Employee works for both Google and Facebook from home
twitter.com
twitter.com
The employer might state that "it's our mutual understanding" about anything in job offer, but it's not a legally binding statement. Anti-competitive statements can be binding, though, so it might be illegal for them to work at FB and Google, as their business might intersect. But it's a different story than just right to hold two "full-time" jobs.
One possibility I might think of -- if an employee is really a high performer, but couldn't negotiate compensation above "market price" for their level.
If you work for two companies in a salaried position, then you're potentially violating the law there.
If you're a hourly employee and you claim the same hour for two employers, You're potentially committing fraud.
But Salary, That's a different animal. Yes there are 24 hours in a day, but if you're Salary you're a legal representative for that company and covered under many employment laws because of that, for all 24 hours. So - I have doubts as to whether having two salary job is legal, even if you're working 12-8 and 8-4.
Nothing in the tweet says the positions were salaried, or even W-2. That's just something people are reading into what is already, without reading anything into it, an unreliable “friend of a friend” rumor.
I typically wouldn't have an issue with someone working 2 jobs, but I do take slight issue if this situation is true. These aren't just 2 companies, these are two companies who are competitors with each other in many fields. These are two companies who pay very large salaries to hold on to talent in order for their competitors to not hire them, and this situation is only possible due to the current situation around "work from home".
As someone who works remote even outside of a pandemic, I would be worried that stories and potential situations like this will be a point in the "we require all employees to be back in the office" column. This employee taking advantage of work-from-home in order to violate a non-compete (which I am sure exists in their contract) puts a bad look on every one else.
A software engineer at a big company really isn't that much better than a software engineer at a random smaller company. The businesses just make so much money that if they don't pay well someone else will and crush their business.
I think you just agreed with what I said? They pay well in order to hang on to their talent to prevent their competitors from hiring them.
In arms-length business relationships, including normal employment relationships, that's exactly what it means. The applicable law, including binding legal agreements like employment contracts, set the rules. Not violating the rules is not cheating.
> but I do take slight issue if this situation is true.
Why? Even if every word of the tweet is true, nothing says the positions aren't both contract positions with no, even informal, exclusivity expectation.
Yes, however as far as I know employment contracts for both Google and Facebook would both prohibit having a full-time job at a competitor. Between that and IP ownership concerns, I would call this "cheating".
> nothing says the positions aren't both contract positions with no, even informal, exclusivity expectation
You're right, it's not explicitly stated, but it is high implied that these are employee-employer relationships (and not contracting) positions.
It’s funny though!
Edit: “at will employment” is uniquely american thing afaik
EDIT: I'm referring to highly compensated professional jobs. In two such positions, I only received a verbal offer, and there was nothing in writing. Normally, I'd insist on something in writing, but in these cases, I was hired by someone I trusted.
(I haven't looked at one for a couple of years, but generally they are pretty onerous around these parts.)
Nothing in the friend-of-a-friend rumor being repeated here mentions that either position is salaried, or even W-2.
So, even in the unlikely event that there is a basis in fact to this story, it is reading into it to assume either of those.
https://www.cwclaw.com/article/the-california-legislature-ap...
If carrier A pays a bunch of claims for you and then they learn you also have similar coverage from carrier B, carrier A may demand a reckoning.
Also all 3 pay really well, but they are all small companies (less than 20 employees). All three are distributed teams with no offices.
I learned a long time ago when I was assigned a task, if I concentrated I could get my days work done in 2/3 hours, sometimes less. If it was a large task that was supposed to take a month, I could do it in two weeks.
I dont believe this is because Im special in any way, I just think people slack off and generally lose too much time at work.
Obviously I didn't start with 3, I had 1 and noticed I had a lot of downtime and applied and was selected for a second job. At first I was very nervous I had taken on too much, but after a few weeks it became clear I could finish both in about 6 hours a day.
I then added the third, and usually I can finish everything in 8/9 hours. Ive gotten into trouble a few times where things piled up and I had to work all through the weekend, but its rare.
Its also happened where I finish all my works' week by Wednesday and have Thursday and Friday pretty much off.
