13 ms·

While I sympathize with the OP's complaints, as an employer (small 15 person company) I would defend most of these practices (employment verification, reference

by cj 4y ago

While I sympathize with the OP's complaints, as an employer (small 15 person company) I would defend most of these practices (employment verification, reference checks, university degree verification, etc) I've (literally) employed people who were working 3 jobs without any of the other employers knowing about one another. We were being scammed. This happened not just once, but with 2 people (1 full stack engineer who is a HN regular, and another was an account manager). This was at a 15 person company, and 2 out of the 15 were working multiple full-time W-2 jobs all with full time benefits. At the end they were both let go once we discovered the deception (their downfall was neither of them were meeting productivity expectations, not getting their work done) After this, we heavily beefed up our pre-employment screening, which is all of what this person is complaining about. Unfortunately there are people in the job market who scam companies. To find and weed these people out before they make it in the door, we need to do things like verify your degree (even if it was 20 years ago) not because we care whether you have a degree, but as a test to see if you were truthful on your resume. Edit: Also, if anyone requests reference checks from your current employer, you should say no. It's not standard practice to check current employer, only prior employers (at least in the US).

imwillofficial 4y ago
How is it your business if your employee is moonlighting? If they are delivering, what’s the problem? If they are not delivering, other jobs are irrelevant, they aren’t meeting the bar.
- dinkleberg 4y ago
  Many of these people aren’t moonlighting, they are working both jobs in the same 40 hour work week. They are just half assing two (or more) jobs and putting in the bare minimum. Look up the overemployed subreddit.
  - photochemsyn 4y ago
    How is that different from a corporate board member who sits on several different corporate boards, which is a very common practice?
    - omginternets 4y ago
      One big difference is that everybody is aware and has agreed to it.
      - hobs 4y ago
        The other obvious difference is they are rich and the rest of us are not. “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”
        lazide 4y ago
        Board members are supervising operations and overseeing executives (or are supposed to - many get ‘captured’ by management depending on the company), not running them. One thing that is REALLY helpful when supervising highly complex operations like a large corporation is knowledge of how similar operations are run at a large number of other companies It makes it easier to identify things like pointless ‘not invented here’ syndrome, or where a company is being very inefficient in an area because they don’t know of any alternatives. It’s common for companies to hire in outside consulting firms or independent contractors who also work for a great many companies in an industry for the exact same reason. It’s a way of keeping on top of what the industry norms are so the company doesn’t fall behind and lose competitiveness. Plenty of pros and cons there, but that is a big part of why. The other reason is the board of directors works for the shareholders, and represents their interests. Institutional shareholders hold shares in a lot of different companies, and if they have someone they know , trust, and are happy with performance wise, most would prefer to have them on the boards of as many companies as they think they have the expertise to oversee.
        ROTMetro 4y ago
  - mlindner 4y ago
    If the "bare minimum" looks no worse than any of the other employees then I think you have a corporate culture problem. If the people are actually delivering equivalently to other employees then there's no need to worry if they're working one or two extra jobs.
  - ameister14 4y ago
    I don't really care, so long as the job's getting done. Underperformance, sure, that's a problem. But if I pay salary it's not about the hours it's about the job. Hours are the wrong input. It's my job to balance the workload such that they have enough work to make it worth it for me to employ them, and increase that workload where bearable so I can make more profit from their employment. If they are not underperforming and still doing two jobs, then I have failed my task because I have not effectively exploited their abilities for profit.
    - WaitWaitWha 4y ago
      Just some of the problems I have dealt with undisclosed moonlighters - Ever had a medical claim by your over employed staff? Which insurance pays? Do you pay for training? In case of intellectual property theft from you or the other company, do you know what are your obligations? (Receiving company is can held liable.) What amount of taxes do you withhold? What are the penalties for withholding significantly wrong taxes in your jurisdiction?
      - pc86 4y ago
        Having coverage with multiple insurance companies is pretty stupid. Typically the employee will only have coverage from the "primary" job. Of course you pay for training, why wouldn't you? Working for competing companies is even more stupid than being overinsured, and could potentially be illegal (for the employee). And rightfully so. Company withholdings don't change so this is not your concern.
      - ameister14 4y ago
        None of this is unique to people with multiple jobs. 1. The employee's insurance pays; in the US, they pay at least part of their insurance costs so it is unlikely for them to be covered by two services. If so, they can choose. If they were injured on the job, or in some capacity based on your work, then how is it different? Actually, how is this situation different from them purchasing outside insurance or being covered by their spouse? It's unlikely to be a problem and if it is it's not unique. 2. Sure, why not? 3. What does this have to do with them having multiple jobs? If they steal your intellectual property, that's a problem whether or not they are employed elsewhere. How does double employment compound this? If you hired someone from another job and they brought stolen property with them, is that different? 4. They are responsible for letting you know how much to deduct. You can do standard mandatory deductions based on expected salary and as long as you pay the required employment taxes based on the salary you pay them there isn't a difference in withholding on your end, only on theirs. If they owe more in tax, what do you care?
  - mejutoco 4y ago
    Fire them with cause then. I fail to see the problem. At some point you have to trust people. No amount of screening will fix this.
  - time_to_smile 4y ago
    This logic doesn't make any sense, is it okay if I half ass and put in the bare minimum for just one job? How does have more than 1 job change this logic? If you can get the job done then I don't see why it matters, and if you can't I don't see why it matters if you can't and you only have 1 job or you can't and you have 2? Especially since rescinded offers have suddenly become acceptable, I think most people going forward should at least have the two jobs overlap by 2 weeks.
