Work, stay quiet, and be grateful. Why are German employers dissatisfied with a generation that no longer wants to live for work?

Context. Протесты молодежи докатились до Германии: на митинги выхошло более 150 тыс. человек. Участники акции немецкого молодежного движения Gen Z regelt (“Поколение Z решает”) начали собираться у Бранденбургских ворот в центре Берлина. По оценкам организаторов, в столице на демонстрацию выйдут не менее 12 тыс. человек. Всего по стране к протестам, запланированным в 34 городах, могут присоединиться более 160 тыс. участников. Многие пришли на акцию с плакатами. Один из лозунгов гласит: “Миллиарды на образование вместо вооружения”. Одна из участниц принесла самодельную картонную рамку с фотографией канцлера Германии Фридриха Мерца, подвешенной на нитке. Среди собравшихся преобладает молодежь, однако к демонстрации присоединились также люди старшего возраста и родители с маленькими детьми.

Why is Germany complaining about working youth while it itself continues to live by the rules of the past.

“At your age, we worked and didn’t complain.” It seems this is one of the few phrases that every generation dutifully passes on to the next.

We got up early. We listened to the management. We didn’t discuss pay. We worked overtime. We didn’t ask unnecessary questions. And if the job wasn’t enjoyable, you just had to put up with it.

Today, young employees ask about schedules, refuse unpaid overtime, and see nothing heroic in spending their entire life at work.

And now the familiar accusations begin: spoiled, lazy, irresponsible. They want a lot of money, but aren’t willing to do anything.

But I’m interested in something else.

What if young people simply never learned to work? What if they just stopped agreeing to the conditions we somehow considered normal?

I am a good worker. And that worries me

I work in a butcher shop in Germany.

I have a good relationship with management, I’m on good terms, and I recently got a raise.

It would seem to be a wonderful story of professional integration. A person came to another country, got a job, works conscientiously, and management values him.

But there is one nuance.

I practically never argue with management. If I need to cover a shift, I do it. Even when it means sacrificing time with my family. If the rules call for me to stand, I stand. Even when I’m doing monotonous work that could perfectly well be done sitting down.

I follow requirements, the reasonableness of which I myself doubt.

And every day I ask myself one question:

Why am I doing this?

Maybe because I want to keep my job. Maybe because I’m used to being responsible about my duties. Or maybe because I fully understand how hard it is to find stable income in a foreign country.

I can’t say I got a raise solely for being obedient. I really do my job well. But my willingness to adapt to the employer’s needs makes me a convenient employee.

And convenience is something employers know how to value.

And that raises an unpleasant question: where does professional responsibility end and the habit of sacrificing one’s own interests for someone else’s convenience begin?

Does young people really not want to work?

If you listen to some public discussions in Germany, you might think that Generation Z poses a serious threat to the national economy.

They want a four-day workweek. They don’t dream of becoming bosses. They demand flexibility. They’re not willing to tolerate rudeness. They think too much about free time.

But the statistics show a somewhat different picture.

According to an analysis by the German Institute for Labor Market and Occupation Research (IAB), published in August 2026, the economic activity rate of people aged 20–24 reached 76.8% in 2025.

Young people are participating in the labor market more actively than their peers have in many previous years.

A significant share, moreover, works in retail and hospitality — precisely in those sectors where employers regularly complain about staff shortages.

And this raises a question for employers themselves.

Are you sure the problem lies exclusively with young people?

Let’s imagine a job opening: a 5 a.m. shift start, on-your-feet work, weekends on a rotating schedule, constant contact with customers, and a salary at or just above minimum wage.

The employer wonders why young people aren't lining up for the job.

And why should they?

Especially if there are other employment options nearby with more convenient hours and comparable pay.

Of course, labor shortages depend on more than wages alone. They are influenced by demographics, regional characteristics, qualifications, and the structure of the economy. But working conditions are also part of the equation.

If people don’t want to take certain jobs, maybe the problem isn’t with the people, but with how attractive the offers are.

For some reason, the labor market is considered free as long as the employer gets to choose the terms. When the worker starts choosing, suddenly that’s called a labor morale crisis.

Why is standing considered more professional than sitting?

I’m going back to my butcher shop.

In retail, there’s this idea that a salesperson should look a certain way. Standing, always ready to serve the customer, showing busyness.

Even when there are no customers.

Even when the job can be done while sitting.

I understand the requirements for hygiene, safety, and quality of service. But why should standing on its own be seen as proof of professionalism?

