5 ms·

This can be really nasty for a small business. On the one hand, you understand the desire to build a seed for a software company, on the other you're dedicatin

This can be really nasty for a small business. On the one hand, you understand the desire to build a seed for a software company, on the other you're dedicating scarce resources to pay this employee to work exclusively for you. I'd tend towards overly-harsh on this one: You're either an employee or an entrepreneur. The choice is binary. We'd love to have you as an employee, but a person building their own business and riding on the salary we (a small business ourselves) pay while they do it is not welcome. Every employer I had before heading off and starting my own company had an air-tight IP policy which basically owned my software-developing ass. That makes sense: You're either an employee or an owner, you don't mix the two.

c1sc0 18y ago
I agree it can be pretty destructive in a small company, but what about big businesses? They're inefficient anyway, so the lost productivity is not such a big deal over there. Is it morally acceptable to freeload, but only in big businesses?
- tom_rath 18y ago
  I don't think it's morally acceptable to freeload, but for big businesses the point is likely moot: The IP agreement they will have had you sign at the start of your job will take away all rights to your on-your-own-time product in any case.
  - staunch 18y ago
    Just because you've signed an IP agreement doesn't mean it's legally enforceable.
    - c1sc0 18y ago
      Anyone has examples of precedents here?
      - skmurphy 18y ago
        CA law allows you to own anything developed entirely on your own time with your own materials.
  - poppysan 18y ago
    That's if you're free loading. If your work standard never takes a drop, then there should be no problem.
    - mightybyte 18y ago
      The interesting philosophical issue I find is what if you can freeload and your work doesn't take a drop. Or more provocatively, what if you freeload and your work productivity increases? In this case, it's likely that your abilities could be managed better to more fully extract your potential. Unfortunately this is impossible (or very difficult) for most companies to do.
davidw 18y ago
What if you're doing open source software? That's a similar situation. I think the idea of an employer trying to tell you what you can and can't do in your own time is pretty offensive. You have to keep things separate, of course, but beyond that, your own time is your own time, period. Obviously, if it's visibly affecting an employee, in terms of less hours worked, or lower quality, ok, sure, have a talk about it, but the difference is that you're looking at work time in that case.
- tom_rath 18y ago
  I've nothing but good things to say about employees working on "side-projects" and open source projects. They're superb for self-education (I enjoyed participating in both while I was an employee) but are completely different than running a business. Running a business isn't a hobby: It takes all of your attention, day and night. I'm not paying employees to start their own business, I'm paying them to work on mine. edit: I know this chafes with the 'free spirits' on this site who haven't found the guts to start an actual business yet, but I promise you'll find it's true when it's your cash going out as wages.
  - ryanwaggoner 18y ago
    Wrong, you're paying employees for their output. If their output is suffering, for any reason, find someone else. If you lack the necessary metrics and management skills to measure their output, that's your problem, not theirs.
    - tom_rath 18y ago
      Get back to me after you've run a business of your own. Not a hobby: A self-supporting corporation which provides your full livelihood. Let me know then how well you'd do as an employee working for someone else, and if you'd be eager to hire on staff with the same "starting a company on-the-side" mindset.
      - ryanwaggoner 18y ago
ryanwaggoner 18y ago
you're dedicating scarce resources to pay this employee to work exclusively for you Bull-fucking-shit. I don't understand the mentality that because someone pays me for 40+ hours of work per week, they think they own me and can demand that I work exclusively for them, or that anything I do in my own time belongs to them. If my work suffers, or if I'm stealing IP or clients, that's another story. But if I'm working on something in my own time, fuck you if you think you own it.
- Tamerlin 18y ago
  Hear, hear. I can't believe that anyone worth anything would choose to work for a company that believed that it owned them even after hours.
- tom_rath 18y ago
  As I mentioned in replies to your other comments above, running a business requires your full attention. It's not a hobby. It's not a side-project. It's a way of life. You cannot work for another person while running your own business. A business becomes the centre of a person's universe and an employee's work will suffer if they are building a genuine business on the side. No amount of dramatic profanity will change that reality. Of all the vigorous down-mods and "you're wrong!" comments I've received here in response, I've yet to read a single real-world example of a person who has a full-time employee on staff working on their own business, or who is a full-time employee working on their own business while being paid a salary by another company. Why? Because you're an employee or you're an entrepreneur. Those are not compatible mind-sets. If you work for me and want to start your own company, great! I'll happily send you on your way and offer every bit of support I possibly can to ensure your success, but I won't pay you to build your own business.
  - ryanwaggoner 18y ago
    I've yet to read a single real-world example of a person who has a full-time employee on staff working on their own business, or who is a full-time employee working on their own business while being paid a salary by another company. You're clearly not reading carefully, because I pointed out examples where I've done this, and I'm sure many others have as well. Most businesses are started on the side of something else, including most successful businesses. While it's likely true that you can't indefinitely work as an employee while building a business, you can certainly start a business that way, and it's been done many, many times before. I'm not arguing that you shouldn't have the right to fire someone if you don't like them working on something else on their own time, just that your mindset is indicative of a larger management problem of viewing your employees as assets that you own 24/7. Why would anyone of value want to work somewhere like that? There are plenty of people out there who value output over input and understand that an employee's personal life is none of their business.

