Posted on 10/16/2022 10:32:40 AM PDT by EBH
A Linkedin post shared by Canopy CEO Davis Bell is sparking controversy for shedding light on the growing trend of "overemployment," or secretly working two remote jobs at once.
The post went viral on Friday after Bell divulged that Canopy, a mid-sized software company based in Utah, recently fired two engineers who were secretly working two full-time jobs simultaneously. Overemployment has soared during the pandemic, with some saying it allows them to make up to $600,000 a year during a period of record-inflation and soaring housing costs.
"To me, this isn't some fun new social trend," Bell wrote. "It's a new form of theft and deception, and not something in which an ethical, honest person would participate."
The post prompted backlash from several corners of the internet, including the Reddit community "antiwork," with some users arguing that tech CEOs like Jack Dorsey and Elon Musk are lauded for working at multiple companies at once, while regular workers are punished for it. Others speculated that the engineers may have be working two jobs in order to make ends meet.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
I get the morality aspect, but you are going to have to explain the "dedicated Marxist" jab.
The simple fact is that employers unilaterally change the terms of employment to the employees detriment all the time.
So while I will give you that it's wrong it's not going to move my outrage meter at all. And if you are doing such a lousy job managing your employees that you can't tell they are working another job you are as much to blame as they are.
Good post. I have no problem if someone gets their employer to agree with it. But I doubt many will ask. They will just do it.
Corporations suck. But they suck less than anything else that will take their place, so I can deal with them.
Everyone on the Left demonizes “corporations”. They do it while posting on their Dell laptops running Microsoft Windows, sitting in Starbucks, using network equipment made by Cisco, on networks run by Verizon, all while wearing their Nike sneakers.
Fair enough, I accept that, CommieCutter.
Right. See my post above.
The unjustified demonization of corporations and industry is class warfare, which is an integral element of Marxism.
Breaking faith because “they deserve it” for raping employees, changing rules, or whatever else, is simple rationalization. It is wrong, and people know it is wrong.
I agree with that.
I would never attempt to sell out my employer.
It’s a simple concept, not biting the hand that feeds you.
Look, if the company is deeply involved in crime, find a
new place to work. I think that is the way to avoid a
conflict of interest or morals.
I am very disenchanted with my employer who I have been with for more than 35 years, as they merged with a very leftist organization, and we get political emails, and they also mandated the COVID vaccination. (though I was told the next one is not mandatory)
But they pay me, and otherwise treat me well. I give them my best in return.
yeah, it was kinda tongue in cheek but was thinking about his getting hacked and two companies compromised...
You have to look at it this way. All these called for
boycotts of businesses, banks, other concerns, they’re
all well meaning, but as soon as you boycott one, along
comes the concern you just moved to, to do the same
types of things.
You can run from employer after employer, but how far
do you get before businesses in the same field have
come down with the same edicts?
Should you move every six months to avoid problematic
businesses?
You have to have some sense of realism to keep you on
a steady, non-chaotic path.
Do I like that reality. Absolutely not.
The character from Dilbert.
"Demonization of corporations" because they are greedy robber barons is merely telling the truth.
"Demonization of corporations" because you are trying to sell socialism is totally dishonest.
Why? Because corporations are largely crappy organizations run by even crappier people but socialism and socialists are far worse. Humans are dishonest and unfaithful -- in corporations that is largely driven by simple greed and stupidity. But socialism is a different kind of evil: It is the desire to rule the world coupled with a self-righteousness that says they are entitled to it. One can walk away from a greedy, stupid corporation. Socialism kicks in your door in the middle of the night and you are never heard from again.
I won't steal from or defraud the company I work for because it is wrong. But I harbor no delusions that any promise or agreement they make will ever be followed through. I make my own decisions to do what I want to do and what I feel is necessary. Corporations are utterly faithless, you can't break faith with them because any faith that exists is only a delusion on your part.
More often than not, I find that I can do all the damage I want to do just by doing what they tell me to do, but even that I don't do out of spite or anger. I do it because it is in my best interest to do so because the corporation itself has made it so.
Oh, okay.
I agree with you synopsis.
I’m white collar. My husband is blue collar.
We have both derived benefit from, and also been screwed by, big corporations.
At one point in time, there existed an unspoken social contract; you work hard, play by the rules, improve yourself, do the right thing, and you will be able to provide for your family.
That contract has been broken.
Jobs shipped overseas, employers abusing staff, being a company guy/gal only to be replaced...I’ve seen all of this.
Meanwhile, the cheaters get ahead. I’ve seen that, too.
Further, when corporations started becoming aggressively politically active and pushing social narratives, they started to be viewed as hostile by the average working American.
People are tired of it.
Please note, I don’t approve of the double dipping in this article because it is dishonorable and only adds to the problem. I am also fortunate to have found a company that believes in ethical processes.
In America’s case, the fish definitely turned rotten from the head down. Corrupt government, corrupt media, corrupt institutions encouraging people to behave in a lawless, amoral manner.
It pains me what we as a country have become.