  - nsxwolf 4y ago
    As long as everyone is happy with the output, I don't see it as a problem.
- cacois 4y ago
  Working multiple full time W2 jobs without employer consent is not moonlighting. Both employers believe you are working for them full time during business hours, which would be false. This practice is deceptive. Meeting productivity targets is an important aspect of your job, but so is being available during business hours, meetings/collaborations, etc. Moonlighting is working another job outside of business hours - which I agree, employers have less of a right to object to.
  - pc86 4y ago
    If you're attending the meetings you're required to attend, are completing the work you're required to complete by the agreed-upon deadlines, and are not working for a competitor, it is no business of my employer's what I'm doing at any given hour of the day. This paternalistic bullshit will be the downfall of companies who care more about micromanaging and controlling their underpaid employees than they do about actually delivering something to the market. If someone isn't producing, fire them. If someone is only being given 10 hours a week of work, and they have enough free time to get another W2 job and earn another full-time salary, that's 100% a company/management problem.
    - balderdash 4y ago
      Except in your example, did the employee turn in the the work that was assigned Monday morning on Tuesday morning, and say “I’m done what’s next”, or did they lie and turn it in Friday and say it took all week? If you want to get paid by the hour or unit rate, be a consultant.
      - pc86 4y ago
        If it was due by Friday who cares?
      - lucasyvas 4y ago
        This doesn't make any sense. Most people are salaried and their time isn't tracked that way anyway. To a certain point I agree with you, but how much an employee actually outputs is a constant negotiation between the business and the employee - this is where expectation comes into play. If you are performing beyond the baseline, you can negotiate to be compensated for exceeding it, or you can take a break. There is no expectation that an employee should perform more work "for free" just because they can. I believe in fairness between both sides - there is no free lunch in either direction.
- analog31 4y ago
  It's impossible to manage. Continuously monitoring workers to make sure they are "delivering" is too hard, and doing so tends to create a work environment that drives other workers away. Rules such as "no moonlighting" are just simple heuristics that make management easier, and in turn, make it easier to hire and retain managers. On the other hand, speaking of "delivering," companies like Amazon and UPS have figured it out. Amazon wouldn't care if you were working a second job, because they know your output down to the nearest Joule at any given moment.
  - malfist 4y ago
    > Continuously monitoring workers to make sure they are "delivering" is too hard Wow. That's...astounding. If you're such a poor manager that....managing...is too hard. Perhaps you should go back to IC work. Employees don't have to be continuously monitored to see if they're doing work, that's how you wind up with spyware and butts in seats mentality. Are they checking in their work? Are they completing their stories on time? Are they getting near the average number of story points done in a sprint? If so, leave them the fuck alone.
    - SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
      An environment where your productivity is measured by the amount of code you check in and the number of story points you complete is exactly the "work environment that drives other workers away" analog31 mentioned. Many ICs (and frankly most of the best ones) consider this to be micromanagement.
      - malfist 4y ago
        I'm sorry, why should measuring story points be considered micromanagement? Story points are supposed to be a proxy for amount of work required, seems reasonable to track that. It's not like I'm saying you should be measured by the lines of code you add or something arbitrary.
        SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
HyperSane 4y ago
Unless you have a clause in your employment contract forbidding employees from having another job you have no right to care if they do as long as they are meeting productivity requirements.
- lazide 4y ago
  They weren’t meeting productivity requirements.
  - PainfullyNormal 4y ago
    And how are you supposed to know that before hiring them?
    - lazide 4y ago
      Huh?
      - PainfullyNormal 4y ago
        This entire thread is about pre-screening job applicants so you know before hiring them that they're working multiple W2 jobs so you don't get "scammed" and accidentally hire somebody who is already working multiple full time jobs. But, it's not a scam unless they're not meeting productivity requirements. How do you know the person you're going to hire is not going to meet those productivity requirements before hiring them?
        lazide 4y ago
        The sub thread you are replying to was from someone with specific anecdotes where people whom they had hired were not meeting performance goals and it turns out were working for multiple companies. The relevance here is many managers have experience with employees who seemed fine in interviews and barely met performance bars (or just flat out didn’t) despite working just one job. It’s well within their legal rights (and a useful heuristic!) to not hire someone because they’re not comfortable rolling the dice on a candidate being able to meet performance criteria because they’re working multiple jobs. Because working multiple jobs is a lot harder than working one job on pretty much any metric one can think of, and is not a protected class or status. They’ll also reap any blowback or rewards from doing so, including difficulty finding candidates, or not.
3pt14159 4y ago
I agree with most of this, though I don't bother checking degrees. Coding samples have way more signal unless the degree is from a premier university. So for Waterloo, MIT, Stanford, Harvard, etc. I would check if there was any doubt, but for the rest of it I've honestly not seen too much value in specific universities. As for reference checks: If a reference is on a resume that I've been handed by a candidate or that candidate's agent I check it. Glowing references really highly correlate with job enthusiasm and honestly most developers don't list them anyway, so even having one that's positive without being glowing is a good signal.
- bumby 4y ago
  Is there evidence that the institutional prestige is a better signal? I thought there was a movement away from that because it wasn’t shown to be a particularly strong predictor.
  - alistairSH 4y ago
