8 ms·

Is “overemployment” a euphemism for fraud?

by jaynate 4y ago

rusticpenn 4y ago
If someone can work as a CEO for more than one company at the same time….
- Scoundreller 4y ago
  Or sit on the boards of multiple large public corporations.
  - johnmacintyre 4y ago
    I've never sat on the board of a company. But I'd imagine its a lot less demanding than a full time job.
    - quickthrower2 4y ago
      It is usually a part time job. You would be expected to take other jobs.
    - ineedasername 4y ago
      But it's not uncommon to sit on multiple boards at the same time that a person is the CEO in their full time job. It can all start to add up a bit. Are they working extra hours? Does the CEO position not require a full 40 of their time? I suspect there are many in both categories.
- johnmacintyre 4y ago
  If you're talking about Elon Musk, its not really the same thing since he owns the companies he's CEO of.
  - HDThoreaun 4y ago
    Musk does not own tesla
    - johnmacintyre 4y ago
      My mistake. He does hold enormous influence though, I would think.
    - not2b 4y ago
      He also owns less than half of SpaceX. But SpaceX's management is probably just fine with him going off and focusing on Twitter, they can do fine without him playing an active role.
      - hinkley 4y ago
        They probably do better when he's not around. Which reminds me, I've been meaning to keep tabs on his former head of engineering at SpaceX. That guy is probably the one you should be watching, not Musk.
- mym1990 4y ago
  The difference is that it is usually fully transparent what the CEO is committed to.
- tjpnz 4y ago
  CEOs have a fiduciary responsibility to the owners whereas rank and file employees don't.
woodruffw 4y ago
I don't think it's illegal to work multiple jobs at once. At most, this person might be violating a company policy at one of their jobs (or, more realistically, any would fire them without cause as an at-will employee/contractor). That isn't meant to be a defense of this (I think it's unhealthy on a personal level, and immensely risky on a reputational level); just that fraud might be the wrong nail to hammer. Edit: On the other hand, some of their other posts imply willful deception of their employers (like outright lying about being unable to attend meetings[1]). It's possible that would constitute employment fraud. [1]: https://overemployee.blog/5-tips-to-avoid-overlapping-meetings/ https://overemployee.blog/5-tips-to-avoid-overlapping-meetin...
- erinnh 4y ago
  This whole "movement" is really strange to me, because, as always, this depends on where you live. Where I live, this is entirely illegal. So, to me, it always is just a different word for fraud. Then again, we have actual employment contracts where a whole lot of legalese will say what restrictions each party of the contract (employer and employee) has. I am under the impression that employment contracts arent really a thing in the USA.
  - sneak 4y ago
    Just because your jurisdiction outlawed it, does not make it fraud. Fraud has a definition.
    - erinnh 4y ago
      Yes it does have a definition. One of them (literal translation is "working hour fraud") is working less hours than you need to as per your contract.
  - Dave3of5 4y ago
    > Where I live, this is entirely illegal It's illegal to work two jobs ? Are you sure about that? Can you point to a specific law ? It may be against the employment contract but I think it's totally wrong to say it's illegal. That would mean the government has legislated against having two jobs. > I am under the impression that employment contracts arent really a thing in the USA. I think for most tech companies in the USA they actually do have contracts. The contract will state things like medical benefits ...etc. They are less common for working in a local bar or suchlike.
datalopers 4y ago
How is holding multiple jobs anything close to fraud?
- tomxor 4y ago
  because.. you signed a contract to spend x amount of time doing the job, and instead you spread that time between multiple jobs. I mean unless you are being massively underutilised, there's usually an endless stream of work.
  - icedchai 4y ago
    Typically most full time jobs say nothing about time commitments. In the old days, pre-remote work, presence was often valued more than productivity at many companies. Today, “presence” is about keeping your slack dot green. Could you pull off over-employment with a small startup? Probably not. But a couple of bloated corporations? Absolutely.
    - s-lambert 4y ago
      I've only worked at 2 different mid-sized US tech companies but they both had "we expect you to work full-time, full-time is defined as 38-40 hours of work". Even if they didn't explicitly have that, if you're working a full-time job then that means you're working at least 30 hours otherwise it's not a full-time job by definition alone.
      - icedchai 4y ago
