4 ms·

It depends, for example I have to get approval for any second jobs to my employer. This is certainly in part for competition reasons, but it's also so they can

It depends, for example I have to get approval for any second jobs to my employer. This is certainly in part for competition reasons, but it's also so they can ensure that I'm not materially increasing my risk of burn-out, which would cost them (and I think they have a legal obligation to ensure I'm remaining healthy within their scope, though I'm not sure where the boundaries of that lie.) So if I said I was doing 5 hours or so per week for something else unrelated to my company, it'd probably be fine. If I instead was doing 30, there'd be cause to not give me approval, or step me down to reduced hours with them, or similar.

toolz 6y ago
I think you mean well, but that's a strawman. If your contract obligates you to let your employer know of other jobs you'd be in breech of contract. It's not okay to just assume these people are in breech of contract just because you might be if you did the same. As for future risk should a company be able to limit you from partying on a sunday simply because statistically you'd probably perform worse on monday? If that clause is not in the agreed employment contract then the company gets no say in what you do on sunday, right? It's amazing to me that people feel so morally beholden to companies that would dispose of them the second it would be obviously profitable to do so. Companies feel no moral obligation to employees, they behave just as ethically as the workforce and consumers demand they behave. They do not volunteer extra consideration just because it might feel right. The idea that any employee should afford them extra consideration beyond their contract is arguably wrong and potentially unethical. If the workforce holds that employees owe companies more than they receive, would that workforce not be partially responsible for setting up unfair relationships and toxic work environments?
- eythian 6y ago
  Well, I was presenting as an example as to why such a thing might be the case thereby adding nuance, not really an argument per se. They can't limit me from partying on Sunday, but they are legally obliged to prevent over-work, and that includes being aware of other employment. It's nothing to do with corporate morality or anything like that. It's just that they must do this because the government says they must.

toolz 6y ago

I think you mean well, but that's a strawman. If your contract obligates you to let your employer know of other jobs you'd be in breech of contract. It's not okay to just assume these people are in breech of contract just because you might be if you did the same. As for future risk should a company be able to limit you from partying on a sunday simply because statistically you'd probably perform worse on monday? If that clause is not in the agreed employment contract then the company gets no say in what you do on sunday, right? It's amazing to me that people feel so morally beholden to companies that would dispose of them the second it would be obviously profitable to do so. Companies feel no moral obligation to employees, they behave just as ethically as the workforce and consumers demand they behave. They do not volunteer extra consideration just because it might feel right. The idea that any employee should afford them extra consideration beyond their contract is arguably wrong and potentially unethical. If the workforce holds that employees owe companies more than they receive, would that workforce not be partially responsible for setting up unfair relationships and toxic work environments?

eythian 6y ago
Well, I was presenting as an example as to why such a thing might be the case thereby adding nuance, not really an argument per se. They can't limit me from partying on Sunday, but they are legally obliged to prevent over-work, and that includes being aware of other employment. It's nothing to do with corporate morality or anything like that. It's just that they must do this because the government says they must.