6 ms·

> Having more than one "full time" remote job? Not your business policing that unless they actively causes reduced output or conflict in the work they do for y

> Having more than one "full time" remote job? Not your business policing that unless they actively causes reduced output or conflict in the work they do for your business.

WalterBright 2y ago
Yeah, I've seen this debated at length numerous times here. If that is your opinion, you shouldn't object to productivity monitoring software installed on your work laptop. After all, you're being paid for your time.
- BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
  You’re being paid for your labor. Your time is a proxy for that labor. If an employee can do two jobs at once, then let them without intrusive monitoring. If the intrusive monitoring is the only means of determining their output, then fine, but I’m gonna go ahead and guess that there’s less orwellian metrics, and that the primary motive for their introduction is to force more work out of already productive employees by making them self-police, panopticon style.
  - em-bee 2y ago
    If an employee can do two jobs at once nobody can work 16 hours a day and be focused all the time. heck, most people can't even do 8 hours of focused work. i am not paying you to sit on a chair, but to actually pay attention. if you do two full time jobs, you are not doing the work at the required focus. sure, there may be jobs where that doesn't matter, and there are jobs that are paid full time but aren't actually full time jobs. like a sysadmin in a small company, where our boss told him that his job was to keep the servers running. if he has nothing to do he is welcome to goof off. and in such a job he could also have used the free time to do side jobs, or a second job. but for most jobs it does matter that you are focused working for the whole time, and if i find out that an employee is doing a second full time job then i will be very much concerned at that persons effectiveness.
    - BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
      Can you measure their performance? If so, I assume you expect a certain volume of work from your employees. If they keep up with that volume without paying their full attention, why is that your problem? If they aren’t doing their jobs it’s a completely different story, and I don’t blame you for your worry, but frankly what business of yours is it how they get the job done IF they do it to your desired standard? I’m sure they aren’t having fun doing 16 hours of work, but they’ve got bills to pay.
      - em-bee 2y ago
        If they keep up with that volume without paying their full attention some work is not about volume but about quality. and exactly the fact that the work can not be measured is the problem. some work can not be done effectively when you are tired, and some work is even dangerous. driving for example. paying attention to safety and security requires you to be a wake and able to focus. as a programmer i have good days and bad days, and noone can say whether my work is the best i can manage or is slacking because i have a second job. and if i am spending more than my market rate salary as a programmer affords then i need to change my lifestyle, not get a second job. in germany for example the laws for the maximum time of work an employee is allowed to do in a day covers all jobs. two full time jobs would simply not be possible because you are required to have 11 hours of break between two workdays.
        BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
        I’m not trying to make arguments about work where the output isn’t measurable; Of course businesses are going to err on the side of caution and try to weed out employees with second jobs in that case. I am also very pro labor protections and want far more here in the US. My issue is with businesses that seem to see their employees as their property and over-scrutinize their lives outside of work, even in cases where the quality of that work can be clearly measured to be adequate.
  - WalterBright 2y ago
    For many jobs (like programming) measuring productivity is nearly impossible. But if a programmer is being paid for 40 hours of work, and he only does 20, then the employer is going to feel cheated, because the employer is only getting half of the productivity the programmer promised him. The impracticality of measuring the productivity is irrelevant.
    - BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
      I would argue that if what the employer expects to be done in 40 hours can be done in 20 by a skilled employee, then it’s not exactly the employee’s job to tell them to allocate more work on his/her plate for the same amount of pay. That business needs to do a better job of understanding the work they need done. This, of course, won’t apply to a job like a call center or something where the time on the job is itself the labor being done, only in cases where the output is measurable. But in those cases, the employer’s feeling cheated by not being able to waste the time of/underpay that skilled employee doesn’t exactly sadden me.
      - WalterBright 2y ago
        Again, it is rarely possible to quantify the productivity of a programmer. That's why we pay them according to how many hours they work. Contracting for 40 hours but only delivering 20 is fraudulent.
        BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
        I’ll put it this way: if I feel like I’ve given you 40 hours of work in 20 hours, I’m going to lie to you and go do something else unless I enjoy my job, and I don’t feel like that’s morally wrong unless I’m incorrect about my output.