        I typically avoid anything other than small companies. But with the last mid-size company I worked for, there definitely was not enough “real work” to fill 40 hours, or even 30. I had to learn to pace myself. But I still had to be available, on-site, during that time. With remote work “over employment”, people are taking advantage of those inefficiencies.
  - ineedasername 4y ago
    My contract says absolutely nothing about the amount of time, times of arrival & departure, or anything else of the sort. It's a straightforward document that lays out compensation details with a job description attached, nothing more. I'm not an OE nor do I seek to be, but once I get over the cognitive dissonance of the deeply embedded social construct of a 40=hour work week, I see no reason why a person who fulfills all of the requirements in a job description to the complete satisfaction of their employer in under 40 hours should owe them anything more. Will they be paid more for it? (I'll answer that, because I do it. the answer is nope nope nope) Thought experiment: two people sit next to each other in identical jobs and identical work loads split between them, jobs spec'ed out as needing to complete X work each week. Emp_1 is mediocre are requires a full 40 hours to complete their X/2 tasked each week and earn their $100k. Fine. Emp_2 is smarter and faster and can solve the same problems and work more efficiently complete their X/2 tasks in only 20 hours for the same $100k. That's fair! they both did the same amount of work only in varying amounts of time and the workplace puts a price tag of $100k on that chunk of work. But what's Emp_2 to do? 20 hours to fill. Massive stretched of boredom. Perhaps even the appearance that they're lazy because they often don't seem to be working. Sure, they could seek out other tasks, but why? That wasn't the labor contract. That wasn't the agreement. And for damn sure they can't go to their boss and say "Hey I've got 20 hours a week to fill let me do a second job for an extra $100k". Not. Going. To. Happen. The worker-employer relationship is not a benevolent one No matter how well you get along with your boss the inherent nature of the relationship between an employee and a corporation is tinged with a hint of adversarial. The company isn't paying out of altruistic goodness of their hear motives. They're paying $X for @Y work. (This is all assuming a salaried and not hourly wage). If you take $X, you owe @Y, and nothing more. If you finish @Y in half the expected time then the explicit contract, if not the implicit social construct, does not say you own @Y*2 work. (Barring contract that may actually set performance benchmarks and additional compensation that employees are obligated to work towards, of course) I see no reason at all why a person capable of doing a chunk of work predetermines to take 40 hours and pay a given sum of money should be obligated to fill time above & beyond that chunk of work when completed under time, and without additional compensation. When I go above and beyond, I'm not doing it for the company, I'm doing it out of loyalty to co-workers and an excellent boss who makes my life easier in countless ways.
zinclozenge 4y ago
I was curious so I looked at the employment agreements for my last three jobs, and as far as I could tell, none of them explicitly forbade working elsewhere, nor required or expected 8 hours a day dedicated to work. Still not sure though.
- ekvilibrist 4y ago
  You didn't explicitly have a clause saying something like "40 hour work week, Monday to Friday 8 AM to 5 PM"? Pretty standard where I live (Sweden), making this type of shenanigans virtually impossible (at least I haven't heard of this being a thing). I mean, it may not say "you have WORK these 8 hours a day", but they expect you to be available for this job exclusively.
georgemcbay 4y ago
Probably never or very rarely fraud. If you work "at-will" there's explicitly no restriction against working multiple jobs unless its specified by an employment contract (which few people in "at-will" employment regions have). Of course, each employer may have a policy forbidding it and thus could fire you on at-will terms if they found out, but that's a long way away from fraud in any legal sense. Fraud is a lot more specific than just lying (either outright or as would be the case most often when it comes to having multiple jobs: lying by omission). I'm not defending the act of working multiple jobs with full-time expectations here, I think in many cases it would be at best unprofessional, but it would take a very specific set of circumstances for it to come close to reaching the high bar of fraud.
- BuyMyBitcoins 4y ago
  >”there's explicitly no restriction against working multiple jobs unless its specified by an employment contract” I feel like there is no such restriction for working multiple jobs concurrently because such a thing wasn’t feasible or widespread before remote work. I have a feeling that working multiple jobs at the same time won’t be considered fraud in the legal sense, but employment contracts will quickly adapt to include clauses to preclude overlapping employment.

