4 ms·

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 prob

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.
mym1990 4y ago
Generally if you don’t have hour specific verbiage in your contract, there is much more room to maneuver, but a lot of people are working through billing hours. At this points things get much more complicated and most people won’t have the organization to compartmentalize enough to get through an audit.
- ineedasername 4y ago
  Yes, I completely agree. If you're working on a billable hours arrangement this whole OE thing goes out the window. If you sandbag and pad the hours billed that's just scam artistry & fraud.

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.

mym1990 4y ago

Generally if you don’t have hour specific verbiage in your contract, there is much more room to maneuver, but a lot of people are working through billing hours. At this points things get much more complicated and most people won’t have the organization to compartmentalize enough to get through an audit.

ineedasername 4y ago
Yes, I completely agree. If you're working on a billable hours arrangement this whole OE thing goes out the window. If you sandbag and pad the hours billed that's just scam artistry & fraud.