4 ms·

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

by 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.

by bmelton 16y ago

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.