Tech CEO fired two engineers for having second full-time jobs(zdnet.com)
zdnet.com
Tech CEO fired two engineers for having second full-time jobs
https://www.zdnet.com/article/this-tech-ceo-fired-two-engineers-for-having-second-full-time-jobs-warns-theyre-part-of-a-new-trend/
105 comments
I do think that companies have an interest in knowing if you have a side hustle, in order to make sure there is no conflict of interest. And failure to disclose is a big deal.
Barring that, I don't like "full time and attention" clauses. As long as you provide the services to your employer that you agreed to apply in exchange for your salary, there shouldn't be an issue.
I owned a business that was my primary source of income for 15 years and continued to operate for 4 years after reentering the work force. I disclosed it to each every employer and had no issues at all. The only questions are typically "what does it do? (i.e: does it compete with us?)" and one employer asked "how much time does it require of you?"
It might vary among industries, but in the tech industry it is pretty common for people to have side projects - including income generating ones. As long as you disclose what you're doing and there is no conflict of interest then, in my experience, employers are pretty lax.
And since we're talking about full time jobs, and not owning businesses, there is also the option of going independent as a contractor. Some companies might still try to get you into an exclusive contract, but it's standard to contract to an hourly arrangement and then you can pick up as many contracts as you're comfortable juggling and work the exact amount of hours you want to. I would still disclose and turn down contracts if there were a conflict of interest, for ethical reasons, but from a logistical point of view more people should consider that if they want to work more hours and have that type of flexibility.
Barring that, I don't like "full time and attention" clauses. As long as you provide the services to your employer that you agreed to apply in exchange for your salary, there shouldn't be an issue.
I owned a business that was my primary source of income for 15 years and continued to operate for 4 years after reentering the work force. I disclosed it to each every employer and had no issues at all. The only questions are typically "what does it do? (i.e: does it compete with us?)" and one employer asked "how much time does it require of you?"
It might vary among industries, but in the tech industry it is pretty common for people to have side projects - including income generating ones. As long as you disclose what you're doing and there is no conflict of interest then, in my experience, employers are pretty lax.
And since we're talking about full time jobs, and not owning businesses, there is also the option of going independent as a contractor. Some companies might still try to get you into an exclusive contract, but it's standard to contract to an hourly arrangement and then you can pick up as many contracts as you're comfortable juggling and work the exact amount of hours you want to. I would still disclose and turn down contracts if there were a conflict of interest, for ethical reasons, but from a logistical point of view more people should consider that if they want to work more hours and have that type of flexibility.
I think the issue is that there's a pretty broad spectrum between "do just enough work to not get fired" and "do the best job you reasonably can". Employers (in tech at least) expect the latter. I wouldn't like working with someone who's on the former end of the spectrum, regardless of the reason.
Oh agreed. I just think that there are some pretty big assumptions being made about what an individual with a side hustle is capable of achieving.
Speaking from personal experience, my promise to my employers was that they were my priority and that I would not allow my side hustle to affect my job performance. It never did.
There is also a lot of room for subjective opinions about what it means to "do the best job you reasonably can." Does that mean showing up on time, supporting your team, being available during work hours and producing high-quality work or does it mean giving up on work life balance, being on call and working overtime routinely?
It might be my age, but I wouldn't accept a position that expected the latter.
But, again speaking from experience, when I continued to operate my business while working full time it came from a place of ambition and wanting to do the best for myself and my family that I could. I worked hard, kicked ass at work and made a lot of money that put my family in a really good position.
Obviously there are lazy leeches and employers need to be on the lookout. That's why I prefer that job performance be the metric. Not whether or not someone has other sources of income.
In fact, to put on my dark cynical hat for a moment, I think that one reason employers might not like employees with other sources of income is that it means the employee isn't as dependent on the employer and so they don't have the same power dynamic. There are a lot of nasty implications there. I prefer leading through inspiring and having a work environment that is pleasant and fun.
Speaking from personal experience, my promise to my employers was that they were my priority and that I would not allow my side hustle to affect my job performance. It never did.
There is also a lot of room for subjective opinions about what it means to "do the best job you reasonably can." Does that mean showing up on time, supporting your team, being available during work hours and producing high-quality work or does it mean giving up on work life balance, being on call and working overtime routinely?
It might be my age, but I wouldn't accept a position that expected the latter.
But, again speaking from experience, when I continued to operate my business while working full time it came from a place of ambition and wanting to do the best for myself and my family that I could. I worked hard, kicked ass at work and made a lot of money that put my family in a really good position.