    Only speaking about recent graduates (0-2 years) and making what are obviously pretty broad generalizations... Anecdotally, there is slight correlation between university prestige and interview performance. But not enough to toss lower tier university graduates - if their resume is otherwise strong, they're worth interviewing regardless of school. The strongest signal I have as a hiring manager is a successful internship/co-op. If the candidate worked on interesting projects and can discuss the tech stack and business problem being solved, they're likely to be a good hire. The few collegiate athletes I've hired have also been top-notch. But not enough of them to claim correlation. Would be interesting to see if there's a real correlation there.
    - bumby 4y ago
      My experience is anecdotal as well, but it confirms your hunch about collegiate athletes. The have been the best performers, but it's a small sample size in my case. It would be interesting if there is a different correlation between sports (e.g., individual vs. team sports). The main complaints I've heard about the prestigious institution hires are: 1) They tend to excel well when given a problem that can be solved with a rather templated approach, but tend to struggle more with poorly defined problems 2) They tend to have higher turnover, with the speculation that they jump ship as soon as a perceived higher status opportunity arises. Meaning, they start a lot of projects but don't see them to completion I don't know if I've had enough experience with the differing groups to draw strong conclusions one way or another.
richiebful1 4y ago
> You are not fucking suppose to verify or reference check on me before I even had my interview or offer. So now my boss / management knows I am job hunting? OP is okay with employment verification, but it should wait until after the offer is signed. Any offer will be pulled back if the job seeker lied about their job history
- chias 4y ago
  We're talking references here, so this gets very sticky. They're not just wondering "were you employed at X from dates Y to Z", they want to get that person's opinion on what kind of employee you are, then make a judgement call on whether that's the kind of employee they want to hire. If you move a judgement call of that kind to after the offer stage, then the offer letter becomes a lot less meaningful.
  - ghaff 4y ago
    Yes. I give references that aren’t problematic from a tipping off current employer perspective. If references are going to factor into the employment decision it sort of has to be before the offer or what’s the point?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - jlokier 4y ago
    > If you move a judgement call of that kind to after the offer stage, then the offer letter becomes a lot less meaningful. That may be true, but if a potential employer gets current employer references before any offer is made, the candidate is at serious risk of unemployment (let go and no offer to replace it), or an uncomfortable change in relationships at the old job. The risk to the candidate is high. Besides, many offers are lowball without much room for negotiation. Why would a candidate take the risk, not even knowing if there's a good enough offer contingent on the reference? If a potential employer asked for a current-employer reference from me before making any offer, I would terminate the process even if I expect a great reference, because it shows the employer doesn't care about (or doesn't think about) the fundamentals from an employee's perspective, and that is a big clue that it's likely to be an awful place to work in other ways. A good employer doesn't act as if employer and employee are in equal positions with the same to lose. I've been jerked around by too many employers and potential ones who don't care about effect on their employees, sometimes at large financial cost to myself, so these days I'd just drop the company if they seem oblivious to how things affect the candidate. There are plenty of good ones who also pay well, and those are also the ones I'd rather help succeed. If it's just about the amount of the offer or level of the position, they always have the option to revise it up after they get a reference they like.
karmelapple 4y ago
Agreed. We hired someone who simply lied about getting their degree. OP mentioned having to bring a diploma, and to me that does indeed seem ridiculous. In the USA, the National Student Clearinghouse [1] provides degree verification that is the standard. It is much more reliable than someone showing a piece of paper. How do I know this? The hire who lied about graduating also produced a falsified diploma, which blew me away. I confirmed it was false because when I checked with the university in question, they pointed out some things that confirmed although it was similar, they never would have issued one like this. (And the registrar confirmed this person did indeed never graduate) [1] https://nscverifications.org/ https://nscverifications.org/
- charlieyu1 4y ago
  Isn't it criminal offence to provide fake documents?
  - lazide 4y ago
    In most jurisdictions, you bet. It’s also a criminal offense to lie about material job history or qualifications. It’s rarely prosecuted outside of high profile cases though. So employers beware and all.
    - betaby 4y ago
      "Ex-Yahoo CEO Scott Thompson claimed he had computer science and accounting degrees from Stonehill College in Easton, Massachusetts. In fact, he only had the accounting degree." https://www.marketwatch.com/story/5-big-shots-who-lied-on-their-resumes-2014-09-18 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/5-big-shots-who-lied-on-th...
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - vxNsr 4y ago
        The sad part was he was actually a very competent CEO and after he left they had a revolving door of CEOs until they admitted failure and sold the company.
axiolite 4y ago
> I've (literally) employed people who were working 3 jobs without any of the other employers knowing about one another. We were being scammed. I fail to see how verifying decades-old degrees would have prevented this.
- pclmulqdq 4y ago
  Most dishonest people don't stop at one lie. The smart ones do, but once you get away with one, you are a lot more likely to try just one more. It works until it doesn't.
malfist 4y ago
If they were doing their job well enough that you couldn't tell they were employed elsewhere, were you really being scammed? Or did you get pissy because you didn't have a person's livelihood to hold over them to make dance to your song?
- llanowarelves 4y ago
  I hope more people double and triple-up on him. You know, we could get people recruited on a double/triple and take an ongoing %, to monetize his crying.
danjoredd 4y ago
>I've (literally) employed people who were working 3 jobs without any of the other employers knowing about one another. We were being scammed. This happened not just once, but with 2 people (1 full stack engineer who is a HN regular, and another was an account manager). If that employee does all of their work for you, why does it matter if they work another job? Are they underperforming? I'm sorry, but I don't see how that is a scam. In retail, people work multiple jobs all the time. Why is it suddenly unethical the moment it turns into an office job?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- vsareto 4y ago
  If you can get the work done, it's not unethical. Sounds like they weren't getting it done though: >(their downfall was neither of them were meeting productivity expectations, not getting their work done)
