> As long as they perform the tasks of their jobs, why shouldn't they be "getting away with it"?
Curious how you would measure whether they are "performing the tasks for their jobs". I think most folks would say that measuring SE output is very difficult to do and as such, most managers give their team the benefit of the doubt that they are working at a reasonable but sustainable pace.
I am not sure that I personally would want to work at a place that places huge emphasis on measuring my output, even if that would free me up for potential OE. It seems like this thinking leads to a commoditization of software engineering work and promotes a very transactional relationship with an employer.
For software development, quantifying output or defining a finite set of tasks is almost impossible. Unlike traditional industries where tasks can be standardized and expected output can be clearly defined, software development is a different beast altogether.
Speaking from personal experience, my task list is filled with an infinite number of features to implement and bugs to fix. It's a dynamic landscape that changes with every new technology, user feedback, or market demand. It's not something that can be completed within a set timeframe, rather it's a continuous process of improvement and adaptation.
> As long as they perform the tasks of their jobs, why shouldn't they be "getting away with it"?
I'd say it depends a lot on the legal framework of employment contracts. I don't know how it is in the US, but in Germany you sign a contract with your employer stating „I will work X hours a week for you“. It's not about the output.
If you work less than X hours, you commit fraud and breach the contract. Your employer can then fire you for an „important cause” and typical legal protections don't apply. If your employer forces you to work more than X hours without compensating you appropriately, he breaches the contract and you can sue him for that.
So obviously, there have been a lot of legal cases like „Does changing your clothes count as working hours“, „Does driving to a client count as working hours“, „How do working hours need to be tracked“,...
By the same logic, why shouldn't lawyers and other high-skill hourly workers add a 3x multiplier to their reported hours? After all, as long as they do the work, their clients won't know the difference.
Unless you're actively informing your employer that you're blocked or not being assigned enough work, there's an implication that your output is the product of full-time hours.
You could probably get away with it for a time, since it's hard to validate that and there's a default expectation of good faith. Either way, it's essentially (if not actually) fraud. You can't negotiate a certain price for a certain expected value based on your resume and interview performance, and then intentionally deliver a fraction of that value. If you think an employer would be happy with that, then why not try and negotiate the same compensation for a part-time role? Or work as a contractor with a fixed price for each task, and then beat every time estimate to earn a higher effective hourly rate? Or simply provide notice partway into the engagement that you feel you've been delivering more value than your current level of compensation would justify, and therefore will be reducing your time commitment?
You're free to sell your services in whatever way you'd like on the free market. The problem is when you enter into an agreement to sell them in a particular way, and then fail to deliver on that while deceiving the other party into believing otherwise.
I would agree as long as it doesn't violate anything they signed with the employers. Most companies I've worked for had me sign things that would prevent me from working on the side.
NDAs/ data protection for one. I'm not against people having multiple jobs, but some jobs have access to confidential/proprietary data that employers have a legitimate interest in protecting.
Far down in the article: "Many in the OE [over employment] community, in fact, have taken advantage of the trend by getting a full-time J1 [job 1] that provides them with health insurance and then taking J2s [job2] and J3s that are contractor positions, which often come with higher pay to compensate for the lack of benefits."
So it sounds like some of this overemployment noise is just the classic moonlighting on the side.
> But I think the bosses of the world are threatened by OE for a deeper reason — one that goes beyond the numbers. There's something radical that happens to a worker's psychology when they have multiple jobs. If your company is putting a roof over your head, it's hard not to fall into a hustle-culture mentality at work, doing whatever it takes to satisfy your boss... But because the overemployed are no longer wholly dependent on any one employer, each job starts to look a little more disposable — which, if we're being honest, is precisely how many CEOs view their employees.
Interesting take. Having multiple jobs makes each one disposable, leveling the ordinary, tilted relationship between companies and workers, in which the company treats employees as fungible and the employee has to take it. In that sense it seems more honest and equitable to me than the jobs I've had.
For me, when I don't have enough work to fill a day, my reaction is not "gosh, I'd better find more work," it's "I'll go read a book, or work on a project". I'm financially secure, with no family to support. I can't imagine wanting to work more in exchange for more money, and if I get laid off I've got savings to cover it. I have no issue with what these people are doing, but I doubt I'd ever join them.
My main issue with double dipping is that people with free time should be mentoring or tackling debt and other such things rather than waiting to be told what to do.
That carries a lot of assumptions - e.g. that the workplace a person is in allows and rewards those things. Some do, some don't. If the workplace doesn't, that's not the fault of the individual employee.
