6 ms·

With this type of surveillance and the push to go back to the physical office, a lot of companies are wising up to employees who were taking multiple jobs remot

With this type of surveillance and the push to go back to the physical office, a lot of companies are wising up to employees who were taking multiple jobs remotely. What’s sad is that it ruins it for the rest of us, who were honest and diligently working one remote job. This is why we can’t have nice things.

commandlinefan 4y ago
That was my first thought - I hate this, but I understand why they're doing it.
ghaff 4y ago
It's a small minority of course. But you'll even get people here vehemently arguing that essentially all is fair in love and war and screw companies anyway. So you get subreddits and news stories--which probably make it perceived as a far bigger problem than it actually is--which leads at least some companies to take action. As you suggest, you have selfish pricks ruining things for everyone. To be clear, a small moonlighting gig that's in keeping with business rules is fine. A second full-time job is almost certainly not.
- jrjarrett 4y ago
  Why not?
  - ghaff 4y ago
    Because of what the parent said. They're probably making life harder for their coworkers even over and above encouraging companies to put these monitoring systems in place. (Assuming, of course, that multiple jobs is not considered perfectly legit as part of employment contracts/business ethics.) And, just to go all-in, if I had a co-worker doing this and I knew it wasn't allowed, I'd probably rat them out. In fact, I expect it's entirely possible I'd be in breach of some ethics guidelines if I didn't.
    - Bakary 4y ago
      We have to consider the system as a whole. If the industry in question provides a clear social good, such as medicine or energy production, then there is a moral duty to snitch or perhaps confront the person and give them a chance to reform beforehand. If it's just some tech company, especially a FAANG, ratting them out just means helping elites and reinforcing systems of control for no benefit except to the elites themselves. Ethics guidelines are meaningless at best or a sick joke at worst when it comes to the vast majority of companies in the overall picture. Just another twisted, internalized abstraction in favor of the masters.
Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
Why is ok for employers to have more than one employee, but not the other way around?
- ghaff 4y ago
  So work as a part-time contractor in that case. The issue isn't working for more than one company--many do--but being dishonest about it.
- iamacyborg 4y ago
  Those are really not comparable things.
- gruez 4y ago
  Simple, because most likely your employment agreement says that you should be devoting your full time and attention to your job for 40 hours a week or whatever. If you're pulling 80 hour weeks across two companies, there's theoretically nothing wrong with that[1], and I suspect those are not the type of people the parent poster is against. The same applies to businesses. If you had a contract with a vendor promising that you'll be their sole client, and it turns out they're actually working for other companies, that would be unacceptable as well. [1] unless your employment agreement also specifices some sort of exclusivity.
  - Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
    The expectation and contractual requirement of sole employment goes against free market principles. These requirements, and absolutely the ones making any sort of restrictions on where/who someone can work for after leaving a company, should be legally unenforceable.
    - gruez 4y ago
      >The expectation and contractual requirement of sole employment goes against free market principles. What "free market principles"? The wikipedia article for "free market" says: >In economics, a free market is an idealized system in which the prices for goods and services are determined by the open market and consumers, in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other authority. In this case, two parties (employers and employees) are voluntarily entering into a contract without government coercion. I fail to see how that's against "free market principles".
odshoifsdhfs 4y ago
It is your problem no? If someone takes 2-3 jobs BUT still producing enough, what does it matter? If a company has a problem with it and punishes everyone, again, it is a 'you' problem. If I am laid off (company doesn't give a shit about me), will you give me part of your salary? No right? So why the f should I care if my actions (assuming they are legal) affect you? 2 salaries? Yay, I will get to retirement in half (or less even) time. Have a problem? Well change companies or do it the same. If your company punishes everyone for a couple individual actions, they don't know how to manage people or even who is working two jobs, just a suspicion. Change jobs, but let the people that can and prefer to work 2/3 jobs, finally had an opportunity to get ahead alone. It is your problem, not theirs
- mise_en_place 4y ago
  No it isn't my problem. The company I work for knows that I have a business. Because they were originally my customer. I was honest and completely transparent with them, so there was no issue. Completely different if I had kept the business and not told them about it. It's about integrity, something many people lack here in America today. And I very much doubt they are producing enough. They are likely working 10 hours a week per job. Being both an employee and a business owner that has employees, integrity is critical to any type business relationship. It may not seem like it, but trust me, it is paramount.
  - throw10920 4y ago
    > And I very much doubt they are producing enough. They're almost certainly not. The popsci figure for how much a human can concentrate during a day is six hours. A standard 5-day 40-hour workweek already consumes that and more. I can virtually guarantee you that people working more than a single (knowledge work) job are significantly shortchanging one or both of their employers.

