4 ms·

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.
serp002 4y ago
Not sure fraud is the right word, but the companies are expecting him to be working 40hrs a week and I'm guessing he is not doing that, which is at the very least dishonest. Perhaps he is actually working 80hrs a week in which case this is not fraud for sure. But he mentions someone had 7 jobs and was working 20(??) hours a week which means he's basically scamming all those companies.
- datalopers 4y ago
  In my experience of highly paid tech jobs you're generally on salary and your work is managed by some clueless project manager with some notion of how many points you can accomplish in a week. If you find yourself in that situation, and you can do "40hrs" of work in 10 hours, getting a second or even third job of that nature seems like the quickest way to increase your earnings.
  - kfrzcode 4y ago
    You will not convince me you can complete "40hrs" of work in "10 hours," doofus. That's just 10 hours of more effective work. The other 30 hours you're lying to me and cheating me out of what I'm paying you. Of course, you can get away with it, because you're clever, there's way too much money in tech jobs sometimes, and people are trusting - and you deliver! Even if the work product is only meh; it's better than what those other chumps were doing, right?! Until you get caught; until someone in the recruiting community in your field/stack/industry catches wind of this post or that post; or you slip up and double book stakeholder meetings; or your background check shows multiple employers; or .... Hiring is guessing.
    - datalopers 4y ago
      I disagree that an employer is paying for 40 hours of my time: They're paying for output and results. I think rational employer would concede the same. > Until you get caught It's not as true today, but across 2020/2021 that couldn't possibly matter less. If this person was caught, then what? They fire them and give them 4-12 weeks severance? A year ago a good dev could have another job lined up before sundown.
throwaway123231 4y ago
If you get paid by the hour, would it not be fraud to lie about how much time you spent on the project?
chrisbaker98 4y ago
My current contract contains this clause: "You agree not to work for anyone else while you are employed by [company name], other than by prior agreement with the Company." I signed that contract. If I was working another job without prior agreement with this company, that would be fraudulent.
- danw1979 4y ago
  I think that would be breach of a civil contract, not the crime of fraud, at least here in the UK.

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.

serp002 4y ago

Not sure fraud is the right word, but the companies are expecting him to be working 40hrs a week and I'm guessing he is not doing that, which is at the very least dishonest. Perhaps he is actually working 80hrs a week in which case this is not fraud for sure. But he mentions someone had 7 jobs and was working 20(??) hours a week which means he's basically scamming all those companies.

datalopers 4y ago
In my experience of highly paid tech jobs you're generally on salary and your work is managed by some clueless project manager with some notion of how many points you can accomplish in a week. If you find yourself in that situation, and you can do "40hrs" of work in 10 hours, getting a second or even third job of that nature seems like the quickest way to increase your earnings.
- kfrzcode 4y ago
  You will not convince me you can complete "40hrs" of work in "10 hours," doofus. That's just 10 hours of more effective work. The other 30 hours you're lying to me and cheating me out of what I'm paying you. Of course, you can get away with it, because you're clever, there's way too much money in tech jobs sometimes, and people are trusting - and you deliver! Even if the work product is only meh; it's better than what those other chumps were doing, right?! Until you get caught; until someone in the recruiting community in your field/stack/industry catches wind of this post or that post; or you slip up and double book stakeholder meetings; or your background check shows multiple employers; or .... Hiring is guessing.
  - datalopers 4y ago
    I disagree that an employer is paying for 40 hours of my time: They're paying for output and results. I think rational employer would concede the same. > Until you get caught It's not as true today, but across 2020/2021 that couldn't possibly matter less. If this person was caught, then what? They fire them and give them 4-12 weeks severance? A year ago a good dev could have another job lined up before sundown.

throwaway123231 4y ago

If you get paid by the hour, would it not be fraud to lie about how much time you spent on the project?

chrisbaker98 4y ago

My current contract contains this clause: "You agree not to work for anyone else while you are employed by [company name], other than by prior agreement with the Company." I signed that contract. If I was working another job without prior agreement with this company, that would be fraudulent.

danw1979 4y ago
I think that would be breach of a civil contract, not the crime of fraud, at least here in the UK.