I was disheartened decades ago when new hires at the corporation I worked for had no ethical problems about openly sharing music on Napster. The did not see it as stealing. I think that mentality seeped into other areas of life.
-PJ
years ago I had a brother who figured out how to have every hour of the day being paid for. 6 nights a week he was the night desk clerk for a small hotel/ the owners allowed him to sleep and his only chore besides checking people in was every 2 hours he had to do a walk of the hotel. he then managed a liquor store owned by the son of the hotel owner. the third job was ad manager and type seter for the local newspaper. he did this for two years. everyone he worked for was aware of the fact he had 3 full time jobs and was cool with it. eventually he trained a manager for the liqueur store and went part time. the newspaper he went part time. eventually he was only working the hotel job.
Alex: One is under no obligation to "make it clear" to the bosses that one has "more potential." One is under no obligation to accept a so-called "promotion."
PJT: We would call someone like that a "slacker."
So, you agree that one is under no moral obligation to buttonhole the bosses and convince them that one is "capable of more." So, you agree that one is under no moral obligation to accept a so-called "promotion" ("You'll be doing Bob's work now, too - we're letting him go after 19 years of loyal work and dedication because he is just about to become eligible for a company pension, and we can't have that, now, can we? - but we're not giving you any significant pay-raise. We are, however, giving you a dandy new job title!").
And you think it necessary to employ the epithet of "slacker" to describe such a person!
That's why companies have career ladders, salary levels, pay grade ranges, annual performance evaluations and career development discussions.
The 1960s called, and want your image of Corporate America back!
Literally millions of honest, hard-working Americans have observed that the career ladders, etc. that were dangled in front of their eyes were relicts / artifacts from the past, and that Upper Management had absolutely no intention of actually honoring them anymore.
Millions of Americans joined companies offering competitive salaries, interesting training options, handsome pension benefits, stock options, and plenty of other incentives - only to discover, over time, that they had joined just a few years too late, that that era had been quietly relegated to the junkyard of history.
Companies don't clearly announce: "That tier of engineers, middle management, specialists, and assembly line workers who were hired just five years before you - They were the last of that era. Just after we hired you, we hired a consultancy firm that advised us to immediately impose a permanent hiring stop, to outsource as much of our production as possible to low-wage countries, and have all our current employees begin training the Indians and Chinese who are to replace them, etc."
The "career ladders, salary levels, and pay grade ranges" to which you referred continued to exist, on paper - but were practically unobtainable.
The "annual performance evaluations and career development discussions," however, were actually intensified - but they were in fact only shams.
Of course, there have always been employees who shirked their responsibilities, cut corners, etc. to the detriment of the enterprise. But someone who chooses to just "float along" in today's environment and perform the minimum of work required of him should not be labelled with such a dismissive epithet. Workers who have lost hope, seen their earlier enthusiasm and commitment spat upon, and gone into "internal exile" didn't do so in a vacuum. They did it because Corporate America quietly changed the rules.
Regards,
I apologize if I misdirected that comment to you.
So, you agree that one is under no moral obligation to buttonhole the bosses and convince them that one is "capable of more." So, you agree that one is under no moral obligation to accept a so-called "promotion"
Sure, there is no "moral obligation." I don't know of any career-oriented worker who would do that; they want the increased pay, the increased responsibilities, and the increased positions of influence in the corporation. Only clock-watchers just want to put in the time for the paycheck and otherwise be left alone.
And you think it necessary to employ the epithet of "slacker" to describe such a person!
And "clock-watcher," too.
The 1960s called, and want your image of Corporate America back!
That's too bad. I worked for one MegaCorp for 40 years, and that image was still going strong into the 2020s. But I'll cede you this one point: the company was full of life-long employees who brought their 1980s ethos with them. As the Great Crew Change in corporate America completes with the retirement of that generation of workers, the Napster Generation of situational ethics is taking over.
Literally millions of honest, hard-working Americans have observed that the career ladders, etc. that were dangled in front of their eyes were relicts / artifacts from the past, and that Upper Management had absolutely no intention of actually honoring them anymore.
I've read the horror stories about Disney and IBM forcing long-term employees to train their H-1B replacements or lose their severance benefits, but there are MANY corporations out there who don't act that way. Even my company had its periods of layoffs during economic downturns, as well as tactical use of overseas workers, but in the long run it was widely understood how these processes worked and what was expected to maximize your likelihood of being above the cut line. My company eventually did away with cheaper contract labor and established employee offices in other countries, partly to move work to cheaper geographies and partly to serve a global workforce that didn't entirely operate to USA time zones. We needed a follow-the-sun presence that required overseas workers alongside of American ones, at the cost of displacing some domestic workers. It was the Personal Computing revolution of the 1990s and the commoditization of the World Wide Web that made this a practical option for corporations.
Simply transferring work to foreign countries is not enough to say that managers dangled promises that were reneged when one works in a global multinational corporation.