> Having more than one "full time" remote job? Not your business policing that unless they actively causes reduced output or conflict in the work they do for your business.

WalterBright 2y ago

Yeah, I've seen this debated at length numerous times here. If that is your opinion, you shouldn't object to productivity monitoring software installed on your work laptop. After all, you're being paid for your time.

BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
You’re being paid for your labor. Your time is a proxy for that labor. If an employee can do two jobs at once, then let them without intrusive monitoring. If the intrusive monitoring is the only means of determining their output, then fine, but I’m gonna go ahead and guess that there’s less orwellian metrics, and that the primary motive for their introduction is to force more work out of already productive employees by making them self-police, panopticon style.
- em-bee 2y ago
  If an employee can do two jobs at once nobody can work 16 hours a day and be focused all the time. heck, most people can't even do 8 hours of focused work. i am not paying you to sit on a chair, but to actually pay attention. if you do two full time jobs, you are not doing the work at the required focus. sure, there may be jobs where that doesn't matter, and there are jobs that are paid full time but aren't actually full time jobs. like a sysadmin in a small company, where our boss told him that his job was to keep the servers running. if he has nothing to do he is welcome to goof off. and in such a job he could also have used the free time to do side jobs, or a second job. but for most jobs it does matter that you are focused working for the whole time, and if i find out that an employee is doing a second full time job then i will be very much concerned at that persons effectiveness.
  - BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
    Can you measure their performance? If so, I assume you expect a certain volume of work from your employees. If they keep up with that volume without paying their full attention, why is that your problem? If they aren’t doing their jobs it’s a completely different story, and I don’t blame you for your worry, but frankly what business of yours is it how they get the job done IF they do it to your desired standard? I’m sure they aren’t having fun doing 16 hours of work, but they’ve got bills to pay.
    - em-bee 2y ago
      If they keep up with that volume without paying their full attention some work is not about volume but about quality. and exactly the fact that the work can not be measured is the problem. some work can not be done effectively when you are tired, and some work is even dangerous. driving for example. paying attention to safety and security requires you to be a wake and able to focus. as a programmer i have good days and bad days, and noone can say whether my work is the best i can manage or is slacking because i have a second job. and if i am spending more than my market rate salary as a programmer affords then i need to change my lifestyle, not get a second job. in germany for example the laws for the maximum time of work an employee is allowed to do in a day covers all jobs. two full time jobs would simply not be possible because you are required to have 11 hours of break between two workdays.
      - BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
        I’m not trying to make arguments about work where the output isn’t measurable; Of course businesses are going to err on the side of caution and try to weed out employees with second jobs in that case. I am also very pro labor protections and want far more here in the US. My issue is with businesses that seem to see their employees as their property and over-scrutinize their lives outside of work, even in cases where the quality of that work can be clearly measured to be adequate.
- WalterBright 2y ago
  For many jobs (like programming) measuring productivity is nearly impossible. But if a programmer is being paid for 40 hours of work, and he only does 20, then the employer is going to feel cheated, because the employer is only getting half of the productivity the programmer promised him. The impracticality of measuring the productivity is irrelevant.
  - BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
    I would argue that if what the employer expects to be done in 40 hours can be done in 20 by a skilled employee, then it’s not exactly the employee’s job to tell them to allocate more work on his/her plate for the same amount of pay. That business needs to do a better job of understanding the work they need done. This, of course, won’t apply to a job like a call center or something where the time on the job is itself the labor being done, only in cases where the output is measurable. But in those cases, the employer’s feeling cheated by not being able to waste the time of/underpay that skilled employee doesn’t exactly sadden me.
    - WalterBright 2y ago
      Again, it is rarely possible to quantify the productivity of a programmer. That's why we pay them according to how many hours they work. Contracting for 40 hours but only delivering 20 is fraudulent.
      - BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
        I’ll put it this way: if I feel like I’ve given you 40 hours of work in 20 hours, I’m going to lie to you and go do something else unless I enjoy my job, and I don’t feel like that’s morally wrong unless I’m incorrect about my output.