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- LambdaComplex 4y ago
  > Why is it suddenly unethical the moment it turns into an office job? It's only unethical if you're not in the ruling class. If you're an executive, it's perfectly fine to sit on the board of multiple companies simultaneously (each one paying you $50,000+ per year).
  - tomtheelder 4y ago
    No, it's unethical to do it without disclosure. You can have as many jobs as you want as long as they are aware of one another.
    - sahila 4y ago
      Why though? What business does one employer have knowing what else you do in your life? Do you tell them what hobbies you’re into or what tv show you watched last?
twawaaay 4y ago
As an advisor for startup CEOs who also worked for a lot of large known brands, I fully agree. Even just a tiny bit of effort in the application process does miracles to filter out people who do not really want to work for your company. Because sending hundreds or even thousands job applications requires you to optimise your efforts and reject possible employers who would require you to spend total of one day in the process. On the other hand if found the company you would like to work for, you researched the position, you have realistic demands, spending that time is just an investment in getting the job you really want. For example, when I interview I take a day off so that I am rested, fresh and with my head reasonably empty of the projects I am currently running so that I can present my best on the interview.
- colonelpopcorn 4y ago
  I think you've overestimated how many people look for jobs because they "really want to work" for a particular company. Further, you're asking candidates to eat the opportunity cost associated with spending time on one employer's application process.
  - massysett 4y ago
    Job postings trigger a flood of applications. It’s not an efficient use of staff time to trudge through applications from people who couldn’t be bothered to create a login.
    - PainfullyNormal 4y ago
      Creating a login can be automated. You're not filtering for qualified job applicants by doing that. You're guaranteeing that the only applicants you ever see are bots.
    - mjhay 4y ago
      Getting a job these days sans personal collections requires sending out many, many applications. Each job one applies to only has a small chance of getting a callback. Given that, I'm not going to spend 30 minutes filling out pages of redundant information. If a company has that little respect for my time to make me jump through all of these bureaucratic hoops, seemingly to prove I can tolerate mindless nonsense, I don't want to work for them.
mejutoco 4y ago
I agree it is not a bad idea to confirm previous employment. It still does not prevent the case you mention, but it might help. I just wanted to add to anyone: make sure you actually understand who was the employer and give an opportunity to address the potential lie. Sometimes people (in a rush to read the cv) assume that a contract position, for instance, was a permanent role and similar mistakes (even when clearly specified in the cv) and these checks might make people drop out of the process unfairly, without recourse.
registeredcorn 4y ago
>Edit: Also, if anyone requests reference checks from your current employer, you should say no. It's not standard practice to check current employer, only prior employers (at least in the US). Question for you: One of the previous companies I worked for changed their name after I left. The company is still searchable under the old name. Should I list the new name, or old name on the resume? I feel like it's not really my problem, but also is my problem, you know? It's a weird thing. I'm not sure how common of a problem this is.
- JacobThreeThree 4y ago
  NewName (formerly OldName)
- klodolph 4y ago
  Weyland Yutani (formerly Yoyodyne Propulsion) 1980-1984 Vice President of Red Lectroids
- ralph84 4y ago
  I put the name of the company when I worked there, then the current name in parentheses. For example: EMC (now Dell)
  - ghaff 4y ago
    Ditto. It’s a good idea because you don’t want someone in HR thinking there’s a discrepancy.
deeblering4 4y ago
> At the end they were both let go once we discovered the deception (their downfall was neither of them were meeting productivity expectations, not getting their work done) > After this, we heavily beefed up our pre-employment screening, which is all of what this person is complaining about. So practices were already in place to detect and correct this. That makes it quite foolish to distrust all applicants across the board, and make their experience worse, when performance tracking and correction was already a solved problem.
- PainfullyNormal 4y ago
  To be fair, the earlier in the process you can disqualify a bad candidate, the less money and time you waste. It's generally positive to re-assess the pre-employment screening when it fails to do it's job. That said, making the process worse for your good candidates is a horrible solution.
  - b112 4y ago
    That said, making the process worse for your good candidates is a horrible solution. I feel for that employer, but making the application process more onerous would be a red flag for me, as a candidate. They are going to potentially hurt themselves if not careful.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Test0129 4y ago
> I've (literally) employed people who were working 3 jobs without any of the other employers knowing about one another. We were being scammed. This happened not just once, but with 2 people (1 full stack engineer who is a HN regular, and another was an account manager). We've had several instances of foreign contracting companies forging identities and using paid actors (who sound and act American) in order to get into our company. Not only do these scams seem somewhat common they are also a massive security risk. We usually find out quickly because there is almost always an inconsistency in their employment history.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
devwastaken 4y ago
If they don't perform because they have three jobs, fire them. You're trying to protect against rare circumstances and it is reducing the number of quality candidates that don't have to play that game and will go elsewhere.
- tomtheelder 4y ago
  Hiring someone, having them under-perform due to having multiple jobs, and then firing them is incredibly costly. Having at tighter application process to prevent that and other similar situations is likely worth the loss in candidates.
lucasgonze 4y ago
I don't believe that you are going to do all that screening before talking to the best candidates. It's just not true. You wouldn't invest like that in every candidate to submit a resume. Your process is like everybody elses: 1. automated resume screen hunting for keywords 2. HR human review 3. HR call 4. 3-4 other calls 5. detailed screening 6. offer If you are doing detailed screening BEFORE interviews, stop right now. It is wasted effort. Nobody else does it that way.
trap_goes_hot 4y ago
It's easy for outsiders to point out flaws, but if the system you have in place is allowing you to hire and retain talent, then you've succeeded.