Obviously there are lazy leeches and employers need to be on the lookout. That's why I prefer that job performance be the metric. Not whether or not someone has other sources of income.
In fact, to put on my dark cynical hat for a moment, I think that one reason employers might not like employees with other sources of income is that it means the employee isn't as dependent on the employer and so they don't have the same power dynamic. There are a lot of nasty implications there. I prefer leading through inspiring and having a work environment that is pleasant and fun.
I highly doubt it’s in the bounds of the contract with any typical employer.
I usually have to sign a clause assigning copyrights for anything work related to the employer, for instance. Working for two tech companies and signing both clauses validly would not be possible since each would require going through an internal process to give permission to contribute code outside the company.
That said, if someone is working as an independent contractor being “over employed” would be fine as long as you aren’t double billing your time.
I usually have to sign a clause assigning copyrights for anything work related to the employer, for instance. Working for two tech companies and signing both clauses validly would not be possible since each would require going through an internal process to give permission to contribute code outside the company.
That said, if someone is working as an independent contractor being “over employed” would be fine as long as you aren’t double billing your time.
> I highly doubt it’s in the bounds of the contract with any typical employer.
Certainly not any recent contracts since this has popped up on corporate legal departments' radars.
Certainly not any recent contracts since this has popped up on corporate legal departments' radars.
What do you mean? I don't think ip assignments have gone away
My point was that, even if this was OK under most pre-pandemic contracts, you can be sure that savvy legal departments have since put in language that makes it definitely out-of-bounds now.
Work on two unrelated things?
I always wondered how far some companies will go to enforce this.
For example if my second job is as a professional actor in the local musical production, would all my creative IP and earnings belong to my main job? Maybe this example is too far remove from reality.
For example if my second job is as a professional actor in the local musical production, would all my creative IP and earnings belong to my main job? Maybe this example is too far remove from reality.
It totally depends on the state you are a resident of. Or the state they sue you in. Some states hold IP arrangements to be toilet paper. Some will enforce even the most egregious ones.
I am not a lawyer. It appears to me that being a contractor - rather than a salaried full-time-employee would be the route to go if you are interested in working more than one job. As a salaried FTE, the legal expectation is that you devote yourself 100% to your employer.
In business law classes, this is referred to as the "principal agent problem".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal%E2%80%93agent_proble...
Business-type people are going to use this viewpoint in order to perceive the situation. In India, there are some laws that basically say that you are required to put your main employer first and that it is effectively illegal for you to work more than one job - no matter how poorly that job pays you.
This is one post from very long ago about "work for hire" and IP assignment agreements: https://www.perlmonks.org/?node_id=153046
Another case that I can't fully remember the names of (so no links or references) was of a software developer in Texas or Oklahoma who developed something on his own time. His employer wanted the IP and pursued him in court for almost 2 decades bankrupting him and getting him thrown into jail (for contempt of court) when he refused a court order to turn over the source code and documentation.
How far will they go? Well, how much to they hate you? How much spite are they powered by? Narcissists and sociopaths will go to extreme lengths to destroy their "enemies". For a recent example, see ex-President Trump.
I am not a lawyer. It appears to me that being a contractor - rather than a salaried full-time-employee would be the route to go if you are interested in working more than one job. As a salaried FTE, the legal expectation is that you devote yourself 100% to your employer.
In business law classes, this is referred to as the "principal agent problem".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal%E2%80%93agent_proble...
Business-type people are going to use this viewpoint in order to perceive the situation. In India, there are some laws that basically say that you are required to put your main employer first and that it is effectively illegal for you to work more than one job - no matter how poorly that job pays you.
This is one post from very long ago about "work for hire" and IP assignment agreements: https://www.perlmonks.org/?node_id=153046
Another case that I can't fully remember the names of (so no links or references) was of a software developer in Texas or Oklahoma who developed something on his own time. His employer wanted the IP and pursued him in court for almost 2 decades bankrupting him and getting him thrown into jail (for contempt of court) when he refused a court order to turn over the source code and documentation.
How far will they go? Well, how much to they hate you? How much spite are they powered by? Narcissists and sociopaths will go to extreme lengths to destroy their "enemies". For a recent example, see ex-President Trump.
In fairness, these kinds of "anything you work on belongs to us, whether or not it's related to your work" contracts are not ethical; they aren't things that an ethical, honest corporation would participate in.