It's also a bit weird to look down on "double dipping" at the individual level but we work in an industry that aspires to do as little as possible and maximize profit at the company level as much as possible.
Many of our employers have or want to have business models where they sell software subscriptions and maximize the revenue for writing the software once. If your employer manages to sell 2x as many subscriptions for the same work, then they're smart and have a great business model. If a person figures out how to juggle several jobs, they're double dipping.
Note: I was brought up to believe in 40 hours work for 40 hours pay, etc. I still believe that, and I wouldn't short my employer in order to hold a second job. But I have held full time jobs plus doing writing on the side. If the view is that a salary entitles an employer to every single productive second of my time, that salary better be amazing.
So, people who work more efficiently than their peers should be rewarded with more work instead of more free time (in which these people chose to do a second job)?
If tech debt doesn't already get fixed, I doubt it will ever be. Taking time to fix debt is a mentality issue: you'll need to prioritize that work against racking up features, and that means seeing them as more important.
If someone in that situation started signaling they have free time, they'd likely get assigned to shovel more features rather than fixing debt.
Well that's a different argument but you're totally right. The most "boring" ways to financial freedom are living cheaply and making as much steady income as possible, investing in other revenue generating ventures (like literally things like a washateria, then buy a strip mall, etc.) Starting "a business" for the $$$ as your primary motivator is going to take your focus off of product.
Come on people - "loyalty" to "the company? what doesthat get you?
A lousy raise that got wiped out by inflation.
Unmet promises of a promotion.
Layoffs at the first sign of turmoil, with no warning.
"loyalty" is a two-way street.
Once I worked for a "huge company", where I had gotten
4 patents, increased revenue, added value, started & led
a new global team, taught the hard stuff to more junior
members, great reviews, blah blah blah.
Then I got laid off. Found another job pretty quick. couple months
later the "huge company" realized they screwed up and tried
to "rehire" several of us back. To a man, we all said:
"Why should I even want to work for a place that fired me?"
So don't talk to me about "Loyalty".
BTW, doing your day job from 9-5, then doing outside "contract work", "consulting work" or independant stuff like running a PC storefront or Web design has been going on forever ... nothing new here, move along, move along...
I know multiple software devs that play hockey 3 times a week during the work day. They could easily be working 2 full time jobs at the same time, but why would you, if you didn’t need to?
I've considered a second job as well, but I'd have to skip out on my noon Jiu Jitsu classes and freedom to play Pickleball whenever I please. I'm paid well enough where the value my hobbies bring outweighs the extra income of a second job.
Many years ago when I was working as a consulting engineer, I had two almost fulltime (30+ hours a week) clients going at the same time. In person. It was manageable because the sites were walking distance apart, but everyone got the hours that they were billed and everyone's work got done.
Honestly, if you're fully remote and don't have any commute, that sort of thing is quite doable if that's how you want to spend your time.
I knew a guy that had only one job, but he never actually did it. It would take 3-6 months to get fired and then he'd just get another job and peace out for a few months. I think he worked at one place for almost 8 months and then got laid off. After on-boarding he'd just lay low and maybe answer emails once a week.
Beats "working" 3 or 4 jobs and spending over 40 hours a week doing so.
So what does your resume say for the period of time you are over employed? Lets say you worked at Meta, IBM, and Tinder... What do you put on your resume when applying for other roles?
I'm aghast! Everyone must RTO now! We're laying off 20%, and bonuses (if any) will now be paid in Amazon gift cards. We stand together in these difficult times.
Sincerely,
-CEO of V
-Board member of W
-Board member of Y
-Director of dishonest charitable foundation Z
*Reminder, I'll be out of the country 11/17 - 1/15, taking the entirety of our extended family to Bali. Love, peace, and prosperity to all!
Companies try to optimize profit for their shareholders, which includes paying as little as the workers will bear (or less, as in some cases people need to work to survive).
Similarly, I think people have the right to optimize their time and income. Of course, it can be made illegal through your employment contract. So just like big corporations, you need to include the possibility of a lawsuit and a fine into your expected outcome calculations.
Having been both an IC and a manager at one of the FAANGs, it's not unimaginable to me that there will be people who can pull off two jobs and still get more done than average.
Personally, I'm not sure whether it's an optimal strategy. You might be better off getting promoted really fast, if you feel you have the opportunity.