by cj 4y ago

imwillofficial 4y ago

How is it your business if your employee is moonlighting? If they are delivering, what’s the problem? If they are not delivering, other jobs are irrelevant, they aren’t meeting the bar.

dinkleberg 4y ago
Many of these people aren’t moonlighting, they are working both jobs in the same 40 hour work week. They are just half assing two (or more) jobs and putting in the bare minimum. Look up the overemployed subreddit.
- photochemsyn 4y ago
  How is that different from a corporate board member who sits on several different corporate boards, which is a very common practice?
  - omginternets 4y ago
    One big difference is that everybody is aware and has agreed to it.
    - hobs 4y ago
      The other obvious difference is they are rich and the rest of us are not. “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”
      - lazide 4y ago
        Board members are supervising operations and overseeing executives (or are supposed to - many get ‘captured’ by management depending on the company), not running them. One thing that is REALLY helpful when supervising highly complex operations like a large corporation is knowledge of how similar operations are run at a large number of other companies It makes it easier to identify things like pointless ‘not invented here’ syndrome, or where a company is being very inefficient in an area because they don’t know of any alternatives. It’s common for companies to hire in outside consulting firms or independent contractors who also work for a great many companies in an industry for the exact same reason. It’s a way of keeping on top of what the industry norms are so the company doesn’t fall behind and lose competitiveness. Plenty of pros and cons there, but that is a big part of why. The other reason is the board of directors works for the shareholders, and represents their interests. Institutional shareholders hold shares in a lot of different companies, and if they have someone they know , trust, and are happy with performance wise, most would prefer to have them on the boards of as many companies as they think they have the expertise to oversee.
        ROTMetro 4y ago
- mlindner 4y ago
  If the "bare minimum" looks no worse than any of the other employees then I think you have a corporate culture problem. If the people are actually delivering equivalently to other employees then there's no need to worry if they're working one or two extra jobs.
- ameister14 4y ago
  I don't really care, so long as the job's getting done. Underperformance, sure, that's a problem. But if I pay salary it's not about the hours it's about the job. Hours are the wrong input. It's my job to balance the workload such that they have enough work to make it worth it for me to employ them, and increase that workload where bearable so I can make more profit from their employment. If they are not underperforming and still doing two jobs, then I have failed my task because I have not effectively exploited their abilities for profit.
  - WaitWaitWha 4y ago
    Just some of the problems I have dealt with undisclosed moonlighters - Ever had a medical claim by your over employed staff? Which insurance pays? Do you pay for training? In case of intellectual property theft from you or the other company, do you know what are your obligations? (Receiving company is can held liable.) What amount of taxes do you withhold? What are the penalties for withholding significantly wrong taxes in your jurisdiction?
    - pc86 4y ago
      Having coverage with multiple insurance companies is pretty stupid. Typically the employee will only have coverage from the "primary" job. Of course you pay for training, why wouldn't you? Working for competing companies is even more stupid than being overinsured, and could potentially be illegal (for the employee). And rightfully so. Company withholdings don't change so this is not your concern.
    - ameister14 4y ago
      None of this is unique to people with multiple jobs. 1. The employee's insurance pays; in the US, they pay at least part of their insurance costs so it is unlikely for them to be covered by two services. If so, they can choose. If they were injured on the job, or in some capacity based on your work, then how is it different? Actually, how is this situation different from them purchasing outside insurance or being covered by their spouse? It's unlikely to be a problem and if it is it's not unique. 2. Sure, why not? 3. What does this have to do with them having multiple jobs? If they steal your intellectual property, that's a problem whether or not they are employed elsewhere. How does double employment compound this? If you hired someone from another job and they brought stolen property with them, is that different? 4. They are responsible for letting you know how much to deduct. You can do standard mandatory deductions based on expected salary and as long as you pay the required employment taxes based on the salary you pay them there isn't a difference in withholding on your end, only on theirs. If they owe more in tax, what do you care?
- mejutoco 4y ago
  Fire them with cause then. I fail to see the problem. At some point you have to trust people. No amount of screening will fix this.
- time_to_smile 4y ago
  This logic doesn't make any sense, is it okay if I half ass and put in the bare minimum for just one job? How does have more than 1 job change this logic? If you can get the job done then I don't see why it matters, and if you can't I don't see why it matters if you can't and you only have 1 job or you can't and you have 2? Especially since rescinded offers have suddenly become acceptable, I think most people going forward should at least have the two jobs overlap by 2 weeks.
- nsxwolf 4y ago
  As long as everyone is happy with the output, I don't see it as a problem.
cacois 4y ago
Working multiple full time W2 jobs without employer consent is not moonlighting. Both employers believe you are working for them full time during business hours, which would be false. This practice is deceptive. Meeting productivity targets is an important aspect of your job, but so is being available during business hours, meetings/collaborations, etc. Moonlighting is working another job outside of business hours - which I agree, employers have less of a right to object to.
- pc86 4y ago
  If you're attending the meetings you're required to attend, are completing the work you're required to complete by the agreed-upon deadlines, and are not working for a competitor, it is no business of my employer's what I'm doing at any given hour of the day. This paternalistic bullshit will be the downfall of companies who care more about micromanaging and controlling their underpaid employees than they do about actually delivering something to the market. If someone isn't producing, fire them. If someone is only being given 10 hours a week of work, and they have enough free time to get another W2 job and earn another full-time salary, that's 100% a company/management problem.
  - balderdash 4y ago
    Except in your example, did the employee turn in the the work that was assigned Monday morning on Tuesday morning, and say “I’m done what’s next”, or did they lie and turn it in Friday and say it took all week? If you want to get paid by the hour or unit rate, be a consultant.
    - pc86 4y ago
      If it was due by Friday who cares?
    - lucasyvas 4y ago
      This doesn't make any sense. Most people are salaried and their time isn't tracked that way anyway. To a certain point I agree with you, but how much an employee actually outputs is a constant negotiation between the business and the employee - this is where expectation comes into play. If you are performing beyond the baseline, you can negotiate to be compensated for exceeding it, or you can take a break. There is no expectation that an employee should perform more work "for free" just because they can. I believe in fairness between both sides - there is no free lunch in either direction.
analog31 4y ago
It's impossible to manage. Continuously monitoring workers to make sure they are "delivering" is too hard, and doing so tends to create a work environment that drives other workers away. Rules such as "no moonlighting" are just simple heuristics that make management easier, and in turn, make it easier to hire and retain managers. On the other hand, speaking of "delivering," companies like Amazon and UPS have figured it out. Amazon wouldn't care if you were working a second job, because they know your output down to the nearest Joule at any given moment.
- malfist 4y ago
  > Continuously monitoring workers to make sure they are "delivering" is too hard Wow. That's...astounding. If you're such a poor manager that....managing...is too hard. Perhaps you should go back to IC work. Employees don't have to be continuously monitored to see if they're doing work, that's how you wind up with spyware and butts in seats mentality. Are they checking in their work? Are they completing their stories on time? Are they getting near the average number of story points done in a sprint? If so, leave them the fuck alone.
  - SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
    An environment where your productivity is measured by the amount of code you check in and the number of story points you complete is exactly the "work environment that drives other workers away" analog31 mentioned. Many ICs (and frankly most of the best ones) consider this to be micromanagement.
    - malfist 4y ago
      I'm sorry, why should measuring story points be considered micromanagement? Story points are supposed to be a proxy for amount of work required, seems reasonable to track that. It's not like I'm saying you should be measured by the lines of code you add or something arbitrary.
      - SpicyLemonZest 4y ago

