64 ms·

Why do you care that someone has more than one job? If you can’t easily identify if someone has multiple jobs from decreased productivity then how does it matte

Why do you care that someone has more than one job? If you can’t easily identify if someone has multiple jobs from decreased productivity then how does it matter? Do you have clear milestones and performance metrics? Do you pay your developers well enough that they don’t have to take on other jobs? Think about what actual problem you have if some of your remote developers have two jobs. Can you measure the costs or risks? Or do perceive it as a betrayal or lack of control? Ed Zitron wrote “If someone gets their work done to a high quality and on time and also happens to be working another job, you do not actually have a problem, and if anything, you’re lucky to have them.” https://ez.substack.com/p/the-two-jobby-problem https://ez.substack.com/p/the-two-jobby-problem

iExploder 5y ago
why? the answer is simple ... control you need to hit them with low salaries and high taxes, when they try for a better life quickly squash that crap with overly broad non-competes welcome to Europe how about paying employees adequately to a point where they don't have to work multiple full time jobs at a time, such an outlandish idea
- jstx1 5y ago
  > how about paying employees adequately to a point where they don't have to work multiple full time jobs at a time We aren't talking about people holding mulitple low-paying jobs to make ends meet. It's mostly people in well payed positions taking advantage of being remote.
  - gregjor 5y ago
    Explain how that changes anything. Does an employer somehow have the right to limit the income of employees because they are supposedly well-paid? If someone can get two jobs done successfully who exactly are they taking advantage of?
    - jstx1 5y ago
      I don't think they have a right to limit the employees' income but they do have a right to demand full time work when they're paying for it. It's a tricky problem that I don't necessarily have an answer to. My point was that it's misleading to compare people who have to work multiple jobs to survive with people who are making hundreds of thousands at each job. Example from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29784608 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29784608: > As far as the money goes, my math goes like this: > - 1 job: 250-300K cash, 250-300K equity (at the high end, higher if I moved to management) > - 4 jobs: My current situation is 225K avg cash (including bonuses) per job, 100K avg equity per job You can't look at this and say (like the GP comment did) "how about paying employees adequately".
      - gregjor 5y ago
        The employer can reasonably expect to get the work they pay for. Professional and creative employees usually get paid for results and meeting goals, not for warming a chair for eight hours. The employer can use cameras and keystroke loggers to make sure they get their eight hours a day — Upwork offers this “service” and I’ve heard of employers doing it. That would be a big morale booster and show of trust from the employer. It’s up to the employer to set clear performance expectations and measurements, then handle employees who don’t meet those expectations as a job performance problem. If the employer can’t do that basic management work, preferring to pry and control and intimidate their employees into submission, they deserve what they get. I don’t understand the argument “They are already well-paid so they shouldn’t look to make more money.” Try that on the C-suite execs who sit on multiple corporate boards.
        jstx1 5y ago
        > It’s up to the employer to set clear performance expectations and measurements, then handle employees who don’t meet those expectations as a job performance problem. Yes, and that's the question that OP is asking - how do you set those expectations and measurements. It's a starting point for the whole conversation, not the end of it. > I don’t understand the argument “They are already well-paid so they shouldn’t look to make more money.” I've never made this argument or seen anyone else in the thread make this argument.
  - rapjr9 5y ago
    Those "well payed positions" have had flat salaries for decades, same as every other non-C-suite job, at least until recently (and now we have inflation eating salary increases). Working one job to support kids, a house, and a stay-at-home partner used to be possible. Not any longer. If your partner can't work or you'd prefer to have more attention paid to raising the kids, then two simultaneous jobs for the wage earner seems like a requirement today. Or you could choose to live like a common laborer, cheap old house, beater for a car, having to shop carefully on a budget. The middle class is not what it used to be, although you are encouraged to think it is [citation needed :-)]
    - impjohn 5y ago
      Seems to be a local minima in Europe that for a family to have enough resources, both partners need to have careers and full-time jobs. However two careers do not mix very well with a family perspective and having kids. Then some people wonder why the birth rates in EU are falling rapidly..
- gregjor 5y ago
  I suspect it’s mostly about control, or maybe some misguided idea that employees owe loyalty to their employer. People trade their work for money. It’s not like getting married, forsaking all others. If the employer sets clear performance expectations and has some way to measure performance, then employees either meet expectations or they don’t. If they don’t the employer can take remedial action, up to letting the employee go. It doesn’t really matter if the poor performance or low productivity was caused by another job or the employee playing video games or watching TV all day. There’s some irony in the business the OP describes hires programmers out to multiple customers. That means the owners and managers of the company are working multiple jobs.
  - iExploder 5y ago
