thread summed it up:

“You need to have a direct and open conversation with your manager and HR… They can’t expect you to wait around on no pay till they’re ready. Chances are, they never will be.”

Singapore’s employment landscape encourages speed, adaptability, and low overhead. These traits are a boon for startups and MNCs in expansion mode. But in downturns or agency environments, the same flexibility creates systemic vulnerabilities for workers.

Here’s why quiet firing proliferates in Singapore:

• No mandated severance: Companies aren’t compelled to compensate terminated workers unless they’re retrenching large groups or operating under specific union arrangements.
• Limited unemployment support: Unlike countries with robust unemployment benefits (e.g. Germany, Denmark), Singapore offers little income safety net once a job is lost.
• “At-will” employment ethos: While not officially at-will like in the US, Singapore’s employer-first ethos means workers often defer to management in ambiguous situations.
• Reputational fear: Many workers hesitate to challenge their employer’s actions publicly, fearing they’ll be blacklisted in tight-knit industries.

This creates an ecosystem where quiet firing is not just possible — it’s often the easiest option for employers managing risk.

To be clear, not every layoff can or should come with large severance packages. Some businesses genuinely face cash flow crunches and need time to recover. But if companies choose not to fire someone formally, they shouldn’t be allowed to leave them in suspended animation.

Some options for reform:

• Mandatory clarity: Require written documentation for no-pay leave longer than 30 days, including timelines and return-to-work plans.
• Deemed termination clauses: After 60–90 days of employer-initiated unpaid leave with no return, allow employees to treat the arrangement as constructive dismissal — and claim notice compensation.
• Portable severance fund: Similar to CPF, a small employer-funded contribution into a severance account could provide relief in times of layoffs.
• Transparent exit coaching: Companies that can’t pay severance should still offer resume support, referrals, or early access to benefits — to help smooth the transition.

None of these remove employer flexibility. But they inject accountability into a process that is now largely silent and one-sided.

Quiet firing isn’t just a management tactic. It’s a cultural mirror. It reveals how power, ambiguity, and silence interact inside workplaces when things go wrong. In high-trust environments, quiet firing rarely occurs. Leaders are honest. Employees are respected. Exits are clear and fair. But in low-trust cultures, quiet firing is a way to avoid hard conversations and hard costs — even if it harms people along the way.

Singapore prides itself on being a competitive, efficient place to work. But if that efficiency starts erasing worker dignity, it’s worth asking what kind of economy we’re really building. We don’t need to make firing harder. We need to make quiet firing harder — and real conversations easier.