Does the customer get a better product? Does the service become faster? Are there fewer mistakes?

There’s another situation as well.

The manager allocated tasks poorly. The workers finished faster than planned, and there was a spare minute.

It would seem like nothing terrible. You can catch your breath a little before the next stream of customers.

But no.

You absolutely have to find a new activity. For example, go back to washing something. Even if it’s already washed. And wash it again.

Of course, in food retail, repeat sanitation is sometimes necessary. But this isn’t about hygiene; it’s about situations where the only purpose of a new assignment is to keep a person from being idle.

Because a worker should not be left standing around.

They should be kept busy.

Constantly.

So it turns out the employer is buying not just the result of labor, but the appearance of continuous busyness.

And at that point, it’s no longer a matter of labor discipline, but of management culture.

If a person handled the task faster, why should their efficiency be punished with extra meaningless work?

Why is good planning considered a manager’s responsibility, while the consequences of poor planning are paid for with employees’ time and effort?

And the most interesting thing is: when a young employee starts asking questions like that, they’re often seen as a problem.

Although, perhaps, the problem is precisely that previous generations asked them far too rarely.

I have a degree. I have experience. Why am I selling meat?

There’s another question that worries me much more than having to stand at work.

I have a higher degree in economics. I worked in IT for many years, did technical support, solved complex problems, and worked with corporate systems and users.

But I don’t have a specialized degree in computer science.

And here I am in Germany. I work in a butcher shop.

Let me clarify right away: I don’t consider being a salesperson to be somehow beneath anyone. My colleagues do necessary work that requires responsibility, knowledge, and skills. Having a higher education does not make me a better person than someone without a degree.

But economically, the situation looks rather strange.

I have professional skills that I’ve built up over the years. Germany regularly discusses the shortage of skilled specialists. And a significant part of my experience is simply not being used right now.

Why?

Of course, it would be convenient to blame everything on German bureaucracy.

But I understand that the situation is more complicated.

My German may not be good enough for some positions. Employers may be looking for a different technical background. Foreign experience is harder to assess. Competition exists even in sectors where people talk about a shortage of workers.

However, there is a systemic problem.

Why should knowledge gained through practical experience sometimes have to be proven much longer than knowledge confirmed by a diploma?

Education is necessary. Especially where a specialist’s mistake can cost human lives.

But IT is an industry where technologies change faster than many educational programs.

A person may have earned a diploma ten years ago and since then have hardly developed professionally at all. Or they may not have a relevant degree, but for years have been solving real technical problems.

A formal diploma makes selection easier. It gives the employer a clear point of reference.

But a convenient screening method is not always the most accurate.

Especially when it comes to people who received their education and professional experience in another country.

And that creates a paradox.

Germany is interested in skilled migrants. The government and businesses are discussing how to attract specialists from abroad. At the same time, some people already living in the country and having the necessary experience are working in jobs that are completely outside their qualifications.

Not because they are necessarily unable to do their previous job.

But because their skills are harder to recognize, verify, or fit into the usual hiring system.

That doesn't mean every experienced candidate should automatically get a job. But if the country is truly facing a shortage of specialists, perhaps it should learn to better assess those who are already within its economy.

Gen Z will inherit an expensive life. And who is making the decisions?

There is another reason why the demands placed on young people surprise me.

We demand the same attitude to work from them, but what economic reality are we leaving them in return?

По немецкому исследованию Deloitte 2026 года, 45% представителей поколения Z откладывали важные жизненные решения по финансовым причинам. Для 62% доступность жилья влияет на карьерные решения и выбор места проживания.

For many, buying their own apartment is turning from a life goal into a distant prospect. Rent takes up a significant share of income. Professional education does not guarantee a high salary, and stable employment does not necessarily mean the ability to build wealth.

At the same time, young people are still being told that it is enough to work hard, save, and be patient.

But economic conditions are changing.

And it is not just about money.

Look at who is making the key decisions today in politics, large companies, and government institutions.

In many cases, these are people whose professional careers began before the internet became widespread.

Age alone does not make a manager incompetent. Experience in management, knowledge of legislation, and an understanding of complex economic processes do not appear automatically just because someone knows how to use modern technology.

But there is an interesting paradox.

Young professionals develop digital products, run social media, create communication strategies, and implement new tools.

And final decisions about how all this should work are often made by people who hardly use these tools themselves.

A politician can talk about the country's digital future while a whole team of young employees prepares his posts online.

