5 ms·

Just because something is "perfectly legal" does not mean that it's not cheating. I typically wouldn't have an issue with someone working 2 jobs, but I do take

Just because something is "perfectly legal" does not mean that it's not cheating. I typically wouldn't have an issue with someone working 2 jobs, but I do take slight issue if this situation is true. These aren't just 2 companies, these are two companies who are competitors with each other in many fields. These are two companies who pay very large salaries to hold on to talent in order for their competitors to not hire them, and this situation is only possible due to the current situation around "work from home". As someone who works remote even outside of a pandemic, I would be worried that stories and potential situations like this will be a point in the "we require all employees to be back in the office" column. This employee taking advantage of work-from-home in order to violate a non-compete (which I am sure exists in their contract) puts a bad look on every one else.

aaomidi 6y ago
They pay massive salaries because they make massive profits. A software engineer at a big company really isn't that much better than a software engineer at a random smaller company. The businesses just make so much money that if they don't pay well someone else will and crush their business.
- nrmitchi 6y ago
  > if they don't pay well someone else will and crush their business I think you just agreed with what I said? They pay well in order to hang on to their talent to prevent their competitors from hiring them.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> Just because something is "perfectly legal" does not mean that it's not cheating. In arms-length business relationships, including normal employment relationships, that's exactly what it means. The applicable law, including binding legal agreements like employment contracts, set the rules. Not violating the rules is not cheating. > but I do take slight issue if this situation is true. Why? Even if every word of the tweet is true, nothing says the positions aren't both contract positions with no, even informal, exclusivity expectation.
- nrmitchi 6y ago
  > agreements like employment contracts, set the rules. Yes, however as far as I know employment contracts for both Google and Facebook would both prohibit having a full-time job at a competitor. Between that and IP ownership concerns, I would call this "cheating". > nothing says the positions aren't both contract positions with no, even informal, exclusivity expectation You're right, it's not explicitly stated, but it is high implied that these are employee-employer relationships (and not contracting) positions.

aaomidi 6y ago

They pay massive salaries because they make massive profits. A software engineer at a big company really isn't that much better than a software engineer at a random smaller company. The businesses just make so much money that if they don't pay well someone else will and crush their business.

nrmitchi 6y ago
> if they don't pay well someone else will and crush their business I think you just agreed with what I said? They pay well in order to hang on to their talent to prevent their competitors from hiring them.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> Just because something is "perfectly legal" does not mean that it's not cheating. In arms-length business relationships, including normal employment relationships, that's exactly what it means. The applicable law, including binding legal agreements like employment contracts, set the rules. Not violating the rules is not cheating. > but I do take slight issue if this situation is true. Why? Even if every word of the tweet is true, nothing says the positions aren't both contract positions with no, even informal, exclusivity expectation.

nrmitchi 6y ago
> agreements like employment contracts, set the rules. Yes, however as far as I know employment contracts for both Google and Facebook would both prohibit having a full-time job at a competitor. Between that and IP ownership concerns, I would call this "cheating". > nothing says the positions aren't both contract positions with no, even informal, exclusivity expectation You're right, it's not explicitly stated, but it is high implied that these are employee-employer relationships (and not contracting) positions.