HyperSane 4y ago

Unless you have a clause in your employment contract forbidding employees from having another job you have no right to care if they do as long as they are meeting productivity requirements.

lazide 4y ago
They weren’t meeting productivity requirements.
- PainfullyNormal 4y ago
  And how are you supposed to know that before hiring them?
  - lazide 4y ago
    Huh?
    - PainfullyNormal 4y ago
      This entire thread is about pre-screening job applicants so you know before hiring them that they're working multiple W2 jobs so you don't get "scammed" and accidentally hire somebody who is already working multiple full time jobs. But, it's not a scam unless they're not meeting productivity requirements. How do you know the person you're going to hire is not going to meet those productivity requirements before hiring them?
      - lazide 4y ago
        The sub thread you are replying to was from someone with specific anecdotes where people whom they had hired were not meeting performance goals and it turns out were working for multiple companies. The relevance here is many managers have experience with employees who seemed fine in interviews and barely met performance bars (or just flat out didn’t) despite working just one job. It’s well within their legal rights (and a useful heuristic!) to not hire someone because they’re not comfortable rolling the dice on a candidate being able to meet performance criteria because they’re working multiple jobs. Because working multiple jobs is a lot harder than working one job on pretty much any metric one can think of, and is not a protected class or status. They’ll also reap any blowback or rewards from doing so, including difficulty finding candidates, or not.

3pt14159 4y ago

I agree with most of this, though I don't bother checking degrees. Coding samples have way more signal unless the degree is from a premier university. So for Waterloo, MIT, Stanford, Harvard, etc. I would check if there was any doubt, but for the rest of it I've honestly not seen too much value in specific universities. As for reference checks: If a reference is on a resume that I've been handed by a candidate or that candidate's agent I check it. Glowing references really highly correlate with job enthusiasm and honestly most developers don't list them anyway, so even having one that's positive without being glowing is a good signal.

bumby 4y ago
Is there evidence that the institutional prestige is a better signal? I thought there was a movement away from that because it wasn’t shown to be a particularly strong predictor.
- alistairSH 4y ago
  Only speaking about recent graduates (0-2 years) and making what are obviously pretty broad generalizations... Anecdotally, there is slight correlation between university prestige and interview performance. But not enough to toss lower tier university graduates - if their resume is otherwise strong, they're worth interviewing regardless of school. The strongest signal I have as a hiring manager is a successful internship/co-op. If the candidate worked on interesting projects and can discuss the tech stack and business problem being solved, they're likely to be a good hire. The few collegiate athletes I've hired have also been top-notch. But not enough of them to claim correlation. Would be interesting to see if there's a real correlation there.
  - bumby 4y ago
    My experience is anecdotal as well, but it confirms your hunch about collegiate athletes. The have been the best performers, but it's a small sample size in my case. It would be interesting if there is a different correlation between sports (e.g., individual vs. team sports). The main complaints I've heard about the prestigious institution hires are: 1) They tend to excel well when given a problem that can be solved with a rather templated approach, but tend to struggle more with poorly defined problems 2) They tend to have higher turnover, with the speculation that they jump ship as soon as a perceived higher status opportunity arises. Meaning, they start a lot of projects but don't see them to completion I don't know if I've had enough experience with the differing groups to draw strong conclusions one way or another.

