5 ms·

"write it into their contract that they agree not to work a second job on their day off." In particular due to the exact language ('day off' vs. 'days off') --

by bmelton 16y ago

"write it into their contract that they agree not to work a second job on their day off." In particular due to the exact language ('day off' vs. 'days off') -- If an employee's schedule is Mon-Thu, are they free to work the weekends at another job (but not the Friday), or is all moonlighting prohibited? Are they free to work on their own projects on their off days? If I'm showing bias, I apologize, but I'm a little bit offended that an employer would attempt exercise control over what their employees do in their off time. I'm not saying it isn't ever justified, but if the requirement is that they only work 4 days a week, then they're free to do what they will with the fifth, unless the assertion is that they're actually 'working' five days a week, and are just ordered to relax on the fifth day.

bartonfink 16y ago
I agree, and if I worked there I would completely ignore that clause. I wouldn't even worry about lining through it before I signed on. If they want me to give up my ability to make more money with my time, they can bloody well pay me for it. It's unconscionable and I'd like to see them try to enforce that clause on an employee who decided to do additional work.
- tptacek 16y ago
  Depending on the venue, moonlighting clauses range from almost completely enforceable (MA) to almost (but not entirely) nonenforceable (CA). Overshadowing all legal issues specific to moonlighting is "at-will employment", the standard in practically the whole of the US, which allows a company to fire you without cause. So, if you're moonlighting at an unrelated tech company in California, you're probably fine. But if you take an off-hours job in the same industry as your employer in New York, you can probably be fired. Generally, a prospective employer who says "we have a four day work week, but we only want team members who are going to work this one job" seems to me to be offering a fair trade. If you find those terms unconscionable, you shouldn't accept a job there.
  - bmelton 16y ago
    While I generally agree, without seeing the contract, I'm left wondering exactly where the line is drawn. I accept that, since I'm not being offered an employment contract at Carsonified, it's perhaps none of my business, and that's fair -- but mostly I'm curious about the verbiage on the 'day off' bit.
    - tptacek 16y ago
      Seriously, how do you argue with this even a little? Virtually every other employer in the world will fire you instantly for working a second job during the day on Friday, as an extension of the rule that requires them to fire you for going fishing during the day on Friday. It is beyond reasonable for an employer to require you not to work a second job on Friday in exchange for the day off. So far past reasonable I can't imagine it ever coming up the real world; team members at the 4-day-a-week would probably quit before alienating the company. A four day work week is just a huge, generous benefit.
      - bmelton 16y ago
        I didn't necessarily say that I was arguing. I mean, it's perfectly within their right -- but, where it's generally more acceptable to allow moonlighting on the proverbial Saturdays and Sundays, if they're advertising Friday as a 'day off', then I should be free to do the same. I completely agree with your assertion that it's their right to request you not to, and I can certainly understand the logic of it, specifically in trying not to attract people looking to do the minimal work effort so that they can reap the benefits of another paycheck. Regardless, I have questions. If the Friday is a 'day off', then how is it different than Saturday and Sunday. Do they also insist that you not have a second job on those days? What specifically does it prohibit? Can I work on an open source project? Can I boostrap my own projects? What if they become successful? I was really hoping somebody from Carsonified could speak to this really, and not trying to start an argument, but I do have my own take on things -- I'd just love to know more.
        tptacek 16y ago
dansingerman 16y ago
Good point. Prohibiting what I do on my day off sounds restrictive and unfair. Being paid to relax actually sounds quite nice. Not sure it needs to be in a contract though; surely you should be judged on your performance at work (whether it is 4 or 5 days) and not external factors.
tptacek 16y ago
This seems a bit silly. The employer's objective is to spend capital on keeping employees extra- rested and extra- content, in order to maximize productivity and minimize turnover. If you try to nerd your way out of their plan, they'll meet the objective some other way; for instance, they can simply demand that everyone show up to the office on day 5. A 32 hour work week is such a huge benefit that I can't imagine anyone actually working on such a team trying to subvert it. It's totally reasonable to have side projects and even to work a second job. I think a reasonable person stuck in the situation of wanting a second job while working for the 4-day company would simply leave the team.
- bmelton 16y ago
  I don't want to argue in multiple threads, but you may well have clarified one thing for me, in that it's a 32 hour work week. Honestly, I was thinking it was a 4 day work week of 10 hour shifts, which I generally prefer as it keeps me from having to break when I'm in the middle of something. Still though, you really brought your argument home when you said that (paraphrasing) "If you don't accept the trade, you shouldn't work there," because that is absolutely right. But... is it fair? If my company imposed a 'no alcoholic beverages allowed on weeknights', it's the same sort of proposition, and you're free to accept or decline it as part of the job offer, but does that make it RIGHT? I don't mean to imply that Carsonified is doing anything illicit, or immoral, and I'm sure they have great reasons for it -- but without knowing exactly where the line is drawn, it's hard (for me) to say.
  - wtn 16y ago
    From my reading, it's a 40-hour workweek in which the last 8 hours are paid rest. If they weren't paid, they would have no legal basis for banning the workers from working on Friday. However, the workers may do as they like over the weekend--including working.
    - tptacek 16y ago
      That simply isn't true! Even in California, where anti-moonlighting clauses are very difficult to enforce, there are circumstances (conflict-of-interest being an important one) where you can't work two jobs. In many other states, all anti-moonlighting clauses are considered "reasonable" restrictions on your right to work. Sorry for the stridency, but the logic that carries you to that conclusion is dangerously faulty. The law simply doesn't see most employment, by default, as an exchange of a set number of hours for a set amount of money. The enforceable parts of your contract can make the situation far more complicated than that. For examples, see: intellectual property and trade secrets, noncompetition, conflict of interest, overtime for salaried exempt employees, anti-moonlighting, accidentally representing your company on Twitter, and so on. This stuff is very relevant to startups, as it's an easy way to torpedo yourself before you even pick a name for the company.
wowfat 16y ago
Dont forget to pay them well..
danielhunt 16y ago
I'm wondering where you draw the line of what is considered moonlighting - do you mean absolutely any paid work whatsoever? What if it's nothing at all to do with their job? What if the tech guy wants to work in a dog pound for the day off, or the marketing girl wants to instruct surfing? Is it "any paid work at all"? What about unpaid/volunteering?
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  I know of someone at a bank who got in trouble for offering martial arts instruction on the weekend. He wasn't fired, but he was ordered to stop.
  - danielhunt 16y ago
    What possible reason could they have given to order him to stop? And what would give them the right (or make them think they had the right) to do it in the firstplace :/
    - yummyfajitas 16y ago
      "It's just policy."

