7 ms·

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, th

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
        So you are saying it is GOOD if an employee is working two jobs because they are then exposed to more solutions and actually SAVE the company because they can reuse existing knowledge other companies have taken the time to develope? I like your thinking :)
        lazide 4y ago
        If that’s what happens, everyone is fully informed, and they mind the NDA? Sure. That’s pretty much the definition of an (actual) software engineering contractor for instance. That’s pretty much never what happens though if someone does it when applying for a full time salary position, and line managers know it, which is why you see people get worked up about it. People doing it try to convince themselves it’s not a scam, but it almost always is. The folks doing this on boards, despite any hate and derision they are getting here, are often exceptionally talented, educated, and have a long list of references where they have been doing it before successfully. They were voted in with full visibility to their other board memberships, and while being open about it and any potential conflicts of interest. They’re just not software engineers. I have yet to meet one that didn’t work their asses off either, just not in the way you might recognize. There can be (and is, of course) nepotism, cronyism, etc. that happens, same as anywhere, and the shareholders who vote that in get what they deserve as well in my experience. Sometimes it’s also as simple as ‘x owns this company, and wants y to takeover when they’re gone, so y sits on the board.’. Rare in public or widely held companies though. Ownership has it’s privileges, and it’s costs after all.
    - skinnymuch 4y ago
      The upper class have agreed to it. Everyone else has to go along with it. Why would the majority of people with an average middling 5 figure salary agree that it’s cool people can make 5-10x+ the average income to go to a handful of board meetings? Just because something is the status quo and it is happening without mass protests, doesn’t mean people are agreeing to it.
      - noasaservice 4y ago
        Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. Too fucking bad they don't "like it". I don't give one bit of care to the centimillionaire and up club.
        olddustytrail 4y ago
        A centimillionaire would be on about $10k (hundredth). You want "hectomillionaire". Oddly, that's the second time I've used that word today: talking about Rishi Sunak earlier.
  - jibe 4y ago
    Corporate boards typically meet at most once a month, and often only a few times a year for 3-4 hours. That is very different from a 40 hour a week job.
    - skinnymuch 4y ago
      Everything you said makes it even worse. They are barely working and making many times more than full time employees.
    - llanowarelves 4y ago
      How much knowledge, wisdom, and value did Hunter Biden add to get $40k a month from Burisma? Goes for most board members really. They are all "quiet quitters". If that's not "stealing" but regular people actually working multiple jobs with actual deliverables in a way you couldn't even tell is, then "stealing" is good and I will help as many to do it as possible, especially from the HN poster companies coming out and countersignaling it so hard.
  - pclmulqdq 4y ago
    Most companies are okay with it if regular employees sit on a board, too, as long as there isn't a conflict of interest.
    - ghaff 4y ago
      I’m on unpaid board member of a non-profit. May not be what people think of as board member but it’s perfectly normal. Obviously being a board member of a company in the same industry makes conflicts of interest potentially trickier
  - mingus88 4y ago
    Board members aren't creating IP. That's really the only issue I can side with on the employer's side. I've worked a full time w/ benefits job and freelanced on the side. The only aspect of that I would feel that would be unethical is if I were to mix IP from the firms that should remain private. Otherwise, who the hell cares. If I'm doing task work and meeting expectations then I'm holding up my end of the bargain. I'm not a slave and my work does not own me. Standing around the proverbial water cooler wasting company time is acceptable, but doing something productive during my downtime is not?
  - balderdash 4y ago
    Because a board member works like 12-15 days a year if your super diligent about it, and way less if you half ass it.
- 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

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
        So you are saying it is GOOD if an employee is working two jobs because they are then exposed to more solutions and actually SAVE the company because they can reuse existing knowledge other companies have taken the time to develope? I like your thinking :)
        lazide 4y ago
        If that’s what happens, everyone is fully informed, and they mind the NDA? Sure. That’s pretty much the definition of an (actual) software engineering contractor for instance. That’s pretty much never what happens though if someone does it when applying for a full time salary position, and line managers know it, which is why you see people get worked up about it. People doing it try to convince themselves it’s not a scam, but it almost always is. The folks doing this on boards, despite any hate and derision they are getting here, are often exceptionally talented, educated, and have a long list of references where they have been doing it before successfully. They were voted in with full visibility to their other board memberships, and while being open about it and any potential conflicts of interest. They’re just not software engineers. I have yet to meet one that didn’t work their asses off either, just not in the way you might recognize. There can be (and is, of course) nepotism, cronyism, etc. that happens, same as anywhere, and the shareholders who vote that in get what they deserve as well in my experience. Sometimes it’s also as simple as ‘x owns this company, and wants y to takeover when they’re gone, so y sits on the board.’. Rare in public or widely held companies though. Ownership has it’s privileges, and it’s costs after all.
  - skinnymuch 4y ago
    The upper class have agreed to it. Everyone else has to go along with it. Why would the majority of people with an average middling 5 figure salary agree that it’s cool people can make 5-10x+ the average income to go to a handful of board meetings? Just because something is the status quo and it is happening without mass protests, doesn’t mean people are agreeing to it.
    - noasaservice 4y ago
      Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. Too fucking bad they don't "like it". I don't give one bit of care to the centimillionaire and up club.
      - olddustytrail 4y ago
        A centimillionaire would be on about $10k (hundredth). You want "hectomillionaire". Oddly, that's the second time I've used that word today: talking about Rishi Sunak earlier.
- jibe 4y ago
  Corporate boards typically meet at most once a month, and often only a few times a year for 3-4 hours. That is very different from a 40 hour a week job.
  - skinnymuch 4y ago
    Everything you said makes it even worse. They are barely working and making many times more than full time employees.
  - llanowarelves 4y ago
    How much knowledge, wisdom, and value did Hunter Biden add to get $40k a month from Burisma? Goes for most board members really. They are all "quiet quitters". If that's not "stealing" but regular people actually working multiple jobs with actual deliverables in a way you couldn't even tell is, then "stealing" is good and I will help as many to do it as possible, especially from the HN poster companies coming out and countersignaling it so hard.
- pclmulqdq 4y ago
  Most companies are okay with it if regular employees sit on a board, too, as long as there isn't a conflict of interest.
  - ghaff 4y ago
    I’m on unpaid board member of a non-profit. May not be what people think of as board member but it’s perfectly normal. Obviously being a board member of a company in the same industry makes conflicts of interest potentially trickier
- mingus88 4y ago
  Board members aren't creating IP. That's really the only issue I can side with on the employer's side. I've worked a full time w/ benefits job and freelanced on the side. The only aspect of that I would feel that would be unethical is if I were to mix IP from the firms that should remain private. Otherwise, who the hell cares. If I'm doing task work and meeting expectations then I'm holding up my end of the bargain. I'm not a slave and my work does not own me. Standing around the proverbial water cooler wasting company time is acceptable, but doing something productive during my downtime is not?
- balderdash 4y ago
  Because a board member works like 12-15 days a year if your super diligent about it, and way less if you half ass it.
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