c1sc0 18y ago

I agree it can be pretty destructive in a small company, but what about big businesses? They're inefficient anyway, so the lost productivity is not such a big deal over there. Is it morally acceptable to freeload, but only in big businesses?

tom_rath 18y ago
I don't think it's morally acceptable to freeload, but for big businesses the point is likely moot: The IP agreement they will have had you sign at the start of your job will take away all rights to your on-your-own-time product in any case.
- staunch 18y ago
  Just because you've signed an IP agreement doesn't mean it's legally enforceable.
  - c1sc0 18y ago
    Anyone has examples of precedents here?
    - skmurphy 18y ago
      CA law allows you to own anything developed entirely on your own time with your own materials.
- poppysan 18y ago
  That's if you're free loading. If your work standard never takes a drop, then there should be no problem.
  - mightybyte 18y ago
    The interesting philosophical issue I find is what if you can freeload and your work doesn't take a drop. Or more provocatively, what if you freeload and your work productivity increases? In this case, it's likely that your abilities could be managed better to more fully extract your potential. Unfortunately this is impossible (or very difficult) for most companies to do.

davidw 18y ago

What if you're doing open source software? That's a similar situation. I think the idea of an employer trying to tell you what you can and can't do in your own time is pretty offensive. You have to keep things separate, of course, but beyond that, your own time is your own time, period. Obviously, if it's visibly affecting an employee, in terms of less hours worked, or lower quality, ok, sure, have a talk about it, but the difference is that you're looking at work time in that case.

tom_rath 18y ago
I've nothing but good things to say about employees working on "side-projects" and open source projects. They're superb for self-education (I enjoyed participating in both while I was an employee) but are completely different than running a business. Running a business isn't a hobby: It takes all of your attention, day and night. I'm not paying employees to start their own business, I'm paying them to work on mine. edit: I know this chafes with the 'free spirits' on this site who haven't found the guts to start an actual business yet, but I promise you'll find it's true when it's your cash going out as wages.
- ryanwaggoner 18y ago
  Wrong, you're paying employees for their output. If their output is suffering, for any reason, find someone else. If you lack the necessary metrics and management skills to measure their output, that's your problem, not theirs.
  - tom_rath 18y ago
    Get back to me after you've run a business of your own. Not a hobby: A self-supporting corporation which provides your full livelihood. Let me know then how well you'd do as an employee working for someone else, and if you'd be eager to hire on staff with the same "starting a company on-the-side" mindset.
    - ryanwaggoner 18y ago

ryanwaggoner 18y ago

you're dedicating scarce resources to pay this employee to work exclusively for you Bull-fucking-shit. I don't understand the mentality that because someone pays me for 40+ hours of work per week, they think they own me and can demand that I work exclusively for them, or that anything I do in my own time belongs to them. If my work suffers, or if I'm stealing IP or clients, that's another story. But if I'm working on something in my own time, fuck you if you think you own it.

Tamerlin 18y ago
Hear, hear. I can't believe that anyone worth anything would choose to work for a company that believed that it owned them even after hours.
tom_rath 18y ago
As I mentioned in replies to your other comments above, running a business requires your full attention. It's not a hobby. It's not a side-project. It's a way of life. You cannot work for another person while running your own business. A business becomes the centre of a person's universe and an employee's work will suffer if they are building a genuine business on the side. No amount of dramatic profanity will change that reality. Of all the vigorous down-mods and "you're wrong!" comments I've received here in response, I've yet to read a single real-world example of a person who has a full-time employee on staff working on their own business, or who is a full-time employee working on their own business while being paid a salary by another company. Why? Because you're an employee or you're an entrepreneur. Those are not compatible mind-sets. If you work for me and want to start your own company, great! I'll happily send you on your way and offer every bit of support I possibly can to ensure your success, but I won't pay you to build your own business.
- ryanwaggoner 18y ago
  I've yet to read a single real-world example of a person who has a full-time employee on staff working on their own business, or who is a full-time employee working on their own business while being paid a salary by another company. You're clearly not reading carefully, because I pointed out examples where I've done this, and I'm sure many others have as well. Most businesses are started on the side of something else, including most successful businesses. While it's likely true that you can't indefinitely work as an employee while building a business, you can certainly start a business that way, and it's been done many, many times before. I'm not arguing that you shouldn't have the right to fire someone if you don't like them working on something else on their own time, just that your mindset is indicative of a larger management problem of viewing your employees as assets that you own 24/7. Why would anyone of value want to work somewhere like that? There are plenty of people out there who value output over input and understand that an employee's personal life is none of their business.