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 ...
This is a big potential problem with “work from home”. No one can prove you are working in the manner you promised to work.
Sure they can. The work either gets done or it doesn’t.
They can’t prove you didn’t farm it out to a guy on fiverr or have a script running to do half your day’s work in 20 minutes, but what difference does any of that actually make if they get the agreed upon work?
If you can manage 2 40 hour per week jobs and they don't overlap, then no.
If you are working both of them ostensibly for the same hours, the regular M-F work week, then yes, you are stealing from the company as well as lying to them, as you are not giving them the time they think you are.
It is jaw dropping that someone would justify that kind of fraud.
“This is why it’s often better to work as a contractor instead of an employee.”
As a good independent contractor, you can charge as much as you can get and not 8 hours per day.
Who cares as long as the job gets done?
Hire me as a contractor and I do work for you, it doesn’t mean I work for you.
I was employed AND had 2 other jobs. The #1 employer hired me as a “contractor”, so that is what I did. Was rather complicated doing the tax returns, but it was well worth it in the long run.
If you’re claiming to work two full-time jobs in a day, you’d better be working 16 hours/day, or, ethically speaking, you ARE committing fraud. And, of course, most salaried jobs require much more than 8 hours/day.
To minimize dual job activity, require all work to take place at the office. NO work from home, this is the main cause.
Keystroke counter, and sleep time on Microsoft Teams?...
It really depends on the job.
I do electrical distribution design.
I, and only I, design it from start to finish.
If I don’t make the due date, I have zero people I can blame.
Bingo. I do consulting and will work for several clients at the same time during the day. All my customers are aware of it. As long as produce the contracted results on time and on budget everyone is happy. If a customer was to oay me exclusively to be on site for them alone it would be theft if I was working for another customer on their dime. It is sleazy. But honestly, it has never come up since I have been self employed going on 15 years. If I had an employee I paid to work for me and he was working a side gig on my dime it is straight up theft as far as I am concerned.
Homie don’t play dat...
Oh the good old days before the woke Bullcrap took over brilliant comedy. He and his family were among the best comedy performers in history.
"...I don’t think anyone’s talking about not providing the agreed upon services..."
Really? So, if there is a meeting at one of my companies, and a meeting at another of my companies, I am going to make one of them wait and push their deliverable or solution out because they had to reschedule their meeting where I am a necessary resource?
Yes. I am from a different time. This is dishonest. Because while it ISN'T unscrupulous to hold down two or three jobs, you CANNOT rationalize it UNLESS YOU HAVE CLEARED THIS WITH YOUR EMPLOYER IN ADVANCE, which I am certain the people who do this DON'T do.
It is dishonest. Unless your employer is aware this is what you are doing, it is rationalization of blatant dishonesty.
And Jim Carey before going bonkers liberal.
Jaime Foxx as well.
I am not a fan of the “everyone must work from home” mindset. I think it works for a lot of people, and those who it works for, should be given the option if it works for the company as well.
I get to see this close up (and participate in it) and the drop in efficiency is apparent. I think a degree of efficiency drop is acceptable if it improves that work-life balance for people and also works for the company.
And if someone works for two companies and their output is focused on deliverables where a schedule is less important, that may work fine for them too.
The downside is that working from home enables this type of fraud and dishonesty.
And it is clear that there are some people who engage in that.
People can rationalize this until the cows come home, but the bottom line is that unless fully codified contractually and understood by both parties, IT IS DISHONEST, UNSCRUPULOUS, AND THEFT.
But it is true I come from a different time. I come from a time that compels me to give my word, even to companies or people I don’t like or agree with, and follow up with it.
Until they start clearing their plans with me, I feel no need to clear mine with them. As long as the work is done, they should have no issue with how I spend my time. And the work being done includes attendance at all necessary meetings, etc.
You have your principles, and it is apparent those are quite different from mine.
And it is clear that, due to that difference, you and I will disagree on this.
The CEO should take a hard look at his managers. If a worker has enough free time to hold down another job simultaneously, then perhaps he and others in the company are woefully under-occupied and their positions can be consolidated. Ethics issues apart, this sounds like a leadership issue.
I guess we come from the same era then.
I would call it more an issue of perspective than principle, but OK.
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.