It is rarely enforced but it's always there, looming.
Anyway, even before the consideration of intellectual properties, it stand to reason that a worker can produce only so much work per day before stressing out, and if an employee hired for 8h does 4h more on the side as contractor the employing company gets 'cheated out' of productive time and this is especially true in a job that require fairly constant concentration, even if being tired at the job is shitty all around universally.
No, if I'm hired as an employee, it's either to perform specific duties during specific times (hourly pay), or it's to provide my expertise to accomplish tasks given me, with a possible expectation I be available or at a location during certain times (salaried pay). If I'm salary, and my employer expects it will take me 8 hours but it takes me 1, I can relax the rest of the time. Doing so may reflect poorly on me if I'm looking to advance, but that's why employment is a negotiation.
Nobody can provide 100% output 100% of the time they are working if they work 40 hours a week. People aren't built to be able to sustain that rate of work, they can try, but very quickly they are no longer putting out 100% output, even if they are there 100% of the time. So it's fairly obvious people do naturally limit the amount of effort they put into work based on the expected return, which is how it should be.
As an example, it's not unheard of for people to switch jobs for positions that pay less but also have far less responsibility. If you can work half as hard but get 75% the pay, some people will take that if that 75% is sufficient and they've determined that the prior amount of stress was too much.
Amazon isn't always thought of as the nicest of companies, but in terms of employees I.P. I'd say they are one of the fairest companies.
You being able to own the IP to things you create outside of work does not mean that you suddenly don't have to work during your actual work times.
Also, if an employer gave that as a reason for them keeping my IP created outside of work hours I would very seriously reconsider accepting a job with them (other reasons such as those outlined in Joel's article make a lot of sense).
Unless the comment I was responding to was worded badly, my statement is valid.
Even if there is truth to what you said, employers already have enough power as it is. Why should we let them own a workers time even outside of the hours they are being compensated? They have no right to that. At the end of the day, if a worker is not productive enough the company can choose to fire them - thats about all the say a company should have over your life. If they want to OWN ALL your productive output, it stands to reason they should pay much more than the 8 hours your salary covers.
I think it's more "let them have the power to fire a worker that comes on the job tired, warms the seat while recovers for the night shift and leaves the office without producing the value he is paid for."
more to the point: there's already a contract form that empowers the worker to work goals instead of hours, allowing employers that so desire to manage their time, so there's that as well. if one chooses the salaryman life, he get pros and cons.
No. Just no. Side projects are another way to up your skills. In addition to side projects I've done for pay, I've done them for a charitable organization on a volunteer basis, fundamental science research group (small fee, practically volunteer work). Even if my day-job suffered temporarily, they've still benefited because each of these projects involved learning/practicing something new.
So why are workers allowed to do their own laundry, cooking etc? If I do DIY on my house in my own time, does the company now own the increase in value of my house? That seems to be what you're arguing: that effort outside of the workplace directly zero-sum competes with effort in the workplace.
I mean, a really strict reading of the IP clauses would indicate that if I wrote a letter to my mother the IP would reside with the company.