richiebful1 4y ago

> You are not fucking suppose to verify or reference check on me before I even had my interview or offer. So now my boss / management knows I am job hunting? OP is okay with employment verification, but it should wait until after the offer is signed. Any offer will be pulled back if the job seeker lied about their job history

chias 4y ago
We're talking references here, so this gets very sticky. They're not just wondering "were you employed at X from dates Y to Z", they want to get that person's opinion on what kind of employee you are, then make a judgement call on whether that's the kind of employee they want to hire. If you move a judgement call of that kind to after the offer stage, then the offer letter becomes a lot less meaningful.
- ghaff 4y ago
  Yes. I give references that aren’t problematic from a tipping off current employer perspective. If references are going to factor into the employment decision it sort of has to be before the offer or what’s the point?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- jlokier 4y ago
  > If you move a judgement call of that kind to after the offer stage, then the offer letter becomes a lot less meaningful. That may be true, but if a potential employer gets current employer references before any offer is made, the candidate is at serious risk of unemployment (let go and no offer to replace it), or an uncomfortable change in relationships at the old job. The risk to the candidate is high. Besides, many offers are lowball without much room for negotiation. Why would a candidate take the risk, not even knowing if there's a good enough offer contingent on the reference? If a potential employer asked for a current-employer reference from me before making any offer, I would terminate the process even if I expect a great reference, because it shows the employer doesn't care about (or doesn't think about) the fundamentals from an employee's perspective, and that is a big clue that it's likely to be an awful place to work in other ways. A good employer doesn't act as if employer and employee are in equal positions with the same to lose. I've been jerked around by too many employers and potential ones who don't care about effect on their employees, sometimes at large financial cost to myself, so these days I'd just drop the company if they seem oblivious to how things affect the candidate. There are plenty of good ones who also pay well, and those are also the ones I'd rather help succeed. If it's just about the amount of the offer or level of the position, they always have the option to revise it up after they get a reference they like.

karmelapple 4y ago

Agreed. We hired someone who simply lied about getting their degree. OP mentioned having to bring a diploma, and to me that does indeed seem ridiculous. In the USA, the National Student Clearinghouse [1] provides degree verification that is the standard. It is much more reliable than someone showing a piece of paper. How do I know this? The hire who lied about graduating also produced a falsified diploma, which blew me away. I confirmed it was false because when I checked with the university in question, they pointed out some things that confirmed although it was similar, they never would have issued one like this. (And the registrar confirmed this person did indeed never graduate) [1] https://nscverifications.org/ https://nscverifications.org/

charlieyu1 4y ago
Isn't it criminal offence to provide fake documents?
- lazide 4y ago
  In most jurisdictions, you bet. It’s also a criminal offense to lie about material job history or qualifications. It’s rarely prosecuted outside of high profile cases though. So employers beware and all.
  - betaby 4y ago
    "Ex-Yahoo CEO Scott Thompson claimed he had computer science and accounting degrees from Stonehill College in Easton, Massachusetts. In fact, he only had the accounting degree." https://www.marketwatch.com/story/5-big-shots-who-lied-on-their-resumes-2014-09-18 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/5-big-shots-who-lied-on-th...
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - vxNsr 4y ago
      The sad part was he was actually a very competent CEO and after he left they had a revolving door of CEOs until they admitted failure and sold the company.

axiolite 4y ago

> I've (literally) employed people who were working 3 jobs without any of the other employers knowing about one another. We were being scammed. I fail to see how verifying decades-old degrees would have prevented this.

pclmulqdq 4y ago
Most dishonest people don't stop at one lie. The smart ones do, but once you get away with one, you are a lot more likely to try just one more. It works until it doesn't.

malfist 4y ago

If they were doing their job well enough that you couldn't tell they were employed elsewhere, were you really being scammed? Or did you get pissy because you didn't have a person's livelihood to hold over them to make dance to your song?

llanowarelves 4y ago
I hope more people double and triple-up on him. You know, we could get people recruited on a double/triple and take an ongoing %, to monetize his crying.

danjoredd 4y ago

>I've (literally) employed people who were working 3 jobs without any of the other employers knowing about one another. We were being scammed. This happened not just once, but with 2 people (1 full stack engineer who is a HN regular, and another was an account manager). If that employee does all of their work for you, why does it matter if they work another job? Are they underperforming? I'm sorry, but I don't see how that is a scam. In retail, people work multiple jobs all the time. Why is it suddenly unethical the moment it turns into an office job?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
vsareto 4y ago
If you can get the work done, it's not unethical. Sounds like they weren't getting it done though: >(their downfall was neither of them were meeting productivity expectations, not getting their work done)
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
LambdaComplex 4y ago
> Why is it suddenly unethical the moment it turns into an office job? It's only unethical if you're not in the ruling class. If you're an executive, it's perfectly fine to sit on the board of multiple companies simultaneously (each one paying you $50,000+ per year).
- tomtheelder 4y ago
  No, it's unethical to do it without disclosure. You can have as many jobs as you want as long as they are aware of one another.
  - sahila 4y ago
    Why though? What business does one employer have knowing what else you do in your life? Do you tell them what hobbies you’re into or what tv show you watched last?