Every company I've worked for in the past 12 years has had a clause like that in the employment agreement. The companies were otherwise ethical, but it seems like more and more of them are adopting this boilerplate. This is in CA where clauses like this are getting more difficult to enforce, but if the company can make an argument that your side project is somehow related to their current or expected future business, they can ruin your day in court even in CA.
Yeah, I agree that they're common and that the companies that use them are probably "otherwise ethical" (although I think our ethical standards for businesses are tragically low).
So if hold a job and are painter in your spare time does the corp owns your paintings as well? This is hilariously abusive
That is what these corporations would allege, although I don't know how well these contracts hold up in court and in reality most corporations aren't going to sue or fire you if you sell your paintings or whatever. But yeah, it's still pretty shitty.
These are very common, and a lot of it has to do with avoiding the complex situation of taking work related research or knowledge and saying "oh I did it in my own time."
I'm not advocating this is right, or ethical, but saying that it would be an understandable precaution. The statement, and requirements are made up front, and there are no surprises for either party.
I'm not advocating this is right, or ethical, but saying that it would be an understandable precaution. The statement, and requirements are made up front, and there are no surprises for either party.
I don't think anyone disputes that companies are doing this as a precaution nor that it's common practice. It's "understandable" in that we've become conditioned to expect corporations to ignore ethics or morals in service of their bottom line ("What do you expect them to do? They have a 'fiduciary responsibility' to their shareholders!"). In general, I think it's absurd to claim all employees' work just to protect against niche cases, and I would like to see this practice (and similar practices) outlawed.
Also non-enforceable in California
Some US states have outlawed that practice and put restrictions on what is automatically transferred based on other factors like where, when and what device it was done on.
Do you expect and get similarly full transparency on professional engagements from your execs and owners?
You're not your execs' and owners' employer.
That’s an obvious tautology
I meant the relationship is not symmetrical so it's not such an obvious gatcha that the people at the other end of the relationship aren't expecting to divulge their professional engagements to you but ask for the reverse. Your boss also doesn't have to submit a request for taking time off to you either.
And why is it so asymmetrical? Why do you accept that? I’m trying to understand your point besides simple reactionism
Because most of us don't work in anarchist co-ops?
I don't really get that impression reading the comments. Hacker news seems to be anarchist co-ops all the way down....
> Us IC bottom feeders are 'cattle' to corporations; it seems some have decided to treat companies as 'fodder'.
This is appealing, but these people are pretty well compensated all things considered.
This is appealing, but these people are pretty well compensated all things considered.
Sounds like psychological manipulation and justification of questionable actions from the Tech CEO's side.
Is that what made these tech workers slack on their job? I'll be the first to tell my manager and HR about bad employees, especially the ones that drop the ball so frequently.
It doesn't seem like I get any concessions for picking up their slack, so I make it a point to tell others that I am taking up their work and take credit. I don't wish for them to benefit from my benevolence, that's really just me getting stepped on by someone I thought I could rely on myself.
If these 'workers' could get fired more often, I applaud this psychological manipulation from the Tech CEO.
It doesn't seem like I get any concessions for picking up their slack, so I make it a point to tell others that I am taking up their work and take credit. I don't wish for them to benefit from my benevolence, that's really just me getting stepped on by someone I thought I could rely on myself.
If these 'workers' could get fired more often, I applaud this psychological manipulation from the Tech CEO.
I don't remember any mentions of them slacking their job. Did I miss it?
This part dazzles me:
'For instance, how do you ensure that an employee is doing what they are being paid to do during the hours they're contracted to work? If your employee took on a new full-time job without telling you, how would you know that they were claiming two pay checks at the end of each month?'
Euh ..., because you check the results of their work? If you contract them for 8 hours, you have no business controlling what they do in their off time not using company resources or divulging company IP. If they work a second job outside your hours, why is that different from them playing 8 hours of video-games a night.
If they want (or maybe need?) to work 2 jobs, maybe you can hire them twice (or pay more so they don't have to?). I get it you pay them for 8 hrs and hope they work 10-12 hrs, but that doesn't entitle you to that time.
'For instance, how do you ensure that an employee is doing what they are being paid to do during the hours they're contracted to work? If your employee took on a new full-time job without telling you, how would you know that they were claiming two pay checks at the end of each month?'
Euh ..., because you check the results of their work? If you contract them for 8 hours, you have no business controlling what they do in their off time not using company resources or divulging company IP. If they work a second job outside your hours, why is that different from them playing 8 hours of video-games a night.
If they want (or maybe need?) to work 2 jobs, maybe you can hire them twice (or pay more so they don't have to?). I get it you pay them for 8 hrs and hope they work 10-12 hrs, but that doesn't entitle you to that time.
