Main takeaway is don't do anything outside of work that will significantly impact work performance, but the way it is written is well balanced and supportive of employee growth.
EDIT: Also it seems like they don’t like you doing things similar to what they paid you to do, even if it’s not in competition at all… so sounds like after hours coding consulting even in a complete different industry would be frowned upon even if it didn’t affect your performance
So all in all, still pretty strict
I avoid obvious conflicts of interest. And for any unpaid and pizza-paid advice/minor work for people I do it quietly.
But that stuff is pretty simple relative to a (minor) real side-gig which I had (shareware back in the day) but was pretty much orthogonal to my day job and my manager knew about.
That doesn’t mean it’s always 40 hours per week or doesn’t cover work outside of the standard 9 to 5.
Lots of us have to work hours that suck to keep the world running.
> But we want to make sure professional endeavors outside of 37signals don’t create conflicts of interest or affect your time, dedication, or performance at 37signals. So it’s a delicate balance.
How about you mind your fcking business (literally in this case), and if I start to slip at work you can talk to me, discipline me or fire me. What I do at 5:01 PM is no one's business but my own.
37S is just yet another corp who wants to control every aspect of your life. Water is wet, grass is green.
The only valid point apart from conflict of interest is this, otherwise they should stop pretending they own my body, mind and soul:
"Does it require you to be away during times when you’re needed at work?"
Or, I believe, pragmatically that it is seldom enforced and is seldom a problem, but is a useful clause for the company when a employee really is taking the piss.
I think that's what they're getting at here. They're trying to call out things that could lead to needing to have these type of conversations and prevent that from happening by preemptively giving examples of problematic scenarios.
Under "Not OK"
1 & 3 - Are basically don't work for a competitor at the same time because that's a conflict of interest. Totally fair, IMO, as it opens the company up to lawsuits about trade secrets.
2 & 5 - Are basically don't do work for another company during work hours as it's disruptive. Again, IMO, a totally fair ask.
4 - This is the only one I really see as overstepping a bit. I think they're trying to get at something something similar to #2 (don't let another job take time away from your work here), but it's phrased in a bit of a controlling way.
Disagree it’s the employees job to find a job and employer that offers the right terms for you personally.
Lots of jobs have contracts that do limit what you can say or do outside hours of work.
The White House press secretary doesn’t get to go home after work and talk smack about the president on Twitch.
Members of the military can’t go and work out with enemies of the state on vacation.
As long as the agreement is clearly communicated and voluntary at the start of employment there are reasonable limits to employees even after work hours.
I love freedom but I understand discipline and limitations make everyone more free than chaos.
Those are weird examples to pick, considering how entirely different they are to the circumstances of an SWE at 37 Signals possibly doing other work after hours. And also weird is suggesting that such control is a form of discipline that help keep chaos at bay, and is in fact part of making everyone more free.