Is “overemployment” a euphemism for fraud?

rusticpenn 4y ago

If someone can work as a CEO for more than one company at the same time….

Scoundreller 4y ago
Or sit on the boards of multiple large public corporations.
- johnmacintyre 4y ago
  I've never sat on the board of a company. But I'd imagine its a lot less demanding than a full time job.
  - quickthrower2 4y ago
    It is usually a part time job. You would be expected to take other jobs.
  - ineedasername 4y ago
    But it's not uncommon to sit on multiple boards at the same time that a person is the CEO in their full time job. It can all start to add up a bit. Are they working extra hours? Does the CEO position not require a full 40 of their time? I suspect there are many in both categories.
johnmacintyre 4y ago
If you're talking about Elon Musk, its not really the same thing since he owns the companies he's CEO of.
- HDThoreaun 4y ago
  Musk does not own tesla
  - johnmacintyre 4y ago
    My mistake. He does hold enormous influence though, I would think.
  - not2b 4y ago
    He also owns less than half of SpaceX. But SpaceX's management is probably just fine with him going off and focusing on Twitter, they can do fine without him playing an active role.
    - hinkley 4y ago
      They probably do better when he's not around. Which reminds me, I've been meaning to keep tabs on his former head of engineering at SpaceX. That guy is probably the one you should be watching, not Musk.
mym1990 4y ago
The difference is that it is usually fully transparent what the CEO is committed to.
tjpnz 4y ago
CEOs have a fiduciary responsibility to the owners whereas rank and file employees don't.

woodruffw 4y ago

I don't think it's illegal to work multiple jobs at once. At most, this person might be violating a company policy at one of their jobs (or, more realistically, any would fire them without cause as an at-will employee/contractor). That isn't meant to be a defense of this (I think it's unhealthy on a personal level, and immensely risky on a reputational level); just that fraud might be the wrong nail to hammer. Edit: On the other hand, some of their other posts imply willful deception of their employers (like outright lying about being unable to attend meetings[1]). It's possible that would constitute employment fraud. [1]: https://overemployee.blog/5-tips-to-avoid-overlapping-meetings/ https://overemployee.blog/5-tips-to-avoid-overlapping-meetin...

erinnh 4y ago
This whole "movement" is really strange to me, because, as always, this depends on where you live. Where I live, this is entirely illegal. So, to me, it always is just a different word for fraud. Then again, we have actual employment contracts where a whole lot of legalese will say what restrictions each party of the contract (employer and employee) has. I am under the impression that employment contracts arent really a thing in the USA.
- sneak 4y ago
  Just because your jurisdiction outlawed it, does not make it fraud. Fraud has a definition.
  - erinnh 4y ago
    Yes it does have a definition. One of them (literal translation is "working hour fraud") is working less hours than you need to as per your contract.
- Dave3of5 4y ago
  > Where I live, this is entirely illegal It's illegal to work two jobs ? Are you sure about that? Can you point to a specific law ? It may be against the employment contract but I think it's totally wrong to say it's illegal. That would mean the government has legislated against having two jobs. > I am under the impression that employment contracts arent really a thing in the USA. I think for most tech companies in the USA they actually do have contracts. The contract will state things like medical benefits ...etc. They are less common for working in a local bar or suchlike.

datalopers 4y ago

How is holding multiple jobs anything close to fraud?

