Overemployment

[AzCactus]

Been spending time on Reddit-probably too much time and I've been reading about overmployment (OE).  For those unfamiliar overmemployment is basically working two jobs during hours that usually overlap to a high degree.  Main advantage is you get paid more money.  Main disadvantage is you could fired and some people find overemployment immoral.  

 

Question for the forum is what are your thoughts on OE and more specifically if you are or have been OE how do you manage both jobs to a satisfactory level.  

[gfp]

I had never heard of this (sounds like my personal nightmare!  Sign me up for "unemployment" please) but a close friend was explaining the temptation over drinks at the bar.  Obviously everyone working remotely is what really enabled this movement.  I would think something like a LinkedIn profile would become a problem?  My friend was promoted from sales to sales management and had no problem finishing "the work" in the new position in a matter of hours.  Two full time comp packages were really tempting.  I have heard this 2-full-time-jobs thing is popular with the Indian-American community.

[beerbaron]

Unethical. Nothing to discuss here. Not putting the time you charge is similar to stealing. Just because its harder to get caught does not make it more ethical.

 

I dont think anybody on this forum would be thrilled if a contractor came to your home for a days work on hourly contract, left half way through at lunch and billled the full day.

 

Beerbaron

[gfp]

I assume we are not talking about hourly jobs here.  This isn't time-clock type stuff.

[Santayana]

Back around 2004-2007 I had two jobs, one was salary and one was hourly.  The salary position was a customer facing one where when the customers weren't there, often there really wasn't much to do.  The hourly job was consulting for a financial institution providing tier 3 ops support for their data systems (handling problems with things like Bloomberg Data License, Barra, MSCI, etc.).  Both employers knew my time was being split but didn't care.

[Gregmal]

I wouldn’t have a problem with it. I don’t sell my time by the hour because it caps my potential. You want something done, you pay for it. Not some idea of how long you own somebodys time for.

Edited May 3 by Gregmal

[Malmqky]

I know people in tech that do this. If you're good, you can find $200-300k TC jobs that are remote and only have 20 or so hours of "real" work weekly. Jobs with TC closer to $100k and low stress/workload are even more plentiful.

 

Of course, tech layoffs are a real risk here.

[bizaro86]

1 hour ago, Malmqky said:

I know people in tech that do this. If you're good, you can find $200-300k TC jobs that are remote and only have 20 or so hours of "real" work weekly. Jobs with TC closer to $100k and low stress/workload are even more plentiful.

 

Of course, tech layoffs are a real risk here.

 

Tech layoffs seem like a huge reason why people would do this. Having 2 jobs means if you lost one you'd get a package and still have a job. 

[Malmqky]

On 5/3/2024 at 5:47 PM, bizaro86 said:

 

Tech layoffs seem like a huge reason why people would do this. Having 2 jobs means if you lost one you'd get a package and still have a job. 

Yes, you may be right. 
 

However, tech layoffs are inevitable. They happen every downturn. And dudes with $300k TC who “just” meet expectations are often the first to go…especially if management figures out they’re only doing “real” work for 20 hours per week. If both jobs are in tech, chances are you lose both around the same time.

 

If you grab two developer jobs outside the tech industry (think F500 instead of FAANG), you would probably* be safer from layoffs.

 

Just kind of rambling.. 

[Fly]

I don't see the big deal. If the employee's performance suffers, they get fired. Otherwise what's the difference between double dipping two jobs or staring at the walls bored out of your mind working one job. I'd happily work an additional job if it was flexible and could slot in with my regular job. 

Edited May 10 by Fly

[Castanza]

On 5/3/2024 at 1:39 PM, beerbaron said:

Unethical. Nothing to discuss here. Not putting the time you charge is similar to stealing. Just because its harder to get caught does not make it more ethical.

 

I dont think anybody on this forum would be thrilled if a contractor came to your home for a days work on hourly contract, left half way through at lunch and billled the full day.

 

Beerbaron

 

It's not for hourly jobs. You see quite a bit of this in tech and other fields like marketing, content, finance etc. Nothing unethical about it imo unless you're using info from one employer to help the other and vice verse. Not much different than being freelance and working for multiple clients at one time. Now if you're working two jobs and sandbagging just to collect that paycheck until one of them notices and confronts you? yeah you're a pos. But hey if you can swing it why now?

Edited May 10 by Castanza

[TwoCitiesCapital]

On 5/3/2024 at 12:39 PM, beerbaron said:

Unethical. Nothing to discuss here. Not putting the time you charge is similar to stealing. Just because its harder to get caught does not make it more ethical.

 

I dont think anybody on this forum would be thrilled if a contractor came to your home for a days work on hourly contract, left half way through at lunch and billled the full day.

 

Beerbaron

 

Was anyone calling it unethical when employees were expected to be in the office for "face time" even when they completed their work? 

 

As far as the contractor example goes - as long as they finish the job that I asked them to do, within the budget and timeline we agreed, I honestly don't care if they're leaving each day at lunch. 