Yeah, unfortunately. I work one job and am happy with what I make, and the workload is sufficient for me to fill the entire day's worth of time. But I am only happy because the job is remote. I am worried that if news like this (not even sure how much percentage of the employed folks are OE; could very well be 1%) would give excuses to the employers to stop offering remote options. Like you said, I will not click on such articles because the "journalist" will be encouraged to write more clickbait articles which jeopardizes millions of happy remote workers like myself.
"In exchange for a salary, they promised not to work for anyone else."
Is that legal? It's certainly not 'the market' at work, or working well, but simply corporations monopolizing peoples productive hours, even those not actually part of the job, with an 'exclusive contract'.
'Employment' is a bit of a racket IMHO, so any way of getting out from under the thumb should be encouraged.
For workers who are producing copyrightable output if there is any overlap between the types of things they are doing for simultaneous employers there could be questions about who owns the copyrights.
E.g., if you wrote very similar web code for both Meta and Tinder and one of them noticed and sued the other for copyright infringement things could get awkward.
In the US, no. I tell the company the number of deductions on some IRS form which determines their deductions on a W2. There are some things like not having two different 401Ks at the same time but my company certainly doesn't know about the other sources of income I have (which are not from other employers).
One full time job is 8 hours per day (added: often more, as this is in IT). 3 x 8 = 24. There are no more than 24 hours in a day. This leaves no time for rest, eating, etc...
[+] [-] coldtea|2 years ago|reply
As long as they perform the tasks of their jobs, why shouldn't they be "getting away with it"?
It's seems as if the "free market" exists only for the companies and bosses.
[+] [-] erhserhdfd|2 years ago|reply
Curious how you would measure whether they are "performing the tasks for their jobs". I think most folks would say that measuring SE output is very difficult to do and as such, most managers give their team the benefit of the doubt that they are working at a reasonable but sustainable pace.
I am not sure that I personally would want to work at a place that places huge emphasis on measuring my output, even if that would free me up for potential OE. It seems like this thinking leads to a commoditization of software engineering work and promotes a very transactional relationship with an employer.
[+] [-] bratao|2 years ago|reply
Speaking from personal experience, my task list is filled with an infinite number of features to implement and bugs to fix. It's a dynamic landscape that changes with every new technology, user feedback, or market demand. It's not something that can be completed within a set timeframe, rather it's a continuous process of improvement and adaptation.
[+] [-] lytefm|2 years ago|reply
I'd say it depends a lot on the legal framework of employment contracts. I don't know how it is in the US, but in Germany you sign a contract with your employer stating „I will work X hours a week for you“. It's not about the output.
If you work less than X hours, you commit fraud and breach the contract. Your employer can then fire you for an „important cause” and typical legal protections don't apply. If your employer forces you to work more than X hours without compensating you appropriately, he breaches the contract and you can sue him for that.
So obviously, there have been a lot of legal cases like „Does changing your clothes count as working hours“, „Does driving to a client count as working hours“, „How do working hours need to be tracked“,...
[+] [-] buu700|2 years ago|reply
Unless you're actively informing your employer that you're blocked or not being assigned enough work, there's an implication that your output is the product of full-time hours.
You could probably get away with it for a time, since it's hard to validate that and there's a default expectation of good faith. Either way, it's essentially (if not actually) fraud. You can't negotiate a certain price for a certain expected value based on your resume and interview performance, and then intentionally deliver a fraction of that value. If you think an employer would be happy with that, then why not try and negotiate the same compensation for a part-time role? Or work as a contractor with a fixed price for each task, and then beat every time estimate to earn a higher effective hourly rate? Or simply provide notice partway into the engagement that you feel you've been delivering more value than your current level of compensation would justify, and therefore will be reducing your time commitment?
You're free to sell your services in whatever way you'd like on the free market. The problem is when you enter into an agreement to sell them in a particular way, and then fail to deliver on that while deceiving the other party into believing otherwise.
[+] [-] s1artibartfast|2 years ago|reply
Pulling this stuff off usually requires a tremendous amount of lying and deceit.
[+] [-] jghn|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dgrin91|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] datadrivenangel|2 years ago|reply
So it sounds like some of this overemployment noise is just the classic moonlighting on the side.
[+] [-] greesil|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] karaterobot|2 years ago|reply
Interesting take. Having multiple jobs makes each one disposable, leveling the ordinary, tilted relationship between companies and workers, in which the company treats employees as fungible and the employee has to take it. In that sense it seems more honest and equitable to me than the jobs I've had.
