4 ms·

> So yes, overemployed remote workers really exist, but at least in her case it was largely due to incompetent management. I mean, incompetent management may h

by gsk22 4y ago

> So yes, overemployed remote workers really exist, but at least in her case it was largely due to incompetent management. I mean, incompetent management may have allowed the situation to persist. But your wife "working" 2.5 jobs for (presumably) the expected hours of just one of those jobs can't be blamed on management. She chose to accept all 3 of those positions with the knowledge that she wouldn't meet the conditions of employ. I'm not a "send 'em to jail!" type, and I have little sympathy for large corporations, but let's not pretend it's anything less than time theft.

anikan_vader 4y ago
>> time theft But her time is not their property, and so there is nothing illegal about her doing with it as she pleases. You can’t steal something that is already yours.
wpietri 4y ago
What makes it "time theft", whatever that means? US employers have worked very hard to make many of their workers "exempt" [1] such that they don't have to pay for overtime and can make people work egregious hours without getting in legal trouble. If that's not "time theft", then I don't see why an exempt worker who can do the work of two people shouldn't get paid for doing the work of two people. It would be different if they were hourly workers and they were double-billing for the same hour, of course. But I don't think that's what's happening here. [1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/exempt-employee.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/exempt-employee.asp
- gsk22 4y ago
  You can still "double-bill" in an exempt position. Most employment contracts I've seen stipulate an expected work week of 40 hours. If I sign 3 contracts like that, now I would need to work 120 hours to fulfill the obligation. And as long as someone collects the paychecks from all 3 jobs without fulfilling the contractual requirements of those jobs, well, that is sort of the definition of theft. Money gained without performing the work necessary to earn it.
  - wpietri 4y ago
    I don't think I've ever seen an employment contract for an exempt position that specifies the number of hours to work. So yes, if somebody is foolish enough to sign that, they might get in trouble. But again, I doubt that's the case here.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
telchior 4y ago
I think you're making an unwarranted leap here. The management never complained about or monitored hours worked; the requirements of the job were simply completing tasks. Which she did, as I said, at or above expectations (the company she continued consulting for is still trying to rehire her at "full time", but they really just mean adding more responsibilities and tasks). Sure, there are lots of jobs where "time theft" is a useful concept, but there are a lot of others where it isn't. I'd go so far as saying that thinking in those terms can be another sign of incompetent management.
- gsk22 4y ago
  Are you really claiming that all 3 companies would have approved the situation if they knew? Of course not, which is why overemployed people hide this information from their employers.
  - telchior 4y ago
    That's a bit different than claiming time theft, isn't it? That's more of a suspicion that someone couldn't possibly be doing a good job if their attention is split. The two full-time companies objected strenuously to her leaving and made various offers to keep her around. Would they have suddenly decided that they were deluded and that she was actually a horrible employee if they knew the truth? Possibly, but that doesn't mean they're in the right. The real problem here is that a large portion of managers actually have no idea what constitutes a good employee or good job done. So they try to figure it out through second order observations like how many hours are worked, how convincingly the employee acts like they're good at doing their job, or how they report on their progress in meetings; and they get upset when they find out information that makes it seem like the employee should be doing a worse job. I'm being a bit harsh, since I'm not immune to the same thoughts and uncertainties; I have an employee of my own who has two other part-time jobs and at times I've questioned whether that's OK. When I really examine the work he's doing, though, the answer is always the same: he's doing a good job, and the rest of his time is none of my damn business.
    - gsk22 4y ago
spoonjim 4y ago
It’s the company’s fault for not working their employees to the bone. If they did, this would be impossible.
LocalH 4y ago
I think the collective employer sphere has stolen way more time from their employees than the other way around

by gsk22 4y ago

anikan_vader 4y ago

>> time theft But her time is not their property, and so there is nothing illegal about her doing with it as she pleases. You can’t steal something that is already yours.

wpietri 4y ago

What makes it "time theft", whatever that means? US employers have worked very hard to make many of their workers "exempt" [1] such that they don't have to pay for overtime and can make people work egregious hours without getting in legal trouble. If that's not "time theft", then I don't see why an exempt worker who can do the work of two people shouldn't get paid for doing the work of two people. It would be different if they were hourly workers and they were double-billing for the same hour, of course. But I don't think that's what's happening here. [1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/exempt-employee.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/exempt-employee.asp

gsk22 4y ago
You can still "double-bill" in an exempt position. Most employment contracts I've seen stipulate an expected work week of 40 hours. If I sign 3 contracts like that, now I would need to work 120 hours to fulfill the obligation. And as long as someone collects the paychecks from all 3 jobs without fulfilling the contractual requirements of those jobs, well, that is sort of the definition of theft. Money gained without performing the work necessary to earn it.
- wpietri 4y ago
  I don't think I've ever seen an employment contract for an exempt position that specifies the number of hours to work. So yes, if somebody is foolish enough to sign that, they might get in trouble. But again, I doubt that's the case here.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

telchior 4y ago

I think you're making an unwarranted leap here. The management never complained about or monitored hours worked; the requirements of the job were simply completing tasks. Which she did, as I said, at or above expectations (the company she continued consulting for is still trying to rehire her at "full time", but they really just mean adding more responsibilities and tasks). Sure, there are lots of jobs where "time theft" is a useful concept, but there are a lot of others where it isn't. I'd go so far as saying that thinking in those terms can be another sign of incompetent management.

gsk22 4y ago
Are you really claiming that all 3 companies would have approved the situation if they knew? Of course not, which is why overemployed people hide this information from their employers.
- telchior 4y ago
  That's a bit different than claiming time theft, isn't it? That's more of a suspicion that someone couldn't possibly be doing a good job if their attention is split. The two full-time companies objected strenuously to her leaving and made various offers to keep her around. Would they have suddenly decided that they were deluded and that she was actually a horrible employee if they knew the truth? Possibly, but that doesn't mean they're in the right. The real problem here is that a large portion of managers actually have no idea what constitutes a good employee or good job done. So they try to figure it out through second order observations like how many hours are worked, how convincingly the employee acts like they're good at doing their job, or how they report on their progress in meetings; and they get upset when they find out information that makes it seem like the employee should be doing a worse job. I'm being a bit harsh, since I'm not immune to the same thoughts and uncertainties; I have an employee of my own who has two other part-time jobs and at times I've questioned whether that's OK. When I really examine the work he's doing, though, the answer is always the same: he's doing a good job, and the rest of his time is none of my damn business.
  - gsk22 4y ago

spoonjim 4y ago

It’s the company’s fault for not working their employees to the bone. If they did, this would be impossible.

LocalH 4y ago

I think the collective employer sphere has stolen way more time from their employees than the other way around