4 ms·

I think that it's ok, if they can do that much work. I mean everyone can take two or three jobs even without remote jobs. Though with remote working it is easie

I think that it's ok, if they can do that much work. I mean everyone can take two or three jobs even without remote jobs. Though with remote working it is easier to do two or three jobs if they are similar and you can send same work to both companies. It's not a problem before it's about copyright.

lisasays 3y ago
And if your employment contract -- like nearly every employment contract -- explicitly says "you will devote 40 hours a week to this role; and you will not take on outside obligations without giving written notice to the company" -- Is still "ok"?
- Dannymetconan 3y ago
  I think it is. Employers love to include whatever they can in a contract. Non competes in Canada and the EU are generally not enforceable but you see them regularly. Why should this line be any different. Edit: which -> why
  - lisasays 3y ago
    Which should this line be any different? Because it most definitely is not about non-compete agreements in the usual (post-employment) sense. You understand that, right?
    - Dannymetconan 3y ago
      I understand the difference. Most jobs would like to own your 24/7 for minimum wage. They can also have clauses about discussing pay or other gray / illegal points. Just because you've signed it doesn't mean much to me. If you're meeting their expectations it's none of their business in my opinion.
      - lisasays 3y ago
        Don't know what to tell you other than "Sorry, but this isn't how contracts work". But hey -- you're quite welcome to believe otherwise, of course -- and to throw yourself against the wheels of the legal system on the basis of your "opinion" of how they ought to work, if you like. It's a free country, after all.
        Dannymetconan 3y ago
        They work based on what someone is prepared to enforce and the laws of the country they try to enforce it in. Having it written and signed isn't some magic catch all. I'm sure they can fire you but it seems to be "at will" employment in most of the US anyway. In Ireland and Canada such a clause would likely fall under being "unreasonable" for low paid employees. Similar to how a "non-compete" is not worth the paper it's written on (excluding when direct financial compensation is paid. Eg gardening leave).
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
- mech422 3y ago
  not sure where you get 'nearly every employment contract' from, but in the US, its pretty common for people in the retail sectors to have multiple jobs. My F500 employer actually actually acknowledges this is a possibility for techies, and gives us guidelines on how to avoid problems with NDAs, client poaching, etc. They don't seem to require any notifications unless it might compete with existing business.
  - lisasays 3y ago
    Does this F500 employer have mind that you'd be working multiple FT jobs? Or just the occasional (low-impact) consulting gig?
    - mech422 3y ago
      It was never mentioned in the training material - though starting your own business was, which I think is pretty "FT"
- Lukkaroinen 3y ago
  Devoting 40 hours a week to a role, is just 8 hours of a day. What if you are workaholic who needs 60-80 hours a week? Why would it be wrong if you can as a worker devote the required hours to a job?

lisasays 3y ago

And if your employment contract -- like nearly every employment contract -- explicitly says "you will devote 40 hours a week to this role; and you will not take on outside obligations without giving written notice to the company" -- Is still "ok"?

Dannymetconan 3y ago
I think it is. Employers love to include whatever they can in a contract. Non competes in Canada and the EU are generally not enforceable but you see them regularly. Why should this line be any different. Edit: which -> why
- lisasays 3y ago
  Which should this line be any different? Because it most definitely is not about non-compete agreements in the usual (post-employment) sense. You understand that, right?
  - Dannymetconan 3y ago
    I understand the difference. Most jobs would like to own your 24/7 for minimum wage. They can also have clauses about discussing pay or other gray / illegal points. Just because you've signed it doesn't mean much to me. If you're meeting their expectations it's none of their business in my opinion.
    - lisasays 3y ago
      Don't know what to tell you other than "Sorry, but this isn't how contracts work". But hey -- you're quite welcome to believe otherwise, of course -- and to throw yourself against the wheels of the legal system on the basis of your "opinion" of how they ought to work, if you like. It's a free country, after all.
      - Dannymetconan 3y ago
        They work based on what someone is prepared to enforce and the laws of the country they try to enforce it in. Having it written and signed isn't some magic catch all. I'm sure they can fire you but it seems to be "at will" employment in most of the US anyway. In Ireland and Canada such a clause would likely fall under being "unreasonable" for low paid employees. Similar to how a "non-compete" is not worth the paper it's written on (excluding when direct financial compensation is paid. Eg gardening leave).
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
mech422 3y ago
not sure where you get 'nearly every employment contract' from, but in the US, its pretty common for people in the retail sectors to have multiple jobs. My F500 employer actually actually acknowledges this is a possibility for techies, and gives us guidelines on how to avoid problems with NDAs, client poaching, etc. They don't seem to require any notifications unless it might compete with existing business.
- lisasays 3y ago
  Does this F500 employer have mind that you'd be working multiple FT jobs? Or just the occasional (low-impact) consulting gig?
  - mech422 3y ago
    It was never mentioned in the training material - though starting your own business was, which I think is pretty "FT"
Lukkaroinen 3y ago
Devoting 40 hours a week to a role, is just 8 hours of a day. What if you are workaholic who needs 60-80 hours a week? Why would it be wrong if you can as a worker devote the required hours to a job?