    > There’s some irony in the business the OP describes hires programmers out to multiple customers. That means the owners and managers of the company are working multiple jobs. nailed it :) its fine when we pocket the US cost / EU dev salary difference, but its not ok when you try to go solo and do the same its not exactly breakthrough idea, don't get weird when someone else tries to have a go at it
  - NaTopp 5y ago
    > There’s some irony in the business the OP describes hires programmers out to multiple customers. That means the owners and managers of the company are working multiple jobs. Interesting point. Didn't thought about that yet! I wouldn't say the situtations are exactly the same, but they share a lot of details.
NaTopp 5y ago
Good questions. > Do you have clear milestones and performance metrics? Milestones yes, performance metrics not so much. Main reason here is that we serve different clients and we extend their existing strategies/work flows. So some times it's hard to measure stuff. Nonetheless in the past we did not pass milestones on time and thus questions were raised (esp. from clients). So I guess we should start to build up some metrics. Any suggestions? > Think about what actual problem you have Main argument is about trust. We want to have provide an open work culture, so that everyone can openly speak about anything. If there are troubles (e.g. with performance) we try to encourage everyone to speak openly about it and to find solutions. Secondly some times people are not as responsive (in terms of communication) as we initially agreed and usually re-negotiate every now and then. And third: yes, there was decreased productity - and still is from time to time - so we openly try to find a solution with the affected people to increase it again. Unfortunately decreased productivity is not backed by a lot of data, but by day to day So I'd guess confirmation bias is also some factor for the company. > Do you pay your developers well enough [...] I'm not in the position to know exact numbers, but what I've heard so far is that they are compensated well. Nonetheless I don't know exact details. But I know that they don't get a compensation like people in Europe. ---- Yes, one could boil this down to control (as mentioned in another comment), but I don't think it's that easy. If we agree on a contract, then I (personally) expect that each site of the contract is fullfilling their duties. And our contract clearly states that the company must be informed about side-projects and other work. There is no direct penalty if one works a second job, but there will be a huge trust issue.
- gregjor 5y ago
  I have freelanced for about 15 years. I normally have multiple customers and projects simultaneously. I rarely manage other programmers so I’m only responsible for my own productivity. My customers know I have other jobs, they have to trust me that I don’t disclose their secrets or work for a competitor. It’s never presented a problem. With my customers I am continuously negotiating goals, milestones, expectations, costs, and risks. I want my customers to understand what they are paying for and what I am committing to. As much as possible I try to charge for deliverables rather than for my time, but sometimes customers prefer to pay by the hour, or on a retainer. However we work that out I try to always make sure my customer and I are clear about what they expect from me and how much time that will take and what it will cost. That comes down to communication, and generally we iterate on their goals. Measuring productivity is a hard problem, and even harder for creative people who may have large variations in their own productivity over time, and aren’t directly comparable to other individuals. I would start with setting clear goals and measurable deliverables and then getting the employee to commit to those. That means breaking the work down into measurable pieces, which will happen one way or another, so it’s probably best to do that work up front so no one gets surprised. Communication is something you can set clear expectations about. For example I commit to my customers that I will answer routine emails the same day, and urgent emails or phone calls immediately. I ask my customers to respect my time and if everything turns into an emergency with them we’ll have to talk about that. You should have some idea of what fair pay or market rate looks like for the people you employ. Personally I don’t believe it’s fair to pay people less because of where they live — everyone should get paid according to the value they add, whether they live in London or Bangalore. If you don’t pay people enough they will take on other jobs, or look for a job elsewhere. I would not sign a contract that obliged me to inform my employer or a customer about other work. Sometimes issues of competition and intellectual property come into play. If someone is inclined to act unethically or break the law a contract clause isn’t likely to stop them. If you ask employees to agree to inform you of outside work, what do you agree to in return? Do you inform your employees about all of your customers? How much the company gets paid by customers? Whether the founders have other business commitments? Bottom line is you pay people for their work, period. You can’t expect loyalty or openness or trust, especially if it’s one-way in the company’s favor. People are loyal to employers who treat them well. They trust employers who trust them and treat them with respect. How open someone is with their employer is really up to them — they don’t owe that to their job.
VoodooJuJu 5y ago
I'll tell you why I care, and why I resent it: it's rent-collecting without risk-taking. It's a shining example of the frivolousness of modern office work. That the majority of it is filled with Bullshit Jobs. That if these positions disappeared tomorrow, the world would keep turning (and might even be better off). That said, I myself am trying for such an arrangement, that is, multiple remote (bullshit) jobs.