For me, when I don't have enough work to fill a day, my reaction is not "gosh, I'd better find more work," it's "I'll go read a book, or work on a project". I'm financially secure, with no family to support. I can't imagine wanting to work more in exchange for more money, and if I get laid off I've got savings to cover it. I have no issue with what these people are doing, but I doubt I'd ever join them.
[+] [-] goalieca|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jzb|2 years ago|reply
It's also a bit weird to look down on "double dipping" at the individual level but we work in an industry that aspires to do as little as possible and maximize profit at the company level as much as possible.
Many of our employers have or want to have business models where they sell software subscriptions and maximize the revenue for writing the software once. If your employer manages to sell 2x as many subscriptions for the same work, then they're smart and have a great business model. If a person figures out how to juggle several jobs, they're double dipping.
Note: I was brought up to believe in 40 hours work for 40 hours pay, etc. I still believe that, and I wouldn't short my employer in order to hold a second job. But I have held full time jobs plus doing writing on the side. If the view is that a salary entitles an employer to every single productive second of my time, that salary better be amazing.
[+] [-] leokennis|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brandall10|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] charles_f|2 years ago|reply
If someone in that situation started signaling they have free time, they'd likely get assigned to shovel more features rather than fixing debt.
[+] [-] Maken|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ldjkfkdsjnv|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alexsereno|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] profmumbles|2 years ago|reply
"loyalty" is a two-way street.
Once I worked for a "huge company", where I had gotten 4 patents, increased revenue, added value, started & led a new global team, taught the hard stuff to more junior members, great reviews, blah blah blah.
Then I got laid off. Found another job pretty quick. couple months later the "huge company" realized they screwed up and tried to "rehire" several of us back. To a man, we all said: "Why should I even want to work for a place that fired me?"
So don't talk to me about "Loyalty".
BTW, doing your day job from 9-5, then doing outside "contract work", "consulting work" or independant stuff like running a PC storefront or Web design has been going on forever ... nothing new here, move along, move along...
[+] [-] noughtme|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pseudosudoer|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eschneider|2 years ago|reply
Honestly, if you're fully remote and don't have any commute, that sort of thing is quite doable if that's how you want to spend your time.
[+] [-] bluedino|2 years ago|reply
Beats "working" 3 or 4 jobs and spending over 40 hours a week doing so.
[+] [-] otteromkram|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sovietmudkipz|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] globalise83|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] b5n|2 years ago|reply
Sincerely,
-CEO of V
-Board member of W
-Board member of Y
-Director of dishonest charitable foundation Z
*Reminder, I'll be out of the country 11/17 - 1/15, taking the entirety of our extended family to Bali. Love, peace, and prosperity to all!
[+] [-] Palmik|2 years ago|reply
Similarly, I think people have the right to optimize their time and income. Of course, it can be made illegal through your employment contract. So just like big corporations, you need to include the possibility of a lawsuit and a fine into your expected outcome calculations.
Having been both an IC and a manager at one of the FAANGs, it's not unimaginable to me that there will be people who can pull off two jobs and still get more done than average.
Personally, I'm not sure whether it's an optimal strategy. You might be better off getting promoted really fast, if you feel you have the opportunity.
But I won't judge.
[+] [-] DoingIsLearning|2 years ago|reply
The only purpose of larping fantasies like this is to create outrage and boost view counts on these online newspapers.
The best thing you can do is really not to click on that link.
If we are allowed whataboutism why is there no write up piece on board members seat collectors and C-level execs?
[+] [-] programmertote|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cxr|2 years ago|reply
Because "There's some sleight of hand at play[...] in the employer/employee relationship (favoring the employer)."
<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37472726>
[+] [-] jacknews|2 years ago|reply
Is that legal? It's certainly not 'the market' at work, or working well, but simply corporations monopolizing peoples productive hours, even those not actually part of the job, with an 'exclusive contract'.
'Employment' is a bit of a racket IMHO, so any way of getting out from under the thumb should be encouraged.
[+] [-] tzs|2 years ago|reply
E.g., if you wrote very similar web code for both Meta and Tinder and one of them noticed and sued the other for copyright infringement things could get awkward.
[+] [-] sertbdfgbnfgsd|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ghaff|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] asvitkine|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lasermike026|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yetanother12345|2 years ago|reply
The math does not add up.
One full time job is 8 hours per day (added: often more, as this is in IT). 3 x 8 = 24. There are no more than 24 hours in a day. This leaves no time for rest, eating, etc...
[+] [-] Dowwie|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gedy|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] voisin|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] greatgib|2 years ago|reply