I think the problem in this case, although not stated very clearly, is working two jobs that require the same active hours. If you're doing two contracts and delivering work product on agreed terms, there's not much someone can say. If your job description requires a fixed range 6 or 9 hours of time available to the company every day like "office hours", then not being available for meetings and doing other things during that time is frowned upon.
In my past, I have both worked multiple jobs as a developer, and employed developers working multiple jobs. I have seen it bring a lot more benefits than drawbacks.
To say to someone, "you are not allowed to make money elsewhere", when they are able to fulfill their job obligations without issue, is rooted in jealousy, and creates a worse working environment for both employee and employer.
To say to someone, "you are not allowed to make money elsewhere", when they are able to fulfill their job obligations without issue, is rooted in jealousy, and creates a worse working environment for both employee and employer.
The problem obviously is when they can fill the duties
If they can't fulfill their duties, you don't need "they had another full time job" as an excuse to fire them.
I've been doing 2 jobs (1 FAANG and 1 different startups for almost a decade). My FAANG performance reviews are either "exceptional" (highest rating) or [worst case] positive (during feeling-down quarters).
I thought it's not ethical at first, but I really have nothing else to do and doing the same thing every day at FAANG could be boring at times. TBH, sometimes we work on something I'm certain won't exist/will be discontinued in 18 months anyways. I still know I'm doing more than many of my peers who slack around more than I find ethical.
I do _not_ break the law, and in fact some of my FAANG peers know my little secret and almost decade later - nobody really cares about this it seems. I just don't talk about this much.
I thought it's not ethical at first, but I really have nothing else to do and doing the same thing every day at FAANG could be boring at times. TBH, sometimes we work on something I'm certain won't exist/will be discontinued in 18 months anyways. I still know I'm doing more than many of my peers who slack around more than I find ethical.
I do _not_ break the law, and in fact some of my FAANG peers know my little secret and almost decade later - nobody really cares about this it seems. I just don't talk about this much.
Are you ever concerned about passing a background check? Have heard the work number will expose double employment. Freezing it works, but then is very suspicious.
> "the unnamed developers ... were caught after management flagged problems with their performance"
I feel like this is the wrong case to discuss specifically because they had not been doing a satisfactory job. The interesting question is, if they were able to do an adequate job (i.e. not distinguishable from their peers with one job), would they still have been fired? Should they still have been fired?
By contrast, consider two couples, each with the same number of kids, where in each couple, one parent works full time from home and the other works full time from an office. The parent at home has shifted work hours earlier in the day, and cares for their kids beginning from the mid afternoon after school. The only difference is in couple A, this is not regarded as an economic transaction, and couple B decides that one parent will pay the other for this ongoing, unequal childcare obligation. The care-giving parent in each case dedicates the same time to care-giving. In couple B's case, should they be fired for having "another job"? I think most people would give a firm "no." If a childless full time employee dedicates the same uninterrupted time to working another job as the care-giving parents from couples A and B give to child-care, should they be fired? If so, is it merely because of "dishonesty"? Or is this a value judgement, that employers of full-time, salaried employees should be able to decide that some activities away from your job are legitimate and others are lesser?
I feel like this is the wrong case to discuss specifically because they had not been doing a satisfactory job. The interesting question is, if they were able to do an adequate job (i.e. not distinguishable from their peers with one job), would they still have been fired? Should they still have been fired?
By contrast, consider two couples, each with the same number of kids, where in each couple, one parent works full time from home and the other works full time from an office. The parent at home has shifted work hours earlier in the day, and cares for their kids beginning from the mid afternoon after school. The only difference is in couple A, this is not regarded as an economic transaction, and couple B decides that one parent will pay the other for this ongoing, unequal childcare obligation. The care-giving parent in each case dedicates the same time to care-giving. In couple B's case, should they be fired for having "another job"? I think most people would give a firm "no." If a childless full time employee dedicates the same uninterrupted time to working another job as the care-giving parents from couples A and B give to child-care, should they be fired? If so, is it merely because of "dishonesty"? Or is this a value judgement, that employers of full-time, salaried employees should be able to decide that some activities away from your job are legitimate and others are lesser?
I think this was the right move
However, my employer had me complete a training that said I couldn’t make 10+ hour weekly commitments to _anything_ outside of my job because it could be a distraction. They must not understand parenting.
However, my employer had me complete a training that said I couldn’t make 10+ hour weekly commitments to _anything_ outside of my job because it could be a distraction. They must not understand parenting.
