6 ms·

Excellent points except (5) Usually immoral and often illegal

faeyanpiraat 6y ago
Except if you are hired as a contractor
cercatrova 6y ago
I never understand this point personally. If you're delivering value to the multiple companies you work for such that they like you, or at least don't fire you, then I don't see anything immoral in that. It's merely corporations who insist on people working for one and only one company at a time when in reality it shouldn't matter.
- seniorivn 6y ago
  there is a chance you are going to have access to valuable information of competing companies, that would put you in position of power over them, and is a clear conflict of interests. So it's like a lawyer serving opposing parties in court, nobody's asking why it's impossible
  - amw 6y ago
    That's only true in that particular hypothetical. There are a lot of possible circumstances without such a clear conflict of interest. Also, in the lawyer example, someone's freedom or livelihood is on the line. In the company example, it's a company's profits, which has a much less clear relationship to either of those two things, especially in today's world of 250:1 salary ratios.
- confidantlake 6y ago
  Completely agree. Do we insist that corporations only sell to a single customer? No that would be absurd. But insisting a person can only sell their labor to a single customer is seen as perfectly normal.
bazooka_penguin 6y ago
Why is it immoral? As long as the asked work gets done there's nothing wrong with splitting your time. How it any different from spending that time slacking off and working on hobbies, which could be monetized (ie art)
- cj 6y ago
  It's immoral because to be hired for a 40/hr full time job by 2 companies at the same time, you'll need to lie to both companies, representing to both that you're working full time, while in fact you aren't. And presumably the lies aren't limited to the interview process. You'll probably have to lie on a daily/weekly basis to keep up the ruse (for example, what will you say when both companies want you in a meeting at the same time?)
  - sidlls 6y ago
    A different take: in this line of work especially the “40 hour” requirement is an unethical backdoor way to impose a non-compete condition. It’s not entirely an arbitrary number since the 40-hour week has been customary for decades. But in practice there’s no good reason to demand that allocation of time for an exempt, salaried employee.
    - devilduck 6y ago
      Agreed, the 40+ hour workweek is unethical and currently status quo. I am all for toppling that norm.
  - ihojman 6y ago
    I don't think it's immoral if you get to accomplish all of your tasks in both companies. For what I understand, companies want you to do the work they hired you for; they make money out of you, otherwise they wouldn't need you. Maybe a better way to be at 2 companies at the same time is by being completely transparent about working on both places with one of the companies. You automate all your full-time boring work in the first one, and in the second maybe you do part-time, or some kind of work that can align with your own interests. maybe an etrepeneurial partnership or a flexible deal to get a new product that really interests you without having to commit all of your life.
paul_f 6y ago
Simply insist on being paid by 1099 and don't live in California.
CamelCaseName 6y ago
> and often illegal Source? As long as it's not explicitly stated, and in my experience, it never is, then there should be no issue with this.
- hnarn 6y ago
  It's very common for employment contracts to explicitly forbid you from working on things during your employment that is not directly related to your employment. An expectation of "loyalty" is also often even included in labor law, even in very left leaning countries in Europe.
  - gryn 6y ago
    yes, which is bullshit because this said loyalty is not reciprocated in any meaningful way, I still fail to see how such conditions came to be.
  - dmitriid 6y ago
    As I said in a sibling comment, bill by the hour, and they start calling you a consultant, and suddenly this isn't an issue anymore :)
- kelp 6y ago
  I've only worked at tech companies, and mostly the kind that you want to work at. But basically every company I've worked at has some clause in the employment contract about outside activities. And typically having another full time job would violate the spirit, if not the letter of the employment contract. That said, some contracting on the side is probably fine, as long as it's not at a competitor.
  - koheripbal 6y ago
    Correct. Most companies have "Moonlighting" clauses. It's a clause that originally meant that you couldn't have a 2nd night job, because you would be exhausted in your primary job, but it also includes having a 2nd job in the same hours.
- 6y ago
ncallaway 6y ago
> often illegal I think a citation is needed here. It _may_ be a contract violation, but I struggle to think of many jurisdictions where this would be illegal. Could you share some examples of when this would violate a law?
mitchdoogle 6y ago
I thought the whole point of being paid a salary was to not have to worry about keeping track of hours

