• silverbax@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    118
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s completely accepted when CEOs and other executives serve on multiple boards or even run more than one company. Companies demanding 100% of any employee are just abusing labor and embracing unequal labor practices, and those practices aren’t against any law, companies just make up their own ‘policies’ to try and make their own laws.

  • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    65
    ·
    1 year ago

    Finally someone with authority says it!

    Nobody would complain about a freelancer with multiple clients, even at the same time, provided they got their work done on time and on budget. Why isn’t it the same for employees? Why do bosses get to treat them like clients from hell?

    • CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m not saying they’re justified in this, because frankly if someone is getting their work done, what they do outside of work hours isnt their boss’s business, but I can kinda imagine why a company might not like their employees to have a second job; people only have so much effort to give (consider all those stats people bring up whenever people talk about shortening the workweek, to the effect that working more hours diminishes productivity per hour and gives diminishing or even negative returns compared to fewer hours in many cases) and so a company might decide that an employee with a second job might not be as productive for them as they would be otherwise, due to being exhausted. Though really, if they do it’s honestly the company’s fault for paying so little as for someone to need a second job in the first place.

      • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        CEOs and executives do this regularly, so unless their jobs are a lot simpler than they’re claiming the “attention” argument is moot. They pay me to do a thing. I do the thing. They pay me what they’d say they’d pay. That’s it.

        • CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Frankly I don’t imagine CEOs and executives take a whole lot of effort, at least for sufficiently large companies (small business are a whole different animal of course). I can’t speak to how complicated it is to do those jobs, or how easy or difficult they are, but the mere fact that people who are so rich as to not need to work at all to live a lavish life, will often still take on jobs like that, speaks volumes I think.

          • TallonMetroid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            1 year ago

            Considering that it is apparently possible to be in charge of like 6 different companies at once and still spend your entire day shitposting on Twitter, corporate fatcats obviously aren’t actually supposed to do anything productive as part of their day-to-day tasks.

  • pdxfed@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    57
    ·
    1 year ago

    If someone is completing what you ask of them, the ONLY reason anyone would ever care about what they do with their time is ego. But muh underlings! But muh meeting attendees! But muh sense of power!

    Dinosaur companies will continue to suffer as they should.

  • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    57
    ·
    1 year ago

    FWIW, Microsoft explicitly allows having multiple jobs. Their policy basically amounts to “don’t cross the streams”.

  • starlord@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    57
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Couldn’t you just pay them enough so that they don’t need a second job?

    • Bezerker03@lemmy.bezzie.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Most of these people are over paid actually. Making without stock over 150k and then around the same in RSUs or more.

      The issue is many folks were only doing like 3 or 4 hr a day and then double dipped to collect another paycheck because they had the time to. I don’t necessarily fault them.

      Friend of mine intentionally took a boring bank job making like 50k less than he was making (so around $125k a yr) so he could coast as a high performer there then planned and did find another gig in Pacific time (were east Coast) and then pulled two checks and still only worked like 42 hr a week.

      This is the true reason there making work from home optional.

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s management’s own damn fault for trying to use butt time in seats as a proxy for productivity.

  • phillaholic@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    22
    ·
    1 year ago

    Working a second job outside of the hours or scope of tour main job is one thing, but many people double dipping are literally getting paid by two companies for the same hours. That’s different imo.

    • snooggums@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      42
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Like people who are the boards of multiple companies, in leadership roles in multiple companies, and pretty much anyone at the top of company structures?

      All that should matter is if they are doing what they were hired to do.

      • phillaholic@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        No, not like your example. If a CEO is secretly serving on another companies board you may have a point, but we’re talking about people having two jobs with the clear implication that their employers don’t know it.

        “Doing what they are hired to do” is very often defined in employment agreements as working x number of hours. You can’t really say you’re doing what you’re hired to do if you take a second job that you perform during the same hours when you’re not allowed to under your agreement.

        If someone wants to work 9-5, then 5-1 and somehow can manage both that’s different. For liability sake alone it’s a problem.

        • 1847953620@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Mm iono, kinda sounds like people finally using the concept of salaried exempt positions properly.

          For too long, people let themselves get bullied into equating salaried positions with hourly positions, having their time micromanaged and scrutinized when it shouldn’t have been the case by definition.

