8 ms·

> I’m happy with my decision to work multiple jobs at once, because not only do I feel like its given me more time with my family and friends I wonder how this

> I’m happy with my decision to work multiple jobs at once, because not only do I feel like its given me more time with my family and friends I wonder how this is the case - generally you would have less time doing this unless you are working the jobs concurrently, in which case, that is incredibly unethical and likely to get you fired from both companies if either found out

ineedasername 4y ago
Is it unethical if you're performing both jobs at a highly satisfactory level? My opinions is it isn't.
- mym1990 4y ago
  Is it unethical to have a 2nd wife or husband if they are both happy?
  - TheCapeGreek 4y ago
    Contrary to popular belief, monogamy is not the only way to have relationships.
    - Gigachad 4y ago
      Do you think the companies these people work for are aware they work 3 jobs?
      - danw1979 4y ago
        If they are not aware, then the employee is being badly managed, or maybe not managed at all.
        Gigachad 4y ago
        Yes, which is why we are probably going to see a huge crackdown on remote work where everyone's output is carefully reviewed and if you have a slow week you'll be audited to check your output matched the 40 hours work expected. The assholes like the OP author are going to make remote work suck for everyone.
      - mym1990 4y ago
        Based on some brief Reddit scanning on overemployment, most people don’t seem to reveal that they are working 2(let alone 3) jobs.
    - chii 4y ago
      So as long as the company agrees with polygamy, there's no problem. It's only if one party assumes monogamy, but the other party secretly tries polygamy that problems arise.
      - mym1990 4y ago
        Yes, this.
    - mym1990 4y ago
      I guess I meant specifically in the case that the other marriage is hidden from both and it is not something that was agreed upon.
  - ineedasername 4y ago
    The difference is that I sign on with a company to do a specific job. Nowhere in my contract does it mention hours. Do the job in fewer hours and where the problem with doing another one? Marriage on the other hand, at least in my vows, was pretty explicit on the ground rules of it being an exclusive deal. So you're analogy is flawed.
    - rob74 4y ago
      Even if your contract doesn't mention hours, I'm pretty sure that somewhere in there there's a clause that forbids you from taking on a second full time job (or even a part time job without getting approval from your employer).
      - ineedasername 4y ago
        My contract doesn't forbid it. Employee policy does stipulate that "regular and ongoing" work must be approved. So, in my case, if I wanted to step into the OE world (I don't) I'd be limited to irregular work-- short term fixed length contract work I suppose, and then I'm under no obligation to seek approval. This seems at least a little common. A quick search on it turned up the intel employee handbook which actually has the assumption of outside work completely baked into it, and simply sets about the policies under which is must be performed. But for cases where it would actually forbid another job: Why feel obligated to adhere to that? If you're doing the expected work load in 20 hours, and are not compensated for seeking out additional work, the unspoken norms and social contract between worker & employee is fundamentally flawed very much in favor of the company. It's a have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too situation. The company wants the freedom to fire a worker who can't complete their work on time and therefore doesn't deserve the $X compensation at the same time that they expect and feel entitled to the windfall reaped by their good fortune to stumble upon a worker who can do 2x the work at the same salary. OE is not for me, by the hypocrisy of the power imbalance and socially constructed norms around this stuff should not be taboo or held of on a pedestal as principles of labor <-> money exchange that can't be questioned. It's only unethical if you subscribe to the same set of ethics as the ones corporation propagate, ones where all of the terms are favorable to them when they happen to get an above average worker. I don't see it as unethical to violate a workplace policy with ethical foundations that are not compatible with my own interests and respectful of my own capabilities so long as I'm still getting the expected work done.
  - danw1979 4y ago
    No.
- chrisbaker98 4y ago
  > You agree not to work for anyone else while you are employed by [company name], other than by prior agreement with the Company. That's a clause in my current contract. Is it ethical to break it?