twawaaay 4y ago

As an advisor for startup CEOs who also worked for a lot of large known brands, I fully agree. Even just a tiny bit of effort in the application process does miracles to filter out people who do not really want to work for your company. Because sending hundreds or even thousands job applications requires you to optimise your efforts and reject possible employers who would require you to spend total of one day in the process. On the other hand if found the company you would like to work for, you researched the position, you have realistic demands, spending that time is just an investment in getting the job you really want. For example, when I interview I take a day off so that I am rested, fresh and with my head reasonably empty of the projects I am currently running so that I can present my best on the interview.

colonelpopcorn 4y ago
I think you've overestimated how many people look for jobs because they "really want to work" for a particular company. Further, you're asking candidates to eat the opportunity cost associated with spending time on one employer's application process.
- massysett 4y ago
  Job postings trigger a flood of applications. It’s not an efficient use of staff time to trudge through applications from people who couldn’t be bothered to create a login.
  - PainfullyNormal 4y ago
    Creating a login can be automated. You're not filtering for qualified job applicants by doing that. You're guaranteeing that the only applicants you ever see are bots.
  - mjhay 4y ago
    Getting a job these days sans personal collections requires sending out many, many applications. Each job one applies to only has a small chance of getting a callback. Given that, I'm not going to spend 30 minutes filling out pages of redundant information. If a company has that little respect for my time to make me jump through all of these bureaucratic hoops, seemingly to prove I can tolerate mindless nonsense, I don't want to work for them.

mejutoco 4y ago

I agree it is not a bad idea to confirm previous employment. It still does not prevent the case you mention, but it might help. I just wanted to add to anyone: make sure you actually understand who was the employer and give an opportunity to address the potential lie. Sometimes people (in a rush to read the cv) assume that a contract position, for instance, was a permanent role and similar mistakes (even when clearly specified in the cv) and these checks might make people drop out of the process unfairly, without recourse.

registeredcorn 4y ago

>Edit: Also, if anyone requests reference checks from your current employer, you should say no. It's not standard practice to check current employer, only prior employers (at least in the US). Question for you: One of the previous companies I worked for changed their name after I left. The company is still searchable under the old name. Should I list the new name, or old name on the resume? I feel like it's not really my problem, but also is my problem, you know? It's a weird thing. I'm not sure how common of a problem this is.

JacobThreeThree 4y ago
NewName (formerly OldName)
klodolph 4y ago
Weyland Yutani (formerly Yoyodyne Propulsion) 1980-1984 Vice President of Red Lectroids
ralph84 4y ago
I put the name of the company when I worked there, then the current name in parentheses. For example: EMC (now Dell)
- ghaff 4y ago
  Ditto. It’s a good idea because you don’t want someone in HR thinking there’s a discrepancy.

deeblering4 4y ago

> At the end they were both let go once we discovered the deception (their downfall was neither of them were meeting productivity expectations, not getting their work done) > After this, we heavily beefed up our pre-employment screening, which is all of what this person is complaining about. So practices were already in place to detect and correct this. That makes it quite foolish to distrust all applicants across the board, and make their experience worse, when performance tracking and correction was already a solved problem.

PainfullyNormal 4y ago
To be fair, the earlier in the process you can disqualify a bad candidate, the less money and time you waste. It's generally positive to re-assess the pre-employment screening when it fails to do it's job. That said, making the process worse for your good candidates is a horrible solution.
- b112 4y ago
  That said, making the process worse for your good candidates is a horrible solution. I feel for that employer, but making the application process more onerous would be a red flag for me, as a candidate. They are going to potentially hurt themselves if not careful.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Test0129 4y ago

> I've (literally) employed people who were working 3 jobs without any of the other employers knowing about one another. We were being scammed. This happened not just once, but with 2 people (1 full stack engineer who is a HN regular, and another was an account manager). We've had several instances of foreign contracting companies forging identities and using paid actors (who sound and act American) in order to get into our company. Not only do these scams seem somewhat common they are also a massive security risk. We usually find out quickly because there is almost always an inconsistency in their employment history.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

devwastaken 4y ago

If they don't perform because they have three jobs, fire them. You're trying to protect against rare circumstances and it is reducing the number of quality candidates that don't have to play that game and will go elsewhere.

tomtheelder 4y ago
Hiring someone, having them under-perform due to having multiple jobs, and then firing them is incredibly costly. Having at tighter application process to prevent that and other similar situations is likely worth the loss in candidates.

lucasgonze 4y ago

I don't believe that you are going to do all that screening before talking to the best candidates. It's just not true. You wouldn't invest like that in every candidate to submit a resume. Your process is like everybody elses: 1. automated resume screen hunting for keywords 2. HR human review 3. HR call 4. 3-4 other calls 5. detailed screening 6. offer If you are doing detailed screening BEFORE interviews, stop right now. It is wasted effort. Nobody else does it that way.

trap_goes_hot 4y ago

It's easy for outsiders to point out flaws, but if the system you have in place is allowing you to hire and retain talent, then you've succeeded.