Hacker News Reader

Comment by Angostura | Hacker News Reader

If they are paying you to do X and outside of work you are doing something that directly conflicts with X, don't you thimk that might fall within the realms of 'their business'? Wouldn't they be better off employing someone who wasn't attempting to bring the business down after hours?

View on HN

that's only one part of what they're saying. Sure, conflict of interest is imoral, but telling me I am only allowed to do work for acquaintances and that once in a while... you can gently fluff off. And they keep repeating "a few hours per month", when they pay me for 160 hours out of 700 something in a month :).

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?"

If you believe this, you presumably also believe that companies should be able to enforce this, yes? Which means what, hiring private investigators (or having an in-house investigations team) to monitor employees after business hours? So you either support surveilling staff after-hours, or you think the policy merits existing but doesn't merit follow-through and enforcement?

> So you either support surveilling staff after-hours, or you think the policy merits existing but doesn't merit follow-through and enforcement?

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com