I dont get into trouble with meetings because all 3 jobs dont have that many (1 or 2 per week) and since the teams are distributed theres always some room for scheduling effectively.
At one point I even got a 4th job, that immediately was too much and I resigned after a week.
Final note, I see nothing immoral about this. I want to make money and keep busy, if I end up paying the price by pulling some all nighters or long weekends I accept that, and have done it.
In all three positions I get positive reviews and even raises.
(this is not my real HN account, I created it just to share this story without divulging my identity)
Similar idea: you could get a remote job and only actually work for something like 2h/day. Would you say that is equally feasible?
How did you pick jobs? As in, what criteria did you set and how did you check them?
I was selective in what jobs I took, aside from technical criteria,
1. had to be 100% remote 2. small teams 3. when interviewing, I tried to make sure that the company valued results over anything else. which a lot of remote office companies already are.
I remember when interviewing for a job I didn't take they wanted me to install a program that takes constant screenshots of my system. That obviously was a deal breaker.
> Thats pretty much the situation I was in before I started taking on more.
During that time, if you didn't work, would it have been possible to pursue a completely different activity such as going hiking for example? Or did you have to be "on standby" at home?
Why are you looking for small teams in particular? And how did you make sure that there aren't too many meetings in particular?
Sorry to bother you with so many questions.
This may sound like I got lucky finding companies that work this way, but I dont think it is, all remote companies usually have employees and even founders who want some liberty to organize their schedule and only care if work gets done at the end of the week.
During what are agreed to be my regular work hours I am expected to answer chats, so hiking would not be an option.
When I only had one job I was wasting a lot of time playing bridge online.
I was looking for small teams because I was afraid large companies would have more measures in place to avoid situations like mine.
None of the three positions have on call duties.
In practice emergencies happen once a year, so Im happy to get out of bed and help out however I can.
I can't speak for other people, but I think this is highly dependent on the person and job. I know a score of people who put in a solid 50+ hours at one job. Congrats to you if you have found 3 different jobs that require 2 hours/day.
Do you have noncompetes or employment contracts with each company? If so, how did you navigate this?
I agree there are tech jobs that are way more demanding, its true that I may have found good situations. I think theres also some truth to the fact that if you put your phone on do not disturb, and just concentrate on your work you can get a lot done. It also helps that although Im not a particularly talented developer, I do have almost 2 decades of experience so typically its just coding and not much research.
This can be tedious to be honest, but at this point in my life I have a family to take care of, Im prioritizing being a good provider over technical challenges that fulfill me.
I'm on pace to pay off my 20 year mortgage in 3 years. Once I'm debt free I may consider working less and doing something else with my time.
It's hilarious too because despite how impressive that sounds he is the most ADHD and scatterbrained person I know. He is incapable of any sort of organization in his life. I think he manages his dysfunction by channeling his hyperfocus into his work.
I have ADHD too, and it's unfortunate that my brain seems to want to channel my hyperfocus into arguing about random things on social media instead.
The high profile consulting firm probably takes up the majority of his week. What's his role at the think tank? I've looked at some staff there and they just seem to do "research" and then write "articles" that they publish for their own prominence. So doing both may be reasonable.
Too relatable
I had to get rid of all social media because the things I shouted into it had a really bad effect on people around me.
Living without social media these days can be challenging, but I am not looking back.
Now I can actually freelance while having 3 customers at once.
2. As other comments said, this might not be ethical but may still be legal. Full-time employees are not hourly, and as long as they do their job hours shouldn't matter.
3. If in California, there is no non-compete.
4. Due to it being FB and Google, they can get into trouble from an IP standpoint of they leak or use IP from one at the other.
5. Logistics can be interesting. But it is certainly possible for a person to claim they are remote from different timezones at each company to minimize conflicts.
6. Still I can't see how they can continue this for long if friend of friend already knows about this. Someone in there social circle will get jealous and report them.
the reason non-competes are bad is because they could prevent you from having any job at all, but that doesn't mean that you should be allowed to have two competing jobs at the the same time.
"Friend of a friend" - nothing suspicious there, it must be true. "Might have reversed the co's" - yup, might or might not, 100% true story. edit: And a bit further down the thread: "I don't know him."