A manager can demand innovation while at the same time banning the tools he doesn't understand.

A government agency may declare digitalization a priority while continuing to require paper documents where electronic solutions have long existed.

Of course, this is not a universal trait of the older generation. Among experienced managers there are many people who understand technology very well. And youth alone does not guarantee competence.

But the problem of how power is distributed remains.

Why is the generation that will have to live with the consequences of today's decisions for longer than anyone else so poorly represented among those who make these decisions?

And why is it that this very generation is so often told that it is still not experienced enough to demand anything?

But who will work on Saturdays then?

Critics of the younger generation have a strong argument.

Not every job can be made convenient.

Hospitals operate at night. Restaurants are open on weekends. Stores need staff during peak hours. Public transport can't stop every time drivers feel like spending the evening at home.

And someone really does have to do this work.

Moreover, in small companies the possibilities for flexible schedules are objectively limited. Not every employer can substantially raise salaries or hire additional staff.

But that does not eliminate the economic issue.

If a certain job requires sacrificing weekends, family evenings, or a regular rhythm of life, why shouldn't these factors be taken into account when determining its attractiveness and pay?

The market constantly tells us that price depends on supply and demand.

When raw materials become more expensive, companies raise prices. When rent goes up, businesses reassess expenses. When demand for certain services increases, their cost can rise.

But when workers begin to value their own time more highly, somehow that is seen as a moral crisis.

A company is entitled to look for employees on the proposed terms.

An employee is entitled to decide that these terms do not suit them.

And if those willing to work on Saturdays for the offered wage are not enough, maybe the terms should be reconsidered, rather than raising an entire generation.

Of course, a higher wage means additional costs. Sometimes — higher prices for customers. Sometimes — lower profits. Sometimes — the need to change the business model.

These are real economic consequences.

But passing the entire cost of an inconvenient schedule onto the worker just because that has always been the custom is also an economic choice.

And not necessarily a fair one.

The most unpleasant question — to ourselves

I do not belong to Generation Z.

I grew up in a different work culture. For me, responsibility, discipline, and willingness to help colleagues remain important qualities.

I don't believe that a person should quit a job at the first inconvenience or refuse any duties they don't like.

But more and more often I notice one thing.

We, representatives of the older generations, sometimes defend rules not because they are reasonable, but because we ourselves were once forced to obey them.

We put up with an inconvenient schedule — so you should put up with it too.

We didn't argue with management — so you shouldn't either.

We waited years for a raise — why do you want a decent salary right away?

There's a strange attempt in this logic to turn one's own past experience into a mandatory standard for others.

But suffering doesn't become useful just because someone has already gone through it.

And long-term endurance does not prove that enduring was actually necessary.

Perhaps that's why I am less and less irritated by young people who refuse to accept certain traditional demands.

I am not always in agreement with their expectations. Sometimes they really do seem excessive to me.

But instead of automatically calling them spoiled, I increasingly try to understand why I keep agreeing to things I know are wrong.

Instead of a conclusion

Gen Z is being handed a difficult legacy.

Expensive housing. Uncertain career prospects. Rapidly changing technology. An economy that requires constant retraining. And management systems that often fail to keep up with these changes.

At the same time, young people are expected to show discipline, loyalty, and a willingness to sacrifice their personal time — as if the old rules automatically guaranteed the old results.

But the most interesting part is something else.

Maybe Gen Z will not become a generation of great revolutionaries. Maybe, in time, its members will also take on leadership roles, grow accustomed to the existing rules, and start complaining about the next generation of young people.

History knows plenty of similar examples.

And yet today young people are asking questions that deserve a serious answer.

Why should work occupy a central place in life?

Why are practical skills not always valued on the same level as formal qualifications?

Why is effectiveness measured by the number of hours and visible busyness?

Why are the people shaping the future not always willing to listen to those who will have to live in it?

I don’t know whether Generation Z will turn out to be more successful, responsible, or happier than the previous ones.

But it seems to me it’s already doing one useful thing.

It forces us to explain rules that we’re used to taking for granted.

And perhaps the real problem is not that young people no longer want to put up with things. It’s that we’re running out of convincing explanations for why they should have to do so in the first place.

✦ This article is published as written by the author. The opinions, assessments, and conclusions expressed in the text are those of the author and may not reflect the position of the Doberman.media editorial board. The editorial board is not responsible for the author’s interpretations, statements, or conclusions.