commandlinefan 4y ago

That was my first thought - I hate this, but I understand why they're doing it.

ghaff 4y ago

It's a small minority of course. But you'll even get people here vehemently arguing that essentially all is fair in love and war and screw companies anyway. So you get subreddits and news stories--which probably make it perceived as a far bigger problem than it actually is--which leads at least some companies to take action. As you suggest, you have selfish pricks ruining things for everyone. To be clear, a small moonlighting gig that's in keeping with business rules is fine. A second full-time job is almost certainly not.

jrjarrett 4y ago
Why not?
- ghaff 4y ago
  Because of what the parent said. They're probably making life harder for their coworkers even over and above encouraging companies to put these monitoring systems in place. (Assuming, of course, that multiple jobs is not considered perfectly legit as part of employment contracts/business ethics.) And, just to go all-in, if I had a co-worker doing this and I knew it wasn't allowed, I'd probably rat them out. In fact, I expect it's entirely possible I'd be in breach of some ethics guidelines if I didn't.
  - Bakary 4y ago
    We have to consider the system as a whole. If the industry in question provides a clear social good, such as medicine or energy production, then there is a moral duty to snitch or perhaps confront the person and give them a chance to reform beforehand. If it's just some tech company, especially a FAANG, ratting them out just means helping elites and reinforcing systems of control for no benefit except to the elites themselves. Ethics guidelines are meaningless at best or a sick joke at worst when it comes to the vast majority of companies in the overall picture. Just another twisted, internalized abstraction in favor of the masters.

Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago

Why is ok for employers to have more than one employee, but not the other way around?

ghaff 4y ago
So work as a part-time contractor in that case. The issue isn't working for more than one company--many do--but being dishonest about it.
iamacyborg 4y ago
Those are really not comparable things.
gruez 4y ago
Simple, because most likely your employment agreement says that you should be devoting your full time and attention to your job for 40 hours a week or whatever. If you're pulling 80 hour weeks across two companies, there's theoretically nothing wrong with that[1], and I suspect those are not the type of people the parent poster is against. The same applies to businesses. If you had a contract with a vendor promising that you'll be their sole client, and it turns out they're actually working for other companies, that would be unacceptable as well. [1] unless your employment agreement also specifices some sort of exclusivity.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
  The expectation and contractual requirement of sole employment goes against free market principles. These requirements, and absolutely the ones making any sort of restrictions on where/who someone can work for after leaving a company, should be legally unenforceable.
  - gruez 4y ago
    >The expectation and contractual requirement of sole employment goes against free market principles. What "free market principles"? The wikipedia article for "free market" says: >In economics, a free market is an idealized system in which the prices for goods and services are determined by the open market and consumers, in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other authority. In this case, two parties (employers and employees) are voluntarily entering into a contract without government coercion. I fail to see how that's against "free market principles".

odshoifsdhfs 4y ago

It is your problem no? If someone takes 2-3 jobs BUT still producing enough, what does it matter? If a company has a problem with it and punishes everyone, again, it is a 'you' problem. If I am laid off (company doesn't give a shit about me), will you give me part of your salary? No right? So why the f should I care if my actions (assuming they are legal) affect you? 2 salaries? Yay, I will get to retirement in half (or less even) time. Have a problem? Well change companies or do it the same. If your company punishes everyone for a couple individual actions, they don't know how to manage people or even who is working two jobs, just a suspicion. Change jobs, but let the people that can and prefer to work 2/3 jobs, finally had an opportunity to get ahead alone. It is your problem, not theirs

mise_en_place 4y ago
No it isn't my problem. The company I work for knows that I have a business. Because they were originally my customer. I was honest and completely transparent with them, so there was no issue. Completely different if I had kept the business and not told them about it. It's about integrity, something many people lack here in America today. And I very much doubt they are producing enough. They are likely working 10 hours a week per job. Being both an employee and a business owner that has employees, integrity is critical to any type business relationship. It may not seem like it, but trust me, it is paramount.
- throw10920 4y ago
  > And I very much doubt they are producing enough. They're almost certainly not. The popsci figure for how much a human can concentrate during a day is six hours. A standard 5-day 40-hour workweek already consumes that and more. I can virtually guarantee you that people working more than a single (knowledge work) job are significantly shortchanging one or both of their employers.