iExploder 5y ago

why? the answer is simple ... control you need to hit them with low salaries and high taxes, when they try for a better life quickly squash that crap with overly broad non-competes welcome to Europe how about paying employees adequately to a point where they don't have to work multiple full time jobs at a time, such an outlandish idea

jstx1 5y ago
> how about paying employees adequately to a point where they don't have to work multiple full time jobs at a time We aren't talking about people holding mulitple low-paying jobs to make ends meet. It's mostly people in well payed positions taking advantage of being remote.
- gregjor 5y ago
  Explain how that changes anything. Does an employer somehow have the right to limit the income of employees because they are supposedly well-paid? If someone can get two jobs done successfully who exactly are they taking advantage of?
  - jstx1 5y ago
    I don't think they have a right to limit the employees' income but they do have a right to demand full time work when they're paying for it. It's a tricky problem that I don't necessarily have an answer to. My point was that it's misleading to compare people who have to work multiple jobs to survive with people who are making hundreds of thousands at each job. Example from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29784608 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29784608: > As far as the money goes, my math goes like this: > - 1 job: 250-300K cash, 250-300K equity (at the high end, higher if I moved to management) > - 4 jobs: My current situation is 225K avg cash (including bonuses) per job, 100K avg equity per job You can't look at this and say (like the GP comment did) "how about paying employees adequately".
    - gregjor 5y ago
      The employer can reasonably expect to get the work they pay for. Professional and creative employees usually get paid for results and meeting goals, not for warming a chair for eight hours. The employer can use cameras and keystroke loggers to make sure they get their eight hours a day — Upwork offers this “service” and I’ve heard of employers doing it. That would be a big morale booster and show of trust from the employer. It’s up to the employer to set clear performance expectations and measurements, then handle employees who don’t meet those expectations as a job performance problem. If the employer can’t do that basic management work, preferring to pry and control and intimidate their employees into submission, they deserve what they get. I don’t understand the argument “They are already well-paid so they shouldn’t look to make more money.” Try that on the C-suite execs who sit on multiple corporate boards.
      - jstx1 5y ago
        > It’s up to the employer to set clear performance expectations and measurements, then handle employees who don’t meet those expectations as a job performance problem. Yes, and that's the question that OP is asking - how do you set those expectations and measurements. It's a starting point for the whole conversation, not the end of it. > I don’t understand the argument “They are already well-paid so they shouldn’t look to make more money.” I've never made this argument or seen anyone else in the thread make this argument.
- rapjr9 5y ago
  Those "well payed positions" have had flat salaries for decades, same as every other non-C-suite job, at least until recently (and now we have inflation eating salary increases). Working one job to support kids, a house, and a stay-at-home partner used to be possible. Not any longer. If your partner can't work or you'd prefer to have more attention paid to raising the kids, then two simultaneous jobs for the wage earner seems like a requirement today. Or you could choose to live like a common laborer, cheap old house, beater for a car, having to shop carefully on a budget. The middle class is not what it used to be, although you are encouraged to think it is [citation needed :-)]
  - impjohn 5y ago
    Seems to be a local minima in Europe that for a family to have enough resources, both partners need to have careers and full-time jobs. However two careers do not mix very well with a family perspective and having kids. Then some people wonder why the birth rates in EU are falling rapidly..
gregjor 5y ago
I suspect it’s mostly about control, or maybe some misguided idea that employees owe loyalty to their employer. People trade their work for money. It’s not like getting married, forsaking all others. If the employer sets clear performance expectations and has some way to measure performance, then employees either meet expectations or they don’t. If they don’t the employer can take remedial action, up to letting the employee go. It doesn’t really matter if the poor performance or low productivity was caused by another job or the employee playing video games or watching TV all day. There’s some irony in the business the OP describes hires programmers out to multiple customers. That means the owners and managers of the company are working multiple jobs.
- iExploder 5y ago
  > There’s some irony in the business the OP describes hires programmers out to multiple customers. That means the owners and managers of the company are working multiple jobs. nailed it :) its fine when we pocket the US cost / EU dev salary difference, but its not ok when you try to go solo and do the same its not exactly breakthrough idea, don't get weird when someone else tries to have a go at it
- NaTopp 5y ago
  > There’s some irony in the business the OP describes hires programmers out to multiple customers. That means the owners and managers of the company are working multiple jobs. Interesting point. Didn't thought about that yet! I wouldn't say the situtations are exactly the same, but they share a lot of details.

