Finally someone with authority says it!
Nobody would complain about a freelancer with multiple clients, even at the same time, provided they got their work done on time and on budget. Why isn’t it the same for employees? Why do bosses get to treat them like clients from hell?
I’m not saying they’re justified in this, because frankly if someone is getting their work done, what they do outside of work hours isnt their boss’s business, but I can kinda imagine why a company might not like their employees to have a second job; people only have so much effort to give (consider all those stats people bring up whenever people talk about shortening the workweek, to the effect that working more hours diminishes productivity per hour and gives diminishing or even negative returns compared to fewer hours in many cases) and so a company might decide that an employee with a second job might not be as productive for them as they would be otherwise, due to being exhausted. Though really, if they do it’s honestly the company’s fault for paying so little as for someone to need a second job in the first place.
CEOs and executives do this regularly, so unless their jobs are a lot simpler than they’re claiming the “attention” argument is moot. They pay me to do a thing. I do the thing. They pay me what they’d say they’d pay. That’s it.
Frankly I don’t imagine CEOs and executives take a whole lot of effort, at least for sufficiently large companies (small business are a whole different animal of course). I can’t speak to how complicated it is to do those jobs, or how easy or difficult they are, but the mere fact that people who are so rich as to not need to work at all to live a lavish life, will often still take on jobs like that, speaks volumes I think.
I think the main difference is the time scale for their responsibilities.
For your average worker, they generally have daily tasks or responsibilities. Your c-levels generally “solve” the larger problems. The timeline for those isn’t daily but probably quarterly or longer. This would allow them to take on another role because of how the deadlines work.
Not saying it’s right, but just trying to explain it.
It’s completely accepted when CEOs and other executives serve on multiple boards or even run more than one company. Companies demanding 100% of any employee are just abusing labor and embracing unequal labor practices, and those practices aren’t against any law, companies just make up their own ‘policies’ to try and make their own laws.
They also have no problem when blue collar workers work 2 or even 3 jobs to get by.
Because we aren’t people, we’re meat machines. We don’t deserve a living wage and it’s expected of us to be working every second we’re awake. Do you let your tools rest?
Hmm… Interesting analogy. What about breaking in an engine properly? Would that be considered rest? I have no point with this, I’m just noodling around with the analogy to see how apt it is.
Working a second job outside of the hours or scope of tour main job is one thing, but many people double dipping are literally getting paid by two companies for the same hours. That’s different imo.
Like people who are the boards of multiple companies, in leadership roles in multiple companies, and pretty much anyone at the top of company structures?
All that should matter is if they are doing what they were hired to do.
No, not like your example. If a CEO is secretly serving on another companies board you may have a point, but we’re talking about people having two jobs with the clear implication that their employers don’t know it.
“Doing what they are hired to do” is very often defined in employment agreements as working x number of hours. You can’t really say you’re doing what you’re hired to do if you take a second job that you perform during the same hours when you’re not allowed to under your agreement.
If someone wants to work 9-5, then 5-1 and somehow can manage both that’s different. For liability sake alone it’s a problem.
Mm iono, kinda sounds like people finally using the concept of salaried exempt positions properly.
For too long, people let themselves get bullied into equating salaried positions with hourly positions, having their time micromanaged and scrutinized when it shouldn’t have been the case by definition.
“Doing what they are hired to do” is very often defined in employment agreements as working x number of hours.
Not necessarily true anymore in white collar professions, especially nowadays with gig work. It really depends on the language and terms of your employment contract. I’ve worked for places that define the employment as 40 hours per week, and also for places that define it as specific tasks for a length of time, and also for places that define it as availability during set hours of the day. It’s very important to read the employment contract terms and the company’s employee handbook.
You can’t really say you’re doing what you’re hired to do if you take a second job that you perform during the same hours when you’re not allowed to under your agreement.
If your job explicitly defines your employment as being available and dedicated during set hours, or if your contract explicitly says you can’t take on additional employment, then you’re right. That would be “double-dipping”.
I also hated working for those types of places, because they’re usually run by micromanagers who failed up and measure their worth by how many emails they forward along. Which are probably the same type of people who are mad about overemployment to begin with.
The way I see it, it only becomes a problem if you have multiple jobs that have a problem with it. And I can’t imagine why anyone with the means to work two 6-figure jobs would choose to work for two of those companies.
Not really. If they’re fulfilling their contractual obligations to their employer(s), then who the hell cares?
It’s long past time that we stop treating employees like they’re chattel of the company that they work for. You hire someone to do a job, which they either do to your satisfaction or not, but you don’t own them and you shouldn’t get to control the parameters of their life.
They aren’t fulfilling their contractual obligations if they aren’t allowed to have a second job and are doing it anyway, so this notion is nonsense to begin with. If you get paid hourly you can’t be working for someone else while getting paid by the first company for the same time. For salaried, typically there are expectations of how long you’ll be working or even your availability.