Some corporate training in the past decade are indoctrination camps, not teaching you real life useful skills and information. Treat it like any other kind of garbage.
ha yes, a parent can have a fully demanding, exhausting out of work schedule, but a young grad with plenty of free time is banned from volunteering at their local soup kitchen every evening.
>> is banned from volunteering at their local soup kitchen every evening.
Is that a real thing in the US?
Is that a real thing in the US?
Not US but in Canada my old employer attempted to have me sign a new contract for a change of role stating I would get explicit allowance if doing any other work including volunteer work. And to note the other commenter volunteer work was specifically noted.
Needless to say I took that as a good sign to move on :)
My current employer has a much more reasonable policy that I can't work a second job when on my scheduled hours with them.
Needless to say I took that as a good sign to move on :)
My current employer has a much more reasonable policy that I can't work a second job when on my scheduled hours with them.
Probably not. It would certainly be exceptional if anyone actually has this in an employment contract. People are bringing this sort of thing up because of vague language in their employment contract or employee handbook that doesn't explicitly list every allowed/disallowed activity. To put it another way: "It doesn't say I can do this, so it must mean that I can't." It's... not a reasonable interpretation, IMO.
No one is going to prevent you from volunteering at a soup kitchen unless you're trying to do it during normal working hours when your employer expects you to be working for them. And in that scenario, lots of employers in the US actually have additional PTO specifically for doing charitable work for some number of hours per year, i.e. you can do it during work hours and get paid for it.
No one is going to prevent you from volunteering at a soup kitchen unless you're trying to do it during normal working hours when your employer expects you to be working for them. And in that scenario, lots of employers in the US actually have additional PTO specifically for doing charitable work for some number of hours per year, i.e. you can do it during work hours and get paid for it.
I have not seen such a contract. I have seen employee handbooks/policy manuals that explicitly require written permission even to volunteer for charities outside of work.
How many CEOs have board positions at multiple companies? How many CEOs are never in the office yet push so hard for everyone to be in the office? I bet this happens more often than they think and it's never found out because people don't run into performance issues like these two.
I was hoping on HN I wouldn't see this brain dead "CEOs on boards" take that was the top of every reddit post on the subject.
I have worked two jobs for more of my life than not. Nobody has any problem with someone working another job as long as the hours don't overlap (or competitor clauses).
I have worked two jobs for more of my life than not. Nobody has any problem with someone working another job as long as the hours don't overlap (or competitor clauses).
Being a CEO is a privileged position. You can do pretty much whatever you want (within reasonable limits) and it'll be ok.
Is there anything stopping a software engineer from taking a position on a board? It's not a full-time position.
How would a lowly software engineer even take a position on a board? I always thought being a corporate board member was an elite club that only rich, well-connected people invited each other to over $5,000 martinis. Do you just go to a job website and apply to be an Apple board member?
Technically, you can launch a write-in campaign. Realistically, no one is voting for you to be on a major corporate board without some prior experience or connections. You can get started on non-profit boards. I've served on the board of a federal credit union for over seven years.
You need to understand what value you can bring to a board. That's generally going to be domain experience or industry connections. In the non-profit world (esp. arts and education), you may need to bring some money as well. Additionally, figure out what you want from your time on the board. If you're just there for the "$5000 martinis," you're in for a rude awakening.
You need to understand what value you can bring to a board. That's generally going to be domain experience or industry connections. In the non-profit world (esp. arts and education), you may need to bring some money as well. Additionally, figure out what you want from your time on the board. If you're just there for the "$5000 martinis," you're in for a rude awakening.
Just walk onto the main campus and ask to speak to Mr Apple.
no, being on a board is a pretty normal thing, and it is common for people to sit on them in addition to their job. The board of directors for my preschool was composed of garbage men, teachers, farmers, and parents.
Obviously some boards are different than others and expect different skills and connections.
Obviously some boards are different than others and expect different skills and connections.
So? Those are different positions, and they are paid for different things with different expectations.
Had a coworker who was fired for this, though we found out about the second job after he was let go for performance issues. Especially as an engineer, this is just done out of greed and disregard for coworkers who may be counting on you. Outside of a startup environment, it may matter less. But I still find it reprehensible
I don't know how you can say "this is just done out of greed and disregard for coworkers" based on one bad experience. You might be surprised to find out that lots of engineers aren't well-utilized. I've never held multiple concurrent jobs, but I've been in positions where I'm only 25% utilized because of blockers and poorly thought-out plans. If the business doesn't regard me or my team members highly, why should we be obligated to sit and twiddle our thumbs? If we find something productive to do apart from our primary employment, are we "only doing so out of greed and disregard for each other"? I can subscribe to the "lying about it is reprehensible" bit, but I don't think "making yourself productive" or "maximizing your income" or "not slaving for your employer" is bad.
