> Going forward I will absolutely wait until my first day on the new job to give notice to the old one.
So... you'll give -1 days notice? "Hey old boss, you may have noticed I didn't come in today..."
So... you'll give -1 days notice? "Hey old boss, you may have noticed I didn't come in today..."
I still don't understand how this isn't considered fraud, or people aren't worried about being prosecuted or sued over it. Getting paid to do two "full-time" jobs simultaneously, without them knowing about it. Maybe just confident they won't get caught.
Because there are 168 hours in a week and each full-time job only consumes 40 of them.
Now, if the employers are competitors of one another, or there's otherwise something that would produce a conflict of interest, then that's another story - but beyond that? As long as you're fulfilling your duties for both jobs, it's neither employers' business what you do on your "free time".
That seems unlikely to me, but maybe not to you? Or you're saying it's like plausible deniability, like nobody can prove they weren't, or something?
I wonder if GP who mentioned giving his two weeks notice on first day of new job... was planning on working 80 hour weeks for two weeks while they overlapped?
I mean, there were times in my career where I was working 12+ hour days for one employer, so working 16+ hour days for two doesn't seem like that much of a stretch; still leaves you with 8 hours of sleep. I've known enough workaholics in my time to know that it ain't beyond the realm of possibility.
But yes, it's more of a plausible deniability thing. Either/both employers would need to prove that you weren't working 40 hours a week for them, which is not only impossible (good luck proving a negative) but a much higher standard than is reasonable in the first place (especially for programmers, having a full 40 productive hours a week is rare and unsustainable; half that or less is more typical).
So if you're a salaried worker delivering results, meeting your obligations and overall expectations of your employer, then how could you possibly construe it as fraud?
Taking away the upsides, but not the downsides of salaried work sounds, for the lack of a better word, rigged.
My current (non-profit, academic) employer says in the employee manual that you can't do ANY outside work without disclosing it to them and getting approved -- so I'd be in violation of that policy if found out. At first I was annoyed by this -- why shouldn't I be able to do some consulting on the evenings and weekends without their permission? But as long as the process for approval is quick and easy and they generally approve... I can see how maybe it was actually intended, in a remote work world, to make it clear you are violating their policies if you take a second full time job and imply to both jobs you are on the clock simultaneously!
I'd honestly expect if an employer found out I had been doing this for a year, they would not just fire me, but could sue me to get my salary back.
It seems to me super unethical, and probably at least hypothetically a legal liability.
But people actually pretty frequently talk about doing this on HN. Which doesn't necessarily mean it's widespread, but I'm surprised by how matter-of-fact HN commenters are talking about it. Assuming, as in this case, that everyone is doing it or willing to do it, that we all understand that of course we could continue to collect paycheck from former employer for the first few weeks we're also working for new employer.