NaTopp 5y ago

Good questions. > Do you have clear milestones and performance metrics? Milestones yes, performance metrics not so much. Main reason here is that we serve different clients and we extend their existing strategies/work flows. So some times it's hard to measure stuff. Nonetheless in the past we did not pass milestones on time and thus questions were raised (esp. from clients). So I guess we should start to build up some metrics. Any suggestions? > Think about what actual problem you have Main argument is about trust. We want to have provide an open work culture, so that everyone can openly speak about anything. If there are troubles (e.g. with performance) we try to encourage everyone to speak openly about it and to find solutions. Secondly some times people are not as responsive (in terms of communication) as we initially agreed and usually re-negotiate every now and then. And third: yes, there was decreased productity - and still is from time to time - so we openly try to find a solution with the affected people to increase it again. Unfortunately decreased productivity is not backed by a lot of data, but by day to day So I'd guess confirmation bias is also some factor for the company. > Do you pay your developers well enough [...] I'm not in the position to know exact numbers, but what I've heard so far is that they are compensated well. Nonetheless I don't know exact details. But I know that they don't get a compensation like people in Europe. ---- Yes, one could boil this down to control (as mentioned in another comment), but I don't think it's that easy. If we agree on a contract, then I (personally) expect that each site of the contract is fullfilling their duties. And our contract clearly states that the company must be informed about side-projects and other work. There is no direct penalty if one works a second job, but there will be a huge trust issue.

gregjor 5y ago
I have freelanced for about 15 years. I normally have multiple customers and projects simultaneously. I rarely manage other programmers so I’m only responsible for my own productivity. My customers know I have other jobs, they have to trust me that I don’t disclose their secrets or work for a competitor. It’s never presented a problem. With my customers I am continuously negotiating goals, milestones, expectations, costs, and risks. I want my customers to understand what they are paying for and what I am committing to. As much as possible I try to charge for deliverables rather than for my time, but sometimes customers prefer to pay by the hour, or on a retainer. However we work that out I try to always make sure my customer and I are clear about what they expect from me and how much time that will take and what it will cost. That comes down to communication, and generally we iterate on their goals. Measuring productivity is a hard problem, and even harder for creative people who may have large variations in their own productivity over time, and aren’t directly comparable to other individuals. I would start with setting clear goals and measurable deliverables and then getting the employee to commit to those. That means breaking the work down into measurable pieces, which will happen one way or another, so it’s probably best to do that work up front so no one gets surprised. Communication is something you can set clear expectations about. For example I commit to my customers that I will answer routine emails the same day, and urgent emails or phone calls immediately. I ask my customers to respect my time and if everything turns into an emergency with them we’ll have to talk about that. You should have some idea of what fair pay or market rate looks like for the people you employ. Personally I don’t believe it’s fair to pay people less because of where they live — everyone should get paid according to the value they add, whether they live in London or Bangalore. If you don’t pay people enough they will take on other jobs, or look for a job elsewhere. I would not sign a contract that obliged me to inform my employer or a customer about other work. Sometimes issues of competition and intellectual property come into play. If someone is inclined to act unethically or break the law a contract clause isn’t likely to stop them. If you ask employees to agree to inform you of outside work, what do you agree to in return? Do you inform your employees about all of your customers? How much the company gets paid by customers? Whether the founders have other business commitments? Bottom line is you pay people for their work, period. You can’t expect loyalty or openness or trust, especially if it’s one-way in the company’s favor. People are loyal to employers who treat them well. They trust employers who trust them and treat them with respect. How open someone is with their employer is really up to them — they don’t owe that to their job.

VoodooJuJu 5y ago

I'll tell you why I care, and why I resent it: it's rent-collecting without risk-taking. It's a shining example of the frivolousness of modern office work. That the majority of it is filled with Bullshit Jobs. That if these positions disappeared tomorrow, the world would keep turning (and might even be better off). That said, I myself am trying for such an arrangement, that is, multiple remote (bullshit) jobs.