It's not like employers are committed to their employees; I don't see why employees should be faithful to their employers.
> Would I ever leave this company? Look, I'm all about loyalty. In fact, I feel like part of what I'm being paid for here is my loyalty. But if there were somewhere else that valued loyalty more highly, I'm going wherever they value loyalty the most.
It's not like employers are committed to their employees; I don't see why employees should be faithful to their employers.
> Would I ever leave this company? Look, I'm all about loyalty. In fact, I feel like part of what I'm being paid for here is my loyalty. But if there were somewhere else that valued loyalty more highly, I'm going wherever they value loyalty the most.
Maybe you're not in your position, but in my position, one of my duties is to spend extra time finding value-added tasks for my employer.
Yes, I think employers should empower their employees to deliver value, but many employers don't empower their employees, instead treating them like task monkeys.
Yeah, I tend to agree with you.
I think that sentiment is a lot more productive in the long run.
I think that sentiment is a lot more productive in the long run.
Elon Musk is CEO of Tesla, SpaceX and possibly soon Twitter. Why do his shareholders allow him to do this if it is just done out of greed and disregard for coworkers who may be counting on him?
Many CEOs are also on the board of other companies. In your case, the person couldn't handle two jobs and was let go, but if a person can handle two jobs, why shouldn't they? CEOs do it all the time.
Many CEOs are also on the board of other companies. In your case, the person couldn't handle two jobs and was let go, but if a person can handle two jobs, why shouldn't they? CEOs do it all the time.
But he's honest about it, this is known to all shareholders and employees.
If a CEO's job isn't a full time job, why should anyone assume that a regular employee is a 24x7 job?
If you're honest about it you can find part time job as an employee.
[deleted]
[deleted]
If you cant measure output then you have no business micromanaging people, Mr CEO-who-probably-sits-on-several-boards-and-likely-has-more-than-one-business-venture.
I'm a IT freelancer. And I have switched from hourly jobs to "projects". I do not get paid by the hour, I get paid by the project.
Now I do multiple jobs at the same time, while waiting on one, I work on the other. And as long as the job is done: all is well, no one should care how many hours I spent on them.
Perhaps we should all move to the "what needs to get done" mentality and get paid for the job and not for the hours present.
In that case it no longer matters how many companies I work for.
Now I do multiple jobs at the same time, while waiting on one, I work on the other. And as long as the job is done: all is well, no one should care how many hours I spent on them.
Perhaps we should all move to the "what needs to get done" mentality and get paid for the job and not for the hours present.
In that case it no longer matters how many companies I work for.
This is missing the point, I think. If you're a freelancer then everyone agrees on the situation. Each of the companies you do work for only wants you to do a specific thing. They don't pay your sick leave, or really for your time at all (or if they pay for your time, it's for a fixed period). They don't benchmark your salary, provide you with benefits, or anything else. They don't have to find an alternative role for you internally if your current one isn't required any more, pay you redundancy or give you notice, or manage your pension. They don't expect you to stick around and keep stuff running.
All of the things that being an employee adds on top of what you get, are in exchange for working for them, as opposed to having freelance-style contracts with them. Wanting to be someone with an employee's benefits, but a freelancer's flexibility, seems a confused stance.
All of the things that being an employee adds on top of what you get, are in exchange for working for them, as opposed to having freelance-style contracts with them. Wanting to be someone with an employee's benefits, but a freelancer's flexibility, seems a confused stance.
This is SO not new. Outsourcers have been doing it for decades. I knew a guy who had 4 full time jobs for 10+ years. He also had about as many girlfriends so i think had something to do with his personality disorders lol, but in any case, he was independently rich before he hit 40 never owning a business, so maybe not such a bad thing.
This will be a service equifax offers soon I’m guessing.
For context though, this is nothing like the Equifax issue, where the problem wasn't so much as firing employees for holding second jobs, as it was for the fact that Equifax misused client data intended for other purposes to identify these people. It becomes even worse when you consider that Equifax is a quasi monopoly that is almost mandatory for people to submit extremely sensitive private data to if they want to do basically anything in the US economy, including taking up a job, opening a bank account, credit card, renting or buying an apartment, adopting a pet, etc.