  - ineedasername 4y ago
    The power structure is weighted against the employee with respect to the creation of these policies. That makes ethical considerations a bit murky, a person cannot work in society without working under policies of this sort, there is no free market of labor to allow for competition etc. So the real question is, is it unethical to violate a code of conduct that you do not regard as fair & equitable, applying unequally to the top C-level execs compensated by their positions on various boards of other companies but with comparable-- to your level of employment-- options closed off by corporate policy to common workers. Is it unethical violate that code of conduct when imposed upon you without recourse or ability to negotiate it. I view this in the light of the philosophy of civil disobedience. I.e., a person may (or should) act against those prohibitions with which they disagree. Though also that you do so with eyes wide open on the potentials consequences of that disobedience. In the case of OE, that means accepting without complaint getting fired if an employer discovers the dual jobs. I want to be clear though-- When I look on OE as a reasonable endeavor I do so only if the employee is actually doing the chunk of work expected of them in a satisfactory way. There's a lot of nonsense and busy work that can be cut out and efficiencies realized if a person puts their mind to it to perform a full time job's expected workload in well under 40 hours. WFH makes this even easier. I also would regard it as unethical to do this if the job is paid as an hourly wage. In that case there is an explicit contract to work $X hours. That's a bit more than just an employee handbook policy and I have a harder time reconciling sandbagging hours there even if you're getting the the work done because you explicitely agreed to receive $x for each hour of work performed. If it takes you less time, take the appropriate pay and find other OE work to fill your time or whatever you want. The key thing is that a person should do the work they agreed to do, otherwise you're just a scam artist.
- khazhoux 4y ago
  In software, the answer is often Yes. You tell your manager you'll finish implementing a critical feature in 6 weeks. Manager knows it's not a trivial task, and while he'd like it to be finished sooner because it impacts company revenue, he accepts your 6-week estimate and communicates it to the rest of the program. You split your time with another two employers, and work hard to finish the feature on time... in 6 weeks. Your manager rates your work as satisfactory. The unethical part: Your 6-week estimate was based on the knowledge that you'd be splitting your time, but your manager naturally assumed you were giving them all your working hours within those 6 weeks. You relied on the manager's trust, and you tacitly exaggerated the level of effort required to complete the work.
  - ineedasername 4y ago
    If 6 hours is very reasonable for the average employee but you manage to do it in 3 to the same degree of quality and aren't being compensated anything extra above that average then I think the more pressing and larger unethical issue is the method by which compensation is determined. I think there's a certain amount of cognitive dissonance being experienced here. The idea of a 40 hour work week is so deeply ingrained that there's a deep seated feeling of obligation toward working that time. In reality? The company has defined a scope of work according the 40 hour socially constructed time and assigned a value of $X for the work they think should be done during that time. If someone can do the expected work in 20 hours what are they supposed to do, be punished by getting even more work than colleagues compensated at the same level? No, in practice-- and you'll see this all the time if you look for it-- many people lengthen the time they take to complete their work to fill a full 40 hours. Breaks, casual extended conversations with co workers over non-work related things, heck walking to meetings and waiting for others to arrive and then walking back-- that dead time is eliminated with remote work.
- ZephyrBlu 4y ago
  He is working multiple jobs and says he has more time for family and friends (I.e. working less). What is a "highly satisfactory" level? I don't understand how you can work less, with more context switches and maintain a "highly satisfactory" output at all your places of work. The more likely explanation is that people who do this are mediocre employees and/or sandbagging at the companies they work at.

