Tech CEO fired two engineers for having second full-time jobs
zdnet.com
zdnet.com
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'.
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 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.
Certainly not any recent contracts since this has popped up on corporate legal departments' radars.
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.
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'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.
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.
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.
This is appealing, but these people are pretty well compensated all things considered.
'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.
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.
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 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?
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.
Is that a real thing in the US?
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.
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.
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).
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.
Obviously some boards are different than others and expect different skills and connections.
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.
I think that sentiment is a lot more productive in the long run.
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.
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.
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.
It was pulled as part of my mortgage application.
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
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-schmidt-sb/google-c...
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?
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.
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!
Tough to juggle two 8 hour jobs during the same 8 hour time slot
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.
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.
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.
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..
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?
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
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.
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.