by bmelton 16y ago

bartonfink 16y ago

I agree, and if I worked there I would completely ignore that clause. I wouldn't even worry about lining through it before I signed on. If they want me to give up my ability to make more money with my time, they can bloody well pay me for it. It's unconscionable and I'd like to see them try to enforce that clause on an employee who decided to do additional work.

tptacek 16y ago
Depending on the venue, moonlighting clauses range from almost completely enforceable (MA) to almost (but not entirely) nonenforceable (CA). Overshadowing all legal issues specific to moonlighting is "at-will employment", the standard in practically the whole of the US, which allows a company to fire you without cause. So, if you're moonlighting at an unrelated tech company in California, you're probably fine. But if you take an off-hours job in the same industry as your employer in New York, you can probably be fired. Generally, a prospective employer who says "we have a four day work week, but we only want team members who are going to work this one job" seems to me to be offering a fair trade. If you find those terms unconscionable, you shouldn't accept a job there.
- bmelton 16y ago
  While I generally agree, without seeing the contract, I'm left wondering exactly where the line is drawn. I accept that, since I'm not being offered an employment contract at Carsonified, it's perhaps none of my business, and that's fair -- but mostly I'm curious about the verbiage on the 'day off' bit.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    Seriously, how do you argue with this even a little? Virtually every other employer in the world will fire you instantly for working a second job during the day on Friday, as an extension of the rule that requires them to fire you for going fishing during the day on Friday. It is beyond reasonable for an employer to require you not to work a second job on Friday in exchange for the day off. So far past reasonable I can't imagine it ever coming up the real world; team members at the 4-day-a-week would probably quit before alienating the company. A four day work week is just a huge, generous benefit.
    - bmelton 16y ago
      I didn't necessarily say that I was arguing. I mean, it's perfectly within their right -- but, where it's generally more acceptable to allow moonlighting on the proverbial Saturdays and Sundays, if they're advertising Friday as a 'day off', then I should be free to do the same. I completely agree with your assertion that it's their right to request you not to, and I can certainly understand the logic of it, specifically in trying not to attract people looking to do the minimal work effort so that they can reap the benefits of another paycheck. Regardless, I have questions. If the Friday is a 'day off', then how is it different than Saturday and Sunday. Do they also insist that you not have a second job on those days? What specifically does it prohibit? Can I work on an open source project? Can I boostrap my own projects? What if they become successful? I was really hoping somebody from Carsonified could speak to this really, and not trying to start an argument, but I do have my own take on things -- I'd just love to know more.
      - tptacek 16y ago