Millions of Americans joined companies offering competitive salaries, interesting training options, handsome pension benefits, stock options, and plenty of other incentives - only to discover, over time, that they had joined just a few years too late, that that era had been quietly relegated to the junkyard of history.
Count me in the group that joined just in time, then.
That said, much of what you wrote there was due to the changing dynamic of the workforce. Defined pension plans came out of the impacts of the GI Bill and companies competing for returning WWII veteran labor. After the Personal Computer revolutionized IT in the 1990s, a new generation of worker entered the workforce. This generation wanted to be more mobile and not tied down to one company for life-long benefits. Traditional defined pension plans were replaced or supplemented with 401(k) plans that followed the worker from job to job. The idea of company-sponsored career development was replaced with self-managed training and job-hopping to different companies for higher salaries and new challenges, not just more senior career-ladder responsibilities at the same company.
In my case, I got both a pension and a 401(k) with matching employer contributions. If someone was vested in a pension plan, they couldn't lose it unless the company went bankrupt or the government underfunded it.
Companies don't clearly announce: "That tier of engineers, middle management, specialists, and assembly line workers who were hired just five years before you - They were the last of that era. Just after we hired you, we hired a consultancy firm that advised us to immediately impose a permanent hiring stop, to outsource as much of our production as possible to low-wage countries, and have all our current employees begin training the Indians and Chinese who are to replace them, etc."
And the world didn't announce to those companies that the price of oil would collapse in 1987, or the dot com bubble would burst in 2000, or the mortgage bubble would burst in 2008, or BREXIT and the China economic slowdown of 2018 would rattle stock markets, or a pandemic would hit in 2020 disrupting global supply chains, or Putin would invade Ukraine in 2022 and shock the oil market. Anyone who works for a corporation understands that the first obligation of a corporation is to its shareholders.
Companies also merge, get bought out, get liquidated. Corporations have to adapt to the changing demographics of the marketplace. It does happen that if ACorp acquires BCorp and BCorp has a better marketing department than ACorp, then the workers in ACorp's marketing department may be at risk. So what do they do? Most companies will offer a severance package to the ACorp's marketing department staff; some will offer to move ACorp's best marketing department staff to BCorp's location. It's not the worker's fault, the company didn't renege on any promises to ACorp's marketing department workers, the company just did what was necessary for its long-term viability and fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders.
The "career ladders, salary levels, and pay grade ranges" to which you referred continued to exist, on paper - but were practically unobtainable. The "annual performance evaluations and career development discussions," however, were actually intensified - but they were in fact only shams.
I've been trying to avoid saying this, but you sound disgruntled. Nothing that you wrote has been my experience. I've been at the top of a pay grade, promoted to a new pay grade, and climbed up that new pay grade. I even reached a point in my career where I wasn't going to be upwardly mobile anymore (the pyramid effect), so I retired.
Of course, there have always been employees who shirked their responsibilities, cut corners, etc. to the detriment of the enterprise. But someone who chooses to just "float along" in today's environment and perform the minimum of work required of him should not be labelled with such a dismissive epithet. Workers who have lost hope, seen their earlier enthusiasm and commitment spat upon, and gone into "internal exile" didn't do so in a vacuum. They did it because Corporate America quietly changed the rules.
They did it because they were not paying attention to their careers, like the poor nephew working the graveyard shift so he can be left alone to play with his phone.
Maybe those people you described who "lost hope" did so because of decisions they made years ago that left them in this position? I don't know, but people have always had the option to manage their careers, either by being visible performers who seek advancement, or who take jobs in different companies to expand the breadth of their career experience. The people who did neither and just expected the corporation to hand them attaboys and kudos for just showing up learned a hard lesson in reality.
I'm sorry that your experiences seem to be much harsher than my own. Maybe I just worked for a better-run company.
FRegards,
-PJ
I agree. And this type of fraud supports the push to get people back into their slave cubicles.
Very few people can work from home and be fully productive.
The solution is to offer those who want the WFH lifestyle a set list of deliverables, ditch the cameras and timeclock, and let them do their work as it suits them.
Example was when I wrote my book. I had deadlines to meet and a product to turn out. My best ‘writing time’ is between 3am-6am at 500-800 words per hour. Don’t ask me to do that at midday it just won’t happen. Cubicle? Too many distractions, surprisingly for me a coffee shop was great too. My point being people have different work-styles. And some people have different skills that might peak as different times of the day. Mine happen to allow me 3 different jobs and deliverables are what works, not timeclocks.
Wow. Well, you should work for yourself then. Surely you have the skill to to that instead of working for entities you despise and hate. Right?
How sad and empty if you chose to, given the disgust and hatred you have for your employer.
Your company owes you one single thing-a paycheck. That’s it. They don’t owe you two three weeks off instead of two weeks off, or ten sick days instead of five.
In return, you owe them what they ask of you. If they ask too much, you make the choice to leave.
That’s it.
We are so fortunate in this country. We live in such wealth, even still. Yet people rail against “greed” because benefits or pay were reduced or not increased enough. That is Leftist drivel that has been the domain of socialists, Marxists, and communists.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.