[schin]

I see a lot of people doing a day-shift and then, doing a night shift. Like an off-duty cop doing mall security work.  I see a lot of people doing service-desk from 9-5 and then, taking a "night shift" too. 

[Kizion]

On 5/3/2024 at 7:39 PM, beerbaron said:

Unethical. Nothing to discuss here. Not putting the time you charge is similar to stealing. Just because its harder to get caught does not make it more ethical.

 

I dont think anybody on this forum would be thrilled if a contractor came to your home for a days work on hourly contract, left half way through at lunch and billled the full day.

 

Beerbaron

 

Not quite correct in my opinion. We're paid a fixed monthly salary to perform a job (which has a clear scope and for which your employer has fixed objectives/expectations). It's like a contractor which is paid a fixed fee to build a home. If this contractor is working twice as efficient as any other contractor, his margin would be significantly higher vs. competition. Being twice as efficient and charging the same price for the same outcome is legal. Why wouldn't this be the case for an employee which is paid a fixed fee per month to perform certain tasks? 

 

11 hours ago, schin said:

I see a lot of people doing a day-shift and then, doing a night shift. Like an off-duty cop doing mall security work.  I see a lot of people doing service-desk from 9-5 and then, taking a "night shift" too. 

 

Overemployment is when you cover 2 jobs in overlapping timeframes. So you're a designer from 9 to 5 at company X and a copywriter from 9 to 5 at company Y. This is possible when you can perform the work which is expected from you (and for which they want to pay you) much faster than they would estimate.

Edited May 16 by Kizion

[Blugolds11]

13 minutes ago, Kizion said:

 

Not quite correct in my opinion. We're paid a fixed monthly salary to perform a job (which has a clear scope and for which your employer has fixed objectives/expectations). It's like a contractor which is paid a fixed fee to build a home. If this contractor is working twice as efficient as any other contractor, his margin would be significantly higher vs. competition. Being twice as efficient and charging the same price for the same outcome is legal. Why wouldn't this be the case for an employee which is paid a fixed fee per month to perform certain tasks? 

 

 

Overemployment is when you cover 2 jobs in overlapping timeframes. So you're a designer from 9 to 5 at company X and a copywriter from 9 to 5 at company Y. This is possible when you can perform the work which is expected from you (and for which they want to pay you) much faster than they would estimate.

 

The comments that this is unethical, to me, are ridiculous. Only an employer would think that. If you are in a position to do it, more power to you. 

 

I'll also add, in honor of Charlie...invert! Lets make a "wild" assumption that you work for an employer and they pay you a salary for your job duties and another employee quits or gets fired. Rather than hiring a replacement, they simply add that previous employee's workload on to your current responsibilities...I know I know this is a crazy notion that likely would NEVER happen (sarcasm)...but does that mean that you get your previous salary for previous agreed upon job duties, PLUS the ex-employee salary for ALSO essentially working their role/responsibilities? Absolutely not!  That would be absurd!

 

Workers have been getting fleeced for decades. More work, stagnant growth in wages, despite increased worker production. Some workers find a "hack" to slightly tip the scales back in their favor and all of a sudden its unethical. 

 

ALSO, this detracts from the real problem...a CEO comes out saying that working two jobs is unethical all while giving themselves a fat bonus when the company is floundering, (likely a bonus larger than the overemployed will make working two jobs in their entire LIFETIME), running the business into the ground while taking a golden parachute with severance and benefits never having to work again...or sitting on multiple company boards and offering no value and never disagreeing with a CEO, just YES men. "THEY" are doing the same thing! They've been fat and happy for generations, but the worker bees finally find a way to play the same game and its horribly unethical....gimmie a break. 

 

Greg has mentioned this many times, the good ol boys network that got them the position because of pedigree despite inadequate qualifications. 

 

Go to ivy league, nepotism etc gets you a cush job in the C-suite, sit on several boards, CEO role or other alphabet title, run it into the ground and its ok because you already have your seat at the big boys table, take your bonus and severance and that is accepted and standard practice. 

 

Do the same thing essentially, outside the C-suite and its immoral and unethical...LOL

 

This notion that upper echelon commonplace behavior is praised and somehow when the avg joe finds a way to get a taste it isnt right blows my mind. They really have a lot of people fooled and distracted if they think a workers entire goal should be to be a good little employee and take what they give you. There is no loyalty company → employee...but expect 100% employee → company.

[Castanza]

Employers have a control problem. If they don't want to "lose time" with their employees working second jobs, then switch them from Salary to Hourly and send them home or have them clock off when their work is finished. If you have salaried employees who work diligently and finish their work then end up with some downtime, that is your problem not theirs. You're paying them to do a job. If I pay a contractor to build a house, I don't expect them to leave me all the leftover supplies and tools they purchased to build that house. I expect a house. 