In some remote case this is true, 2 full-time contracts can be downright illegal to have. And tax office might be very interested at the end of the year.
It's definitely plausible but not sustainable. If found out they might lose both jobs and alienate themselves from two major players in the IT business.
As long as you didn’t do anything stupid about withholding (and even then, it’s just a $ penalty you pay April 15 if you way underpaid multiple years), I don’t see why they would care. They don’t care if you have multiple part time jobs either as long as you pay your income tax.
Now if you’re in an at will employment job then the employer can just fire you if they don’t like what you’re doing, but the same is true if they woke up cranky on a Tuesday. If you read your offer letter they make it sound like some sort of law from on high that lets them do this but it’s just a basic principle of employment in an At-Will arrangement.
Another consideration, if this person is able to complete their work in half the time then this person was brought on at a responsibility level that was too low. Theoretically, the job should be taking 40 hours. It's the company's responsibility to load balance the tasks for their employee's to fill an FTE's schedule.
Who on earth has the ability to do that?
If I had some "marketing manager" title at Facebook, why couldn't I also do the same work at Chase Bank or some other non-competitor, if both were willing to hire me on a WFH basis? What ethical line does that really cross?
Personally I'd think it a matter of taste or etiquette. If I were a full time employee (FTE) at one company, working for another company would personally be a bit of a betrayal of my first employer.
Generally, if you want to work less it's an option to take an easier job. However, in this instance it seems a severe underutilization to pay a tech salary (40hrs) for potentially (55/2)hrs of work. The company isn't getting it's due, and likely the employee isn't either.
Also, the only thing that's a problem is the employment contract. They both surely have clauses about working for someone else in the industry, and/or listing any side businesses.
If the roles are very different, it could be clear cut. If the roles have substantial overlap though...
I know when the agency I worked for worked with Disney we signed an exclusivity agreement that we could not work with paramount MGM universal etc.
If there is something specific in the contract, it is a civil issue.
Where is the harm here? If you are a FTE what is the implication that you can’t work elsewhere as well? Is it in the employment agreement? If so I would say that seems illegal.
Why would they care at all? If he's full-time on both, then he's having the taxes deducted from his wages. In fact, he'll get a refund at the end of the year because he's overpaying FICA (6% up to $110k on both jobs, when his maximum contribution should just be 6% up to $110k (not exact numbers)).
If he's a contractor, then he has to pay estimated taxes on both jobs, just like someone would with 1 job.
In either case, as long as he does proper accounting like anyone with 1 job would need to, he'll be fine in the IRS's eyes.
IRS basically never starts investigations from what was in tax returns as long as they get their money so they don't scare off people from filing tax returns and paying taxes.
You might be able to negotiate that away, if you really tried.
But breaching a contract isn't illegal. There's no tax issues, the IRS and the FTB don't care how many employers you have. Without due care, withholding will be off more than normal, but both employers will withhold for employee social security, and assuming combined wages are over the contribution limit, there will be a refund of overcontributions. Having two employers in one year makes it possible to overcontribute to 401k, but that's managable.
This original post is unbridled greed and while legal, it further cements my opinion about this industry and who it serves in society. It's a wealth transfer to the already wealthy and well connected. The work is laughably easy and the pay is at least an order or magnitude better than the average. The demographics skew hard towards white males.
The reason people start talking about going to the IRS is because they see the inequality and want someone to do something -- even though there is nothing they can do.
- Interviewed at the other company, and received an offer
- Took time away from main job to start new job, with the intention of resigning after his onboarding (just in case)
- Came back and wanted to clean a few things up before resigning.
- Kept doing that
- Realized everything was fine and never quit
Not saying it doesn't still have issues, but it's easy to see how someone with "normal" intentions could have slowly ended up in this situation.
As soon as as you start doing anything or replying to an email (definitely don't send any email), people will notice you and they might come back to you for it or for something else.
This also precludes working for some high visibility projects or parts of the organization. Better be on a pet project that nobody uses or cares about.
Wouldn't the manager notice?
fb actually does fire people but its still not hard to get by.