          • phillaholic@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s not really the same topic. Employers still have the right to set terms of employment. If they want you to work 9-5 and not 8-4, they have every right to set that expectation. If you’re hourly they can send you home at Noon on Friday and you just won’t be earning 40 hours of pay that week. Salary they really can’t.

            That’s not to say that people aren’t miss classified as exempt or that some employers try to use it as an excuse to get over 40 hours of work out of someone. Different topic all together.

    • donuts@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not really. If they’re fulfilling their contractual obligations to their employer(s), then who the hell cares?

      It’s long past time that we stop treating employees like they’re chattel of the company that they work for. You hire someone to do a job, which they either do to your satisfaction or not, but you don’t own them and you shouldn’t get to control the parameters of their life.

      • phillaholic@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        They aren’t fulfilling their contractual obligations if they aren’t allowed to have a second job and are doing it anyway, so this notion is nonsense to begin with. If you get paid hourly you can’t be working for someone else while getting paid by the first company for the same time. For salaried, typically there are expectations of how long you’ll be working or even your availability.

        The company I work for has more than three decades of experience with WFH, and it’s almost always clear when someone is trying to double dip. It’s impossible to keep it hidden for long. Eventually you will have conflicting schedules, and excuses start piling up. Even if the work is good, very few jobs are done in a vacuum where you never need to talk to anyone or work things through. Most situations like that are handled by subcontractors who have all the freedoms you’re talking about. In fact the only situation I can even think of that would fit the mold of how work is being framed here is through contractors.

      • phillaholic@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s preposterous to think you CAN simultaneously do so without impact either at all. All it takes is two meetings or two impromptu phone calls at once. You will choose one over the other, in which case the company you didn’t prioritize is hurt as well as the other employees that you’re collaborating with.

        Become a contractor if you want to double dip. You set your own schedule, work as many jobs as you want, and even get to choose your own raises.

      • ___@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        15
        ·
        1 year ago

        The other perfectly qualified person out of the job so that you could buy a second house?

          • ___@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            13
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s an exaggeration to prove a point. But do feel free to get offended.

            • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I don’t see anyone being offended by your statement.

              And this “offended” comment if yours is just sophistry - yet more presumption (and accusation, a personal attack) in an attempt to “win” an argument, rather than a discussion in search of truth or understanding.

              That being the case, it tells us all we need to know about you.

              • ___@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Calling someone presumptuous in the context of a hypothetical is an accusation. But keep trying.

        • Dyskolos@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t work, so there’s at least one job free :) And I also don’t need any more houses. So, someone must’nt work two jobs because he steals one job from someone more needy? He got the 2nd job despite the needier one also applying, right?

          • ___@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            Jobs are finite. You asked who gets hurt? Someone does.

              • abhibeckert@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/labour/employment-and-unemployment/labour-force-australia/sep-2023

                Australian Beauro of Statistics lists half a million Aussies are currently “Unemployed”.

                Note in this context, “unemployed” doesn’t mean “not working”. It means half a million are currently “not working and actively searching for a job”.

                The ABS doesn’t track it, but less reliable sources estimate about twice that many people are “Underemployed” which means the job they have doesn’t give them enough hours. For example maybe you’ve got a job delivering pizza on Friday and Saturday nights when they need extra staff - the ABS would classify you as “Employed” even though you’re only earning $300 per week.

                The number of people “underemployed” varies a lot from source to source, in part because there isn’t a clear definition of what that means.

              • ___@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                No offense, but if you have to ask this question, it’s not worth my time debating with you. If you’re genuinely curious, look up what an equilibrium quantity is in supply/demand economics.

    • astronaut_sloth@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It depends on the terms of employment. If they are salaried, then there are no real work hours and just work to do. In general, if someone is salaried, they’re paid to do a job not when they do it.

      • Patches@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        They want it both ways - we are ‘overtime exempt’ because we’re ‘paid for the job’ but also after the job is done - they think they own us.

      • phillaholic@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is not true. Salaries only means your pay is decided on a yearly basis and divided into each paycheck and not calculated and tracked per hour. Other conditions of employment including working hours and specific job duties are all part of your employment agreement. If your agreement has no set hours of any sort or limitations for other work, then there’s no problem. If a company is going to agree to pay you a salary, they are going to set how many hours you should be working, and reasonably expect you not to be double dipping.