As far as I'm concerned, my employer doesn't own my brain 24x7x365, and they damn sure aren't paying me to be "on the clock" 24x7x365. So long as I'm not using their time, equipment, trade secrets, etc., I will work on side projects.
I despise companies that try and own all of your creations outside work hours, and I feel like this shows clearly that the company sees the employee as an object to exploit rather than a person with a desire to grow.
There now don’t you feel super motivated? I think the reason side projects are fine is you have to focus on the value of an engineer. If you are seeing value how time is being used doesn’t matter. It’s when you are not seeing value generated that you need to start worrying about time management. But before that make sure you have full visibility into what activities are taking place. Maybe there is value being generated you just didn’t notice. As manager an important role is to provide visibility into each engineers work/value.
Then when you complete a side project you just pick a name from your prior inventions.
Worked for me, I launched 3 businesses while fully employed and have zero risk of having them taken from me.
In any case, genius idea!
Outside of work, you do not own them, they are people not property. Making ANY claims on their time, energy or IP produced outside of work is despicable if you ask me. An employer who did that would be signaling that they view employees as property, would likely treat them poorly or like children, and I would never work for them.
IMO, side projects always help expand technical skills. They usually also drive people towards improving their social or communication skills. An employee whose feelings of freedom and autonomy have been encouraged by a company is usually a happier productive employee. It also brings second order benefits for the employer - such an employee is more likely to describe the employer as providing work satisfaction and recommending them in their social circles.
I have experienced both types of employers - the open-minded ones, as well as the paranoid/narcissistic/control freak types. I have good things to say only about the former.
Just adding a productivity/work satisfaction angle here, because most answers so far seemed to be from the perspective of legality.
It is not so clear cut, at least in the US. See Joel Spolsky famous answer to "If I'm working at a company, do they have intellectual property rights to the stuff I do in my spare time?"
http://www.brightjourney.com/q/working-company-intellectual-...
I think it is reasonable for employers to require:
- the employer owns any intellectual property generated by the employee during the course of the employee's duties (i.e. paid employment)
- that employees disclose any real or potential conflicts of interest with their employer's business
- (possibly, subject to negotiation) that the employee may be placed under non-compete restrictions during the time they work for and after they leave the company, provided the employee is appropriately compensated for the opportunity cost (e.g. a paid period of "gardening leave" if they are prevented from working in the industry for 12 months)
I don't think it is reasonable for an employer to own intellectual property generated by the employee outside the course of their duties, or have any say in what other business activities an employee may have, or whatever else an employee does in the rest of their life outside the $dayjob.
Personally, as I've gained experience working as a permanent employee and working as a contractor, I simply won't sign any employment agreement that constrains what I can do in my time outside of work. Sometimes prospective employers opportunistically sneak such clauses into employment contracts, but are then happy to strike out such clauses, if they are not, there's plenty of opportunities for well-paying contract work without such restrictions, so I'll look for something else.
That said, part of this is simply about relative power of the employer and employees. If employees don't have a range of alternative options for work, or are not unionised, and don't live in a polity where these aspects of employment contracts are regulated, then it is possible than employers may offer relatively unfair employment contracts, which some potential employees will still sign if they don't feel they have an alternative.
Thucydides -- "the strong do what they will, the weak suffer what they must."
Other than that, no, your time is your time and unless they are paying you then they have no say as to what you work on no more than they have a say in what you eat for dinner.
It is not the responsibility of a single employee. Even more in a market so ubiquitous as "ecommerce".
The same way, Amazon (and other tech companies) impacts negatively the careers of its employees when it change platforms, frameworks, technologies or do a layoff.
To your second point, sure, employers hold more power. What is wrong with that? If you don't like it, you can always work somewhere else.
Because every software engineer can impact their own revenue the same way.
> To your second point, sure, employers hold more power. What is wrong with that? If you don't like it, you can always work somewhere else.
Don't liking it, I'm supporting my peers in HN that it is not unethical to have a side project and use it as a leverage to not be subject to the humor of your boss. It is also good for the company, as desperate people aren't creative.
Same thing with consulting, a friend works for a consulting company that closes 1M+ projects. He on side make websites for small businesses. Everyone knows at his company, no issues so far.
Right from the interviewing candidates, we prefer people who have come with a background of projects/startups created by candidates.
Based on past experiences, this has led the employees to come up with out of the box concepts that help in optimizing our existing services.
And anytime I made exception to this rule, I always regretted it.
The reasoning is that a lot of the biggest breakthroughs happen with "ambient thought". It's the stuff you figure out while in the shower or while mowing the lawn.
If they're getting a 30% share or more, it's like a marriage. You can fantasize about side projects, but not devote significant effort chasing them. If you want to be doing side projects, you should be taking a lower cut and higher salary.
If it's around 10%-30%, you'd be expected to be at full energy overtime and put all side projects aside when needed. Side projects are okay as long as they don't get in the way.
At about 1%-10%, you could probably do one, but you'd be better off focusing on your job related project. It's probably a part of expectations too.
I think the idea behind total ownership is that if, say, you’re a chemist researching temporary adhesives based on petroleum, and you’re in the shower one day when your team’s petroleum research suddenly inspires an idea about a temporary adhesive based on latex, they don’t want you going out and either selling that idea to a competitor or starting your own company. And they might have a case.
In general, side projects closely related to your employer’s line of business are a recipe for trouble anyway, and I don’t recommend it even if your contract is permissive about IP.