God I can’t wait till the incompetents that can’t even patch their software get even more power over my life.
They have an (onerous) process to opt out of “the work number”, but maybe opting out would be a signal
For background on this comment: https://www.entrepreneur.com/business-news/equifax-fires-24-...
Already is.
It was pulled as part of my mortgage application.
It was pulled as part of my mortgage application.
Does the rise of these stories feel like an effort to further discredit remote work and justify more returns to the office?
I think so.
> how do you ensure that an employee is doing what they are being paid to do during the hours they're contracted to work?
Why do they insist on measuring effort instead of impact? Surely the business doesn't want that. Clearly these middle managers are working against the businesses that employ them. So the problem must be those leaf node employees who aren't punching time clocks. /s
Why do they insist on measuring effort instead of impact? Surely the business doesn't want that. Clearly these middle managers are working against the businesses that employ them. So the problem must be those leaf node employees who aren't punching time clocks. /s
Remember when Google's CEO quit Apple's board?
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-schmidt-sb/google-c...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-schmidt-sb/google-c...
What about managers and C-level people in multiple companies? I understand that these developers were fired due to performance issues, and that's ok (sort of*). However, this article implies that doing two jobs is "bad" for workers. If so, it should be the same for people in the upper-level of the company, right?
No, because (at least IMHO) it's not wrong per-se. It's wrong when (and if) it creates some performance problem.
* IMHO that's not OK for a reason: if the company cares about employees, it should understand the reason behind low performances and, if possible, help them. Often we hear that the "company is like a family": if your son will come back to school with a F, would you consider "firing" him out of the family?
No, because (at least IMHO) it's not wrong per-se. It's wrong when (and if) it creates some performance problem.
* IMHO that's not OK for a reason: if the company cares about employees, it should understand the reason behind low performances and, if possible, help them. Often we hear that the "company is like a family": if your son will come back to school with a F, would you consider "firing" him out of the family?
But it has been perfectly acceptable for many companies to run employees into the ground with countless unpaid overtime work. It is just the first time in history employees have some leverage and practical options to swing the balance into their favor.
They keep talking about KPIs and metrics, but they still expect you to work a certain amount of "hours". A big percentage is just chatting and walking around. I would say that I work much more effectively from home. A lot of managers just like to see a buzzing office as if that is some performance metric.
Two full time jobs is probably overdoing it. As long as you do your job correctly and you delivery the quality and quantity that is expected it should be fine to work on the side.
They keep talking about KPIs and metrics, but they still expect you to work a certain amount of "hours". A big percentage is just chatting and walking around. I would say that I work much more effectively from home. A lot of managers just like to see a buzzing office as if that is some performance metric.
Two full time jobs is probably overdoing it. As long as you do your job correctly and you delivery the quality and quantity that is expected it should be fine to work on the side.
I was thinking about getting a part time job at a coffee bar for the weekends (mostly for fun). I'm a little glad I didn't pursue this because I'd hate to lose my primary job as an engineer just because I wanted to sling some espresso again. I doubt that would happen because...
It's a much different scenario than what is usually talked about with these stories (2x full time vs full time + part time). Still, I wonder if there is (or soon will be) someone who has a part time job and will get fired for it?
Again, I doubt it because I don't think people looking into the scenario would think that's the right outcome. But you never really know I suppose!
It's a much different scenario than what is usually talked about with these stories (2x full time vs full time + part time). Still, I wonder if there is (or soon will be) someone who has a part time job and will get fired for it?
Again, I doubt it because I don't think people looking into the scenario would think that's the right outcome. But you never really know I suppose!
If that's something that you actually want don't let this stop you. Just tell your boss what's up. Not because you don't have the right to work on the weekends, because it could be incorrectly flagged as a conflict of duties and you want to get ahead of it. If they see you're on two payrolls, they might jump to the conclusion that it will interfere with your primary job
Why would it matter if someone was Batman at night if they could complete their duties fully during the day?
> “This is not about side hustles or moonlighting," and said these were people holding down two, full-time synchronous jobs "trying to be in two meetings at once, etc".
Tough to juggle two 8 hour jobs during the same 8 hour time slot
Tough to juggle two 8 hour jobs during the same 8 hour time slot
He could havr double his paycheck and keep him.
capitalists are the thieves stealing the true valaue of your labor and rationing out your pittance. corporations can generally fire you for any reason - like an ugly shirt for example - and it's perfectly legal.
It was the right move, it's also a red flag for the org and the CEO should look closely into the details of the org he is leading.
