Hacker News Reader

Comment by deepsun | Hacker News Reader

I don't understand why people assume it's scamming or cheating. It's perfectly legal, and I'd say it's even good for country economy.

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.

View on HN

In a salaried position your offer letter (that you sign) specifies you won’t do other renumeratwd work without the permission of your employer. Technically that’s not violating the law but it’s a violation of contract.

It’s funny though!

That's not a legal contract in California at least. Only a job that interferes with the first job can be banned.

https://www.cwclaw.com/article/the-california-legislature-ap...

> In a salaried position

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.

In the USA? I've never had an offer letter that made a statement like that, nor did I ever sign an offer letter. I interviewed for the job, got a verbal offer over the phone, received a written letter with one or two sentences confirming the start date and salary, and that's it!

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.

Pretty sure non-competes or non-disclosure agreements used by Google and FB in the Seattle area have language that restricts one from working at Google and FB at the same time without permission from the employers.

(I haven't looked at one for a couple of years, but generally they are pretty onerous around these parts.)

As an aside, I remember nonsense clauses in Incentive Stock Option agreements. Notably, there was a non-compete clause and also a paragraph stating that the clause was not enforceable in California (and I was in California).

That’s correct, this is standard language in every offer letter I’ve ever seen. I wouldn’t take a primary job without a written offer letter.

In the USA, working full-time salaried in tech, and I also do non-tech freelance work. I checked my offer letter and employment contract and do not have any such provision to get permission for remunerated work for others. Checked with HR who confirmed this was true (they knew when they hired me, I disclosed it freely during the interview process).

That’s only the case because workers in us have no rights. Lots of countries out there where it would be illegal to enforce that clause

Are there actually countries where it would be illegal to require your full time employees to not also have full time employment with a competitor?

Yes, in russia for one they can’t fire you just for moonlighting and any non-competes are illegal. I’m pretty sure most of european countries have similar employment laws.

Edit: “at will employment” is uniquely american thing afaik

Big companies guard their IP quite strongly. I'd be surprised if he or she isn't fired immediately once this is discovered for reasons related to that.

Is it legal though? As a salary paid employee you're a legal representative of the company, you're covered by indemnity and liability protections by law.

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.

there are 24 hours in a day though. And people have been working 2, even 3 jobs since forever, especially low-paid ones. Most tech workers were privileged enough to never experience it tho.

Hourly, yeah, I mean You can split it up, and not be working the same job in the same hours. Perfectly legal and acceptable, albeit not healthy. So it's not 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.

Back when I was in high school, my manager at target also worked as a manager at Walmart during the night shift.

> But Salary, That's a different animal

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.

2 or three, _hourly_ jobs.

Just because something is "perfectly legal" does not mean that it's not cheating.

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.

They pay massive salaries because they make massive profits.

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.

> 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.

> Just because something is "perfectly legal" does not mean that it's not cheating.

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.

> agreements like employment contracts, set the rules.

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.

Not reporting dual insurance coverage to the carriers would be a problem if he did not opt out of one of the employers plans completely.

You have to tell the carriers if you have coverage under more than one plan. They split bills at their discretion.

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.

Straight up gross misconduct firing offence "total breakdown in trust".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com