The company I work for has more than three decades of experience with WFH, and it’s almost always clear when someone is trying to double dip. It’s impossible to keep it hidden for long. Eventually you will have conflicting schedules, and excuses start piling up. Even if the work is good, very few jobs are done in a vacuum where you never need to talk to anyone or work things through. Most situations like that are handled by subcontractors who have all the freedoms you’re talking about. In fact the only situation I can even think of that would fit the mold of how work is being framed here is through contractors.
But that right there is the issue. Why should a company be allowed to prohibit employees from having a second job if it doesn’t conflict with the first one? And if a company does have that right, does it apply to all jobs? What is the difference in that case between working two jobs in the same industry in different market sectors vs working two retail jobs?
Another POV: if I incorporated myself tomorrow and offered what I do for a living as a professional service, then I become the company and the companies that hire me for my services become the client. Do clients have the right to say I can’t take on other clients? (FWIW I have seen some clients try that and get shut down immediately, and I’ve also never heard of any company agreeing to those terms with a client.)
It depends on the terms of employment. If they are salaried, then there are no real work hours and just work to do. In general, if someone is salaried, they’re paid to do a job not when they do it.
This is not true. Salaries only means your pay is decided on a yearly basis and divided into each paycheck and not calculated and tracked per hour. Other conditions of employment including working hours and specific job duties are all part of your employment agreement. If your agreement has no set hours of any sort or limitations for other work, then there’s no problem. If a company is going to agree to pay you a salary, they are going to set how many hours you should be working, and reasonably expect you not to be double dipping.
No to the second-to-last assertion, not definitionally. The last one is simply begging the question.
Maybe it is because I have worked in tech oriented roles (which this article is geared towards)but none of my jobs have stipulated number of hours I need to work.
Not sure why people downvoting you.
You have some good points and arguments, specially compare to the “they think they own us” comments. Everything isn’t black and white.
The other perfectly qualified person out of the job so that you could buy a second house?
Awfully presumptuous of you to assume someone else’s financial situation.
I don’t work, so there’s at least one job free :) And I also don’t need any more houses. So, someone must’nt work two jobs because he steals one job from someone more needy? He got the 2nd job despite the needier one also applying, right?
It’s preposterous to think you CAN simultaneously do so without impact either at all. All it takes is two meetings or two impromptu phone calls at once. You will choose one over the other, in which case the company you didn’t prioritize is hurt as well as the other employees that you’re collaborating with.
Become a contractor if you want to double dip. You set your own schedule, work as many jobs as you want, and even get to choose your own raises.
There will be impact for sure, but as long as you still perform your job to the satisfaction of both employers, then it does not matter.
Paying a wage doesn’t mean you own 100% of the concentration of a person. It means you want them to do a job, and as long as they do it well enough for your standards, then the contract is fulfilled. Whether they can do the job at 70% or 40% concentration does not matter. You still get what you have paid for.
If you want your employees to concentrate more on your job, then pay them more so they don’t have to get a second job.
Full time employees might have core hours and then flexibility outside of that. Otherwise, you do your work as quickly as possible and then outside of that is free time. Unless they are reusing the same work at two jobs, they likely are not double dipping. If their metrics are fine, there is no reason for a manager to care other than wanting to micro manage someone’s life.
To be clear: If you Tell two employers that you are working for them from 1pm to 2pm, you are double dipping. The title of the article doesn’t line up with the content. Having a second job that you work outside of the hours / commitment of your first job is fine as long as you didn’t agree not to do so with your first employer. If you want to work 9-5 earning 6 figures in a WFH white collar job, then go out and get a night job at Target and are somehow able to succeed during your first job the vast majority of employers aren’t going to give a shit. The reason employers give a shit is this is a largely fake narrative. Studies have shown the 40 hour work week is too long. People working two jobs cannot keep it up for long and be as good at their jobs. Second, people are conflating having 2 separate jobs with working two jobs at the literal same time. Working 9-5 at two companies and juggling email and meetings between them. The article touches on this, but I completely disagree with the author. So much of business is based on collaboration that having to wait for a peer who is doing work for another company now costs the first company for every person that is waiting on them. Maybe 2% of my work can be done without a single other co-worker being involved in some way. During regular business hours the expectation is that you are being paid to work and collaborate with your co-workers on a regular basis outside of normal PTO etc.
If they can get their work done on time, and with appropriate quality, who cares? If they can’t keep up with the workload, then they can get in trouble for that.
FWIW, Microsoft explicitly allows having multiple jobs. Their policy basically amounts to “don’t cross the streams”.
If someone is completing what you ask of them, the ONLY reason anyone would ever care about what they do with their time is ego. But muh underlings! But muh meeting attendees! But muh sense of power!
Dinosaur companies will continue to suffer as they should.
If you do everything you need to, are responsive to all communication, participate in group meetings, contribute to the business like everyone else I wouldn’t know you have a second job and therefore wouldn’t care. But this is a fake narrative because it’s impossible to do that for two jobs at once. If it’s not my company it’s the other one that’s being neglected. For certain projects work can be divided evenly, but when there are deadlines some people end up doing more otherwise we miss the deadline. So if one worker is slower the only alternative is fire them and that’s not really something I want to do just because someone isn’t as fast as something if they turn in good work. However if the reason it takes them so long is they are taking other work that’s a completely different story.