ineedasername 4y ago

Is it unethical if you're performing both jobs at a highly satisfactory level? My opinions is it isn't.

mym1990 4y ago
Is it unethical to have a 2nd wife or husband if they are both happy?
- TheCapeGreek 4y ago
  Contrary to popular belief, monogamy is not the only way to have relationships.
  - Gigachad 4y ago
    Do you think the companies these people work for are aware they work 3 jobs?
    - danw1979 4y ago
      If they are not aware, then the employee is being badly managed, or maybe not managed at all.
      - Gigachad 4y ago
        Yes, which is why we are probably going to see a huge crackdown on remote work where everyone's output is carefully reviewed and if you have a slow week you'll be audited to check your output matched the 40 hours work expected. The assholes like the OP author are going to make remote work suck for everyone.
    - mym1990 4y ago
      Based on some brief Reddit scanning on overemployment, most people don’t seem to reveal that they are working 2(let alone 3) jobs.
  - chii 4y ago
    So as long as the company agrees with polygamy, there's no problem. It's only if one party assumes monogamy, but the other party secretly tries polygamy that problems arise.
    - mym1990 4y ago
      Yes, this.
  - mym1990 4y ago
    I guess I meant specifically in the case that the other marriage is hidden from both and it is not something that was agreed upon.
- ineedasername 4y ago
  The difference is that I sign on with a company to do a specific job. Nowhere in my contract does it mention hours. Do the job in fewer hours and where the problem with doing another one? Marriage on the other hand, at least in my vows, was pretty explicit on the ground rules of it being an exclusive deal. So you're analogy is flawed.
  - rob74 4y ago
    Even if your contract doesn't mention hours, I'm pretty sure that somewhere in there there's a clause that forbids you from taking on a second full time job (or even a part time job without getting approval from your employer).
    - ineedasername 4y ago
      My contract doesn't forbid it. Employee policy does stipulate that "regular and ongoing" work must be approved. So, in my case, if I wanted to step into the OE world (I don't) I'd be limited to irregular work-- short term fixed length contract work I suppose, and then I'm under no obligation to seek approval. This seems at least a little common. A quick search on it turned up the intel employee handbook which actually has the assumption of outside work completely baked into it, and simply sets about the policies under which is must be performed. But for cases where it would actually forbid another job: Why feel obligated to adhere to that? If you're doing the expected work load in 20 hours, and are not compensated for seeking out additional work, the unspoken norms and social contract between worker & employee is fundamentally flawed very much in favor of the company. It's a have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too situation. The company wants the freedom to fire a worker who can't complete their work on time and therefore doesn't deserve the $X compensation at the same time that they expect and feel entitled to the windfall reaped by their good fortune to stumble upon a worker who can do 2x the work at the same salary. OE is not for me, by the hypocrisy of the power imbalance and socially constructed norms around this stuff should not be taboo or held of on a pedestal as principles of labor <-> money exchange that can't be questioned. It's only unethical if you subscribe to the same set of ethics as the ones corporation propagate, ones where all of the terms are favorable to them when they happen to get an above average worker. I don't see it as unethical to violate a workplace policy with ethical foundations that are not compatible with my own interests and respectful of my own capabilities so long as I'm still getting the expected work done.
- danw1979 4y ago
  No.
chrisbaker98 4y ago
> You agree not to work for anyone else while you are employed by [company name], other than by prior agreement with the Company. That's a clause in my current contract. Is it ethical to break it?
- ineedasername 4y ago
  The power structure is weighted against the employee with respect to the creation of these policies. That makes ethical considerations a bit murky, a person cannot work in society without working under policies of this sort, there is no free market of labor to allow for competition etc. So the real question is, is it unethical to violate a code of conduct that you do not regard as fair & equitable, applying unequally to the top C-level execs compensated by their positions on various boards of other companies but with comparable-- to your level of employment-- options closed off by corporate policy to common workers. Is it unethical violate that code of conduct when imposed upon you without recourse or ability to negotiate it. I view this in the light of the philosophy of civil disobedience. I.e., a person may (or should) act against those prohibitions with which they disagree. Though also that you do so with eyes wide open on the potentials consequences of that disobedience. In the case of OE, that means accepting without complaint getting fired if an employer discovers the dual jobs. I want to be clear though-- When I look on OE as a reasonable endeavor I do so only if the employee is actually doing the chunk of work expected of them in a satisfactory way. There's a lot of nonsense and busy work that can be cut out and efficiencies realized if a person puts their mind to it to perform a full time job's expected workload in well under 40 hours. WFH makes this even easier. I also would regard it as unethical to do this if the job is paid as an hourly wage. In that case there is an explicit contract to work $X hours. That's a bit more than just an employee handbook policy and I have a harder time reconciling sandbagging hours there even if you're getting the the work done because you explicitely agreed to receive $x for each hour of work performed. If it takes you less time, take the appropriate pay and find other OE work to fill your time or whatever you want. The key thing is that a person should do the work they agreed to do, otherwise you're just a scam artist.
khazhoux 4y ago
In software, the answer is often Yes. You tell your manager you'll finish implementing a critical feature in 6 weeks. Manager knows it's not a trivial task, and while he'd like it to be finished sooner because it impacts company revenue, he accepts your 6-week estimate and communicates it to the rest of the program. You split your time with another two employers, and work hard to finish the feature on time... in 6 weeks. Your manager rates your work as satisfactory. The unethical part: Your 6-week estimate was based on the knowledge that you'd be splitting your time, but your manager naturally assumed you were giving them all your working hours within those 6 weeks. You relied on the manager's trust, and you tacitly exaggerated the level of effort required to complete the work.
- ineedasername 4y ago
  If 6 hours is very reasonable for the average employee but you manage to do it in 3 to the same degree of quality and aren't being compensated anything extra above that average then I think the more pressing and larger unethical issue is the method by which compensation is determined. I think there's a certain amount of cognitive dissonance being experienced here. The idea of a 40 hour work week is so deeply ingrained that there's a deep seated feeling of obligation toward working that time. In reality? The company has defined a scope of work according the 40 hour socially constructed time and assigned a value of $X for the work they think should be done during that time. If someone can do the expected work in 20 hours what are they supposed to do, be punished by getting even more work than colleagues compensated at the same level? No, in practice-- and you'll see this all the time if you look for it-- many people lengthen the time they take to complete their work to fill a full 40 hours. Breaks, casual extended conversations with co workers over non-work related things, heck walking to meetings and waiting for others to arrive and then walking back-- that dead time is eliminated with remote work.
ZephyrBlu 4y ago
He is working multiple jobs and says he has more time for family and friends (I.e. working less). What is a "highly satisfactory" level? I don't understand how you can work less, with more context switches and maintain a "highly satisfactory" output at all your places of work. The more likely explanation is that people who do this are mediocre employees and/or sandbagging at the companies they work at.