dansingerman 16y ago

Good point. Prohibiting what I do on my day off sounds restrictive and unfair. Being paid to relax actually sounds quite nice. Not sure it needs to be in a contract though; surely you should be judged on your performance at work (whether it is 4 or 5 days) and not external factors.

tptacek 16y ago

This seems a bit silly. The employer's objective is to spend capital on keeping employees extra- rested and extra- content, in order to maximize productivity and minimize turnover. If you try to nerd your way out of their plan, they'll meet the objective some other way; for instance, they can simply demand that everyone show up to the office on day 5. A 32 hour work week is such a huge benefit that I can't imagine anyone actually working on such a team trying to subvert it. It's totally reasonable to have side projects and even to work a second job. I think a reasonable person stuck in the situation of wanting a second job while working for the 4-day company would simply leave the team.

bmelton 16y ago
I don't want to argue in multiple threads, but you may well have clarified one thing for me, in that it's a 32 hour work week. Honestly, I was thinking it was a 4 day work week of 10 hour shifts, which I generally prefer as it keeps me from having to break when I'm in the middle of something. Still though, you really brought your argument home when you said that (paraphrasing) "If you don't accept the trade, you shouldn't work there," because that is absolutely right. But... is it fair? If my company imposed a 'no alcoholic beverages allowed on weeknights', it's the same sort of proposition, and you're free to accept or decline it as part of the job offer, but does that make it RIGHT? I don't mean to imply that Carsonified is doing anything illicit, or immoral, and I'm sure they have great reasons for it -- but without knowing exactly where the line is drawn, it's hard (for me) to say.
- wtn 16y ago
  From my reading, it's a 40-hour workweek in which the last 8 hours are paid rest. If they weren't paid, they would have no legal basis for banning the workers from working on Friday. However, the workers may do as they like over the weekend--including working.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    That simply isn't true! Even in California, where anti-moonlighting clauses are very difficult to enforce, there are circumstances (conflict-of-interest being an important one) where you can't work two jobs. In many other states, all anti-moonlighting clauses are considered "reasonable" restrictions on your right to work. Sorry for the stridency, but the logic that carries you to that conclusion is dangerously faulty. The law simply doesn't see most employment, by default, as an exchange of a set number of hours for a set amount of money. The enforceable parts of your contract can make the situation far more complicated than that. For examples, see: intellectual property and trade secrets, noncompetition, conflict of interest, overtime for salaried exempt employees, anti-moonlighting, accidentally representing your company on Twitter, and so on. This stuff is very relevant to startups, as it's an easy way to torpedo yourself before you even pick a name for the company.

wowfat 16y ago

Dont forget to pay them well..

danielhunt 16y ago

I'm wondering where you draw the line of what is considered moonlighting - do you mean absolutely any paid work whatsoever? What if it's nothing at all to do with their job? What if the tech guy wants to work in a dog pound for the day off, or the marketing girl wants to instruct surfing? Is it "any paid work at all"? What about unpaid/volunteering?

yummyfajitas 16y ago
I know of someone at a bank who got in trouble for offering martial arts instruction on the weekend. He wasn't fired, but he was ordered to stop.
- danielhunt 16y ago
  What possible reason could they have given to order him to stop? And what would give them the right (or make them think they had the right) to do it in the firstplace :/
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    "It's just policy."