tomxor 4y ago
because.. you signed a contract to spend x amount of time doing the job, and instead you spread that time between multiple jobs. I mean unless you are being massively underutilised, there's usually an endless stream of work.
- icedchai 4y ago
  Typically most full time jobs say nothing about time commitments. In the old days, pre-remote work, presence was often valued more than productivity at many companies. Today, “presence” is about keeping your slack dot green. Could you pull off over-employment with a small startup? Probably not. But a couple of bloated corporations? Absolutely.
  - s-lambert 4y ago
    I've only worked at 2 different mid-sized US tech companies but they both had "we expect you to work full-time, full-time is defined as 38-40 hours of work". Even if they didn't explicitly have that, if you're working a full-time job then that means you're working at least 30 hours otherwise it's not a full-time job by definition alone.
    - icedchai 4y ago
      I typically avoid anything other than small companies. But with the last mid-size company I worked for, there definitely was not enough “real work” to fill 40 hours, or even 30. I had to learn to pace myself. But I still had to be available, on-site, during that time. With remote work “over employment”, people are taking advantage of those inefficiencies.
- ineedasername 4y ago
  My contract says absolutely nothing about the amount of time, times of arrival & departure, or anything else of the sort. It's a straightforward document that lays out compensation details with a job description attached, nothing more. I'm not an OE nor do I seek to be, but once I get over the cognitive dissonance of the deeply embedded social construct of a 40=hour work week, I see no reason why a person who fulfills all of the requirements in a job description to the complete satisfaction of their employer in under 40 hours should owe them anything more. Will they be paid more for it? (I'll answer that, because I do it. the answer is nope nope nope) Thought experiment: two people sit next to each other in identical jobs and identical work loads split between them, jobs spec'ed out as needing to complete X work each week. Emp_1 is mediocre are requires a full 40 hours to complete their X/2 tasked each week and earn their $100k. Fine. Emp_2 is smarter and faster and can solve the same problems and work more efficiently complete their X/2 tasks in only 20 hours for the same $100k. That's fair! they both did the same amount of work only in varying amounts of time and the workplace puts a price tag of $100k on that chunk of work. But what's Emp_2 to do? 20 hours to fill. Massive stretched of boredom. Perhaps even the appearance that they're lazy because they often don't seem to be working. Sure, they could seek out other tasks, but why? That wasn't the labor contract. That wasn't the agreement. And for damn sure they can't go to their boss and say "Hey I've got 20 hours a week to fill let me do a second job for an extra $100k". Not. Going. To. Happen. The worker-employer relationship is not a benevolent one No matter how well you get along with your boss the inherent nature of the relationship between an employee and a corporation is tinged with a hint of adversarial. The company isn't paying out of altruistic goodness of their hear motives. They're paying $X for @Y work. (This is all assuming a salaried and not hourly wage). If you take $X, you owe @Y, and nothing more. If you finish @Y in half the expected time then the explicit contract, if not the implicit social construct, does not say you own @Y*2 work. (Barring contract that may actually set performance benchmarks and additional compensation that employees are obligated to work towards, of course) I see no reason at all why a person capable of doing a chunk of work predetermines to take 40 hours and pay a given sum of money should be obligated to fill time above & beyond that chunk of work when completed under time, and without additional compensation. When I go above and beyond, I'm not doing it for the company, I'm doing it out of loyalty to co-workers and an excellent boss who makes my life easier in countless ways.

zinclozenge 4y ago

I was curious so I looked at the employment agreements for my last three jobs, and as far as I could tell, none of them explicitly forbade working elsewhere, nor required or expected 8 hours a day dedicated to work. Still not sure though.

ekvilibrist 4y ago
You didn't explicitly have a clause saying something like "40 hour work week, Monday to Friday 8 AM to 5 PM"? Pretty standard where I live (Sweden), making this type of shenanigans virtually impossible (at least I haven't heard of this being a thing). I mean, it may not say "you have WORK these 8 hours a day", but they expect you to be available for this job exclusively.

georgemcbay 4y ago

Probably never or very rarely fraud. If you work "at-will" there's explicitly no restriction against working multiple jobs unless its specified by an employment contract (which few people in "at-will" employment regions have). Of course, each employer may have a policy forbidding it and thus could fire you on at-will terms if they found out, but that's a long way away from fraud in any legal sense. Fraud is a lot more specific than just lying (either outright or as would be the case most often when it comes to having multiple jobs: lying by omission). I'm not defending the act of working multiple jobs with full-time expectations here, I think in many cases it would be at best unprofessional, but it would take a very specific set of circumstances for it to come close to reaching the high bar of fraud.

BuyMyBitcoins 4y ago
>”there's explicitly no restriction against working multiple jobs unless its specified by an employment contract” I feel like there is no such restriction for working multiple jobs concurrently because such a thing wasn’t feasible or widespread before remote work. I have a feeling that working multiple jobs at the same time won’t be considered fraud in the legal sense, but employment contracts will quickly adapt to include clauses to preclude overlapping employment.