 

My favorite is when they try to say "It's a privilege to work from home and not everyone has that advantage." <--- what assholes

 

My work recently tried to say everyone needs to be back in office 3 days a week. They hosted a webinar webinar with some C-suiot execs present and opened it up for questions (big mistake). Employees went off and they couldn't provide any justification from their perspective. 

 

- All of our work in on a screen

- My team is global so there is no in person collaboration

- All training is online (and has been)

- Productivity numbers have gone UP since Covid

- Employee happiness surveys UP

- Office lease lapsed and we moved from individual office to hoteling style with less than half the number of offices for total employees

- 1/4-1/3rd of employees moved over an hour away from office location (at HR approval)

 

So why did they want us back in office? No idea, but likely so they could dick swing and feel important when they come to town once a year. How ere they going to track "employee engagement and collaboration"....badge scans LOL 

 

So you want me to drive over an hour and a half three days a week (costing me 10k a year) so I can sit in a noisy open office environment, log onto Teams and collaborate with employees in different countries just like I already do?  

 

End of they day, they are "re-thinking" their approach and not enforcing anything at this point.  

 

[Fly]

6 hours ago, Castanza said:

Employers have a control problem. If they don't want to "lose time" with their employees working second jobs, then switch them from Salary to Hourly and send them home or have them clock off when their work is finished. If you have salaried employees who work diligently and finish their work then end up with some downtime, that is your problem not theirs. You're paying them to do a job. If I pay a contractor to build a house, I don't expect them to leave me all the leftover supplies and tools they purchased to build that house. I expect a house. 

 

My favorite is when they try to say "It's a privilege to work from home and not everyone has that advantage." <--- what assholes

 

My work recently tried to say everyone needs to be back in office 3 days a week. They hosted a webinar webinar with some C-suiot execs present and opened it up for questions (big mistake). Employees went off and they couldn't provide any justification from their perspective. 

 

- All of our work in on a screen

- My team is global so there is no in person collaboration

- All training is online (and has been)

- Productivity numbers have gone UP since Covid

- Employee happiness surveys UP

- Office lease lapsed and we moved from individual office to hoteling style with less than half the number of offices for total employees

- 1/4-1/3rd of employees moved over an hour away from office location (at HR approval)

 

So why did they want us back in office? No idea, but likely so they could dick swing and feel important when they come to town once a year. How ere they going to track "employee engagement and collaboration"....badge scans LOL 

 

So you want me to drive over an hour and a half three days a week (costing me 10k a year) so I can sit in a noisy open office environment, log onto Teams and collaborate with employees in different countries just like I already do?  

 

End of they day, they are "re-thinking" their approach and not enforcing anything at this point.  

 

 

I do agree the push to get employees back into offices is ridiculous for the most part, but beware of unintended consequences. When a job is no longer tied to an office (typically in a city) then that compensation is no longer tied to that region as well. You could be expected to live in a super cheap middle of nowhere part of the country since you can WFH and paid accordingly. Then the next step is why not just pay someone to Work From India?

Edited May 16 by Fly

[Castanza]

39 minutes ago, Fly said:

 

I do agree the push to get employees back into offices is ridiculous for the most part, but beware of unintended consequences. When a job is no longer tied to an office (typically in a city) then that compensation is no longer tied to that region as well. You could be expected to live in a super cheap middle of nowhere part of the country since you can WFH and paid accordingly. Then the next step is why not just pay someone to Work From India?

Eh companies already do that. Employers with poor working environments will have unintended consequences as well. The cat is out of the bag now (thanks Covid?) A lot of companies have to be global with follow the sun support etc. Not all countries offer the same quality of support though…nor reliability. I’ve seen my share of outsourced jobs to Costa Rica (a hotbed for tech right now) and it’s been nothing but problems. Poor training, unreliable ISP, unreliable power, different mindset when it comes to work culture etc. it’s not apples to apples for sure…..yet. But will probably be someday? 

 

I hear you though, it’s not out of the question. My pay would be the same regardless of where I live now. But yes that makes sense for NYC job with a guy living in Alabama. 

At the end of the day it’s your job to make yourself valuable to an employer. I do think it’s becoming harder to separate yourself from the pack though. At least in tech. The most adaptable people do the best…but people last 35 have a hard time learning new tech or stacks (don’t blame them). It’s exhausting keeping up with everything. 
 

This is why I choose to live debt free. I like my tech job, don’t love the work itself, but the flexibility is great. I don’t love “tech” enough to constantly learn a ton of new things, but definitely get some new stuff under the belt every year. It’s interesting enough and I have my niches. Frankly I don’t trust the tech industry. It feels like something has to give because everyone is being outpaced by new stacks/niches/fads. It’s like watching the NFL where you’re washed up by 30-40 max. There are a lot of 50+ year old tech workers that are clutching their pearls that “their” stack doesn’t get dropped before they retire. I have no problem working any job inside or outside of tech though . I don’t live to work and I keep my finances in check. I’m about reducing financial stress.