I like this quote.
Isn't this kind of work the kind we should expect as more and more people are working remotely? More of them will choose to go with gig work / independent work in order to arbitrage if they can do it, particularly the good ones. If implemented correctly this could be a huge boon to workers, and will take some powers away from employers.
had to share that...
It's also very risky in terms of civil liability. If either employer introduces a product that comes anywhere near to something they worked on at the other employer, that other employer may sue the employee alleging trade secret theft.
That's a civil matter, not a criminal matter. Mostly, being civil not criminal is good for a defendant...but there is one important area where it isn't. That's the burden of proof. Prosecutors in criminal cases have to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt". Plaintiffs in civil cases just have to meet either "preponderance of the evidence" in most cases, and "clear and convincing" in a few.
I'm not fully sure, but I believe a trade secret appropriation suit would use "preponderance of the evidence". That's also known as "more likely than not". Working at plaintiff on stuff anywhere close to the allegedly misappropriated trade secret will be enough to to meet that for plaintiff, effectively shifting the burden of proof on the employee to prove that they did not supply the other employer with the trade secret.
The plaintiff would almost certainly sue the other employer too, not just the employee. If the plaintiff wins that suit, that other employer might sue the employer asking them to pay any damages they owe from that suit.
This would not be pleasant for the employee.
Seems like if you didn't agree to be exclusive, you should be able to do this as long as the work is getting done.
Austen definitely has an opinion: https://twitter.com/Austen/status/1311530531725602816
If it's even true at all.
But I'm legitimately curious about the ramifications of IP here -- both Google and (I'm assuming) Facebook claim to own all your intellectual output related to their business areas.
So you've basically just signed ownership of all your work for both companies to both Facebook and Google. IANAL, so I don't know what the term for this would be, but it does seem like you'd get in trouble -- fraud?
I assume you'd somehow slip eventually and get caught, and likely be sued by both companies, with an incredible headache for both companies' sets of lawyers as they try to figure out what to do with the code you committed, and if they can even use it anymore at all.
* Update: Apparently Elon quit OpenAI. So let's not count that one. But even 4 employers is still a lot!
Hey anonymous programmer dude scamming the big COs, the friend of your friend is your for reals enemy!
Naming it "full-time" doesn't change it, it's only name. It's up to employer to evaluate their work and decide if it meets employer expectations.
Tried reloading the page a few times, same problem.
Link preview in slack works, however. Here's the tweet text:
"A friend of a friend at Google interviewed at Facebook right as the virus hit. Accepted new job in March. Didn’t quit old job. Apparently does both jobs at home in 55 hours/week. Neither company knows yet. Might have reversed the co’s, not sure. I have so many thoughts on this."
weird, as it was just working a second ago before the errors started piling up
Everything is possible in the stories of "friend of friend of friend". Just like those fakirs who mastered climbing ropes!! Evidence: my friend said so, etc.
So if I said I was doing 5 hours or so per week for something else unrelated to my company, it'd probably be fine. If I instead was doing 30, there'd be cause to not give me approval, or step me down to reduced hours with them, or similar.
As for future risk should a company be able to limit you from partying on a sunday simply because statistically you'd probably perform worse on monday? If that clause is not in the agreed employment contract then the company gets no say in what you do on sunday, right? It's amazing to me that people feel so morally beholden to companies that would dispose of them the second it would be obviously profitable to do so. Companies feel no moral obligation to employees, they behave just as ethically as the workforce and consumers demand they behave. They do not volunteer extra consideration just because it might feel right. The idea that any employee should afford them extra consideration beyond their contract is arguably wrong and potentially unethical. If the workforce holds that employees owe companies more than they receive, would that workforce not be partially responsible for setting up unfair relationships and toxic work environments?
They can't limit me from partying on Sunday, but they are legally obliged to prevent over-work, and that includes being aware of other employment. It's nothing to do with corporate morality or anything like that. It's just that they must do this because the government says they must.
Granted, this isn't the same thing as actively working for both companies. However it's possible the subject of the tweet was someone who was a vendor/contractor at FB or GOOG - or vice-versa - which has certain appearances.