My read here is that they were heavily under-utilized (and probably under paid), this tends to happen in orgs with a high level of process and bureaucracy, where employees have little agency to get shit done.
My read here is that they were heavily under-utilized (and probably under paid), this tends to happen in orgs with a high level of process and bureaucracy, where employees have little agency to get shit done.
A subordinate of mine tried to do this at my startup, where there was no bureaucracy and people were definitely not under-utilized. I am pretty sure this was just motivated by greed.
> I am pretty sure this was just motivated by greed.
Are you sure about that? Were you paying your employee enough? You said at your startup and I guess that position for the employee was a gamble as we all know how so many startups operate.
Are you sure about that? Were you paying your employee enough? You said at your startup and I guess that position for the employee was a gamble as we all know how so many startups operate.
Part of the deal of being a knowledge worker is we are paid for our time not our work.
Which is why paid salary and not an hourly/daily/piecemeal rate.
Giving all your time to your employer is always in your contract. If you don't like it, don't accept the deal.
Which is why paid salary and not an hourly/daily/piecemeal rate.
Giving all your time to your employer is always in your contract. If you don't like it, don't accept the deal.
You sure? I know that (for practical reasons?) my contract states that I have to work 40h/week as an employee. But in reality I do not spend such time working, I do work less. How much do I work? Whatever amount of time is needed to accomplish my team's goals, and in any case not more than 40h/week.
I think it's somehow implicit that (especially) knowledge workers do not work counting the hours of work, but towards goals. My managers, colleagues, and pretty much anyone in the IT industry I know (Western Europe) all agree on that, and that it's not unheard of that almost the majority of us knowledge workers, do not work 40h/week, but less.
I think it's somehow implicit that (especially) knowledge workers do not work counting the hours of work, but towards goals. My managers, colleagues, and pretty much anyone in the IT industry I know (Western Europe) all agree on that, and that it's not unheard of that almost the majority of us knowledge workers, do not work 40h/week, but less.
Hmm, then why is my performance rated on my knowledge/results instead of hours at the keyboard?
So knowledge workers are paid for their time, therefore they are explicitly _not_ paid based on their hours worked?
You're paid for the value you bring. Sure, part of that value might be that you're available to deal with things as they pop up, but at the end of the day you wouldn't continue to collect a paycheck if it was decided the value you bring was no longer worth the pay.
As long as you deliver acceptable value to your employer and show up to meetings you're expected to be at, time spent should be a total non-factor
You're paid for the value you bring. Sure, part of that value might be that you're available to deal with things as they pop up, but at the end of the day you wouldn't continue to collect a paycheck if it was decided the value you bring was no longer worth the pay.
As long as you deliver acceptable value to your employer and show up to meetings you're expected to be at, time spent should be a total non-factor
This actually doesn't make sense and the understandable extent is not true.
Eg. Most of European countries have fixed amount working hours. Your contract will be for 40h or 35h a week.
Meaning that if you did work your specified time as you say, then what?
Eg. Most of European countries have fixed amount working hours. Your contract will be for 40h or 35h a week.
Meaning that if you did work your specified time as you say, then what?
We are paid for time and knowledge. If you simply reject the time aspect, you might as well live at work.
Performance reviews measure output over a period of time. If you can’t deliver results on time, you won’t have a job for long. ICs have more in common with factory workers, and others being paid piecemeal rates, than we do with CEOs and upper management. Being given the same expensive laptops and sharing meals in our fancy lunch rooms doesn’t make us equal in the eyes of the board.
Performance reviews measure output over a period of time. If you can’t deliver results on time, you won’t have a job for long. ICs have more in common with factory workers, and others being paid piecemeal rates, than we do with CEOs and upper management. Being given the same expensive laptops and sharing meals in our fancy lunch rooms doesn’t make us equal in the eyes of the board.
Contract law has changed over time and country to country. Your position is simply that what’s written is what’s right? That’s extremely reactionary
yet Elon Musk is CEO of Tesla, SpaceX, the Boring Company, soon Twitter, and some other companies he has.
Its different when its us little people. Then it doesn't even matter if we get our work done or not, its the principle that matters..
Its different when its us little people. Then it doesn't even matter if we get our work done or not, its the principle that matters..
Hmm, I hold his opinion on the ethical aspects of doing it without being known, or lying about it when confronted thus turning it into dishonesty, but if it's within the bounds of the contract I'm not sure companies can realistically take the high ground on this.
Us IC bottom feeders are 'cattle' to corporations; it seems some have decided to treat companies as 'fodder'.