Except if you are hired as a contractor

I never understand this point personally. If you're delivering value to the multiple companies you work for such that they like you, or at least don't fire you, then I don't see anything immoral in that. It's merely corporations who insist on people working for one and only one company at a time when in reality it shouldn't matter.

seniorivn 6y ago
there is a chance you are going to have access to valuable information of competing companies, that would put you in position of power over them, and is a clear conflict of interests. So it's like a lawyer serving opposing parties in court, nobody's asking why it's impossible
- amw 6y ago
  That's only true in that particular hypothetical. There are a lot of possible circumstances without such a clear conflict of interest. Also, in the lawyer example, someone's freedom or livelihood is on the line. In the company example, it's a company's profits, which has a much less clear relationship to either of those two things, especially in today's world of 250:1 salary ratios.
confidantlake 6y ago
Completely agree. Do we insist that corporations only sell to a single customer? No that would be absurd. But insisting a person can only sell their labor to a single customer is seen as perfectly normal.

bazooka_penguin 6y ago

Why is it immoral? As long as the asked work gets done there's nothing wrong with splitting your time. How it any different from spending that time slacking off and working on hobbies, which could be monetized (ie art)

cj 6y ago
It's immoral because to be hired for a 40/hr full time job by 2 companies at the same time, you'll need to lie to both companies, representing to both that you're working full time, while in fact you aren't. And presumably the lies aren't limited to the interview process. You'll probably have to lie on a daily/weekly basis to keep up the ruse (for example, what will you say when both companies want you in a meeting at the same time?)
- sidlls 6y ago
  A different take: in this line of work especially the “40 hour” requirement is an unethical backdoor way to impose a non-compete condition. It’s not entirely an arbitrary number since the 40-hour week has been customary for decades. But in practice there’s no good reason to demand that allocation of time for an exempt, salaried employee.
  - devilduck 6y ago
    Agreed, the 40+ hour workweek is unethical and currently status quo. I am all for toppling that norm.
- ihojman 6y ago
  I don't think it's immoral if you get to accomplish all of your tasks in both companies. For what I understand, companies want you to do the work they hired you for; they make money out of you, otherwise they wouldn't need you. Maybe a better way to be at 2 companies at the same time is by being completely transparent about working on both places with one of the companies. You automate all your full-time boring work in the first one, and in the second maybe you do part-time, or some kind of work that can align with your own interests. maybe an etrepeneurial partnership or a flexible deal to get a new product that really interests you without having to commit all of your life.

paul_f 6y ago

Simply insist on being paid by 1099 and don't live in California.

CamelCaseName 6y ago

> and often illegal Source? As long as it's not explicitly stated, and in my experience, it never is, then there should be no issue with this.

hnarn 6y ago
It's very common for employment contracts to explicitly forbid you from working on things during your employment that is not directly related to your employment. An expectation of "loyalty" is also often even included in labor law, even in very left leaning countries in Europe.
- gryn 6y ago
  yes, which is bullshit because this said loyalty is not reciprocated in any meaningful way, I still fail to see how such conditions came to be.
- dmitriid 6y ago
  As I said in a sibling comment, bill by the hour, and they start calling you a consultant, and suddenly this isn't an issue anymore :)
kelp 6y ago
I've only worked at tech companies, and mostly the kind that you want to work at. But basically every company I've worked at has some clause in the employment contract about outside activities. And typically having another full time job would violate the spirit, if not the letter of the employment contract. That said, some contracting on the side is probably fine, as long as it's not at a competitor.
- koheripbal 6y ago
  Correct. Most companies have "Moonlighting" clauses. It's a clause that originally meant that you couldn't have a 2nd night job, because you would be exhausted in your primary job, but it also includes having a 2nd job in the same hours.
6y ago

ncallaway 6y ago

> often illegal I think a citation is needed here. It _may_ be a contract violation, but I struggle to think of many jurisdictions where this would be illegal. Could you share some examples of when this would violate a law?

mitchdoogle 6y ago

I thought the whole point of being paid a salary was to not have to worry about keeping track of hours