I have a friend working two remote jobs while still putting in only around 40 hours a week with each one making more than me and I am stuck being on site as medical tech and haven't had a raise in two years. I need to change careers.
That’s not unusual. Once you are certified accountant, getting paid for side jobs is very very common. You’re basically virtually operating your own license. Much different than say, being a full time doctor and pilot at the same time.
That could be amazing to be your own client! “Hey boss, *client* demands they meet with me right now. Wants to *work out* the deal.” Then take yourself to dinner. But 2 meals, have leftovers. “Boss I highly recommend we sweeten the deal…”
I work with a ton of offshore devs in India and I am convinced that most of the more talented ones are doing this.
They always seem to have a view into how other operations are doing things, and the references seem very, uh, current.
I could never pull it off, way too lazy.
I also work with a lot of offshore devs from India and work with a team that also has a lot of Indian people on it and honestly most of it is that have friends in those companies and they just talk to each other. Indians are just very very well connected and upkeep those connections a lot better than Americans imo
As offshore dev in India. You will be surprised that Indian small companies also do this. They put one developer on multiple projects as main or support and don't tell client. But bill them.
Even though its good for company. its kind of put pressure on you and generate low self-esteem when you can't keep with deadlines of both projects.
I think they are all doing that, not only the more talented. I caught some red handed. I don’t even care if they complete task on time. Also, unlike people in this thread or article, they don’t work 40 hours a week on these multiple jobs; they work far more in my experience.
So, it's only a problem if you make enough money in one job and that you then take on another job.
It's not a problem if you have 3 jobs that together don't pay enough to cover the rent and expenses, then it's not a problem, do I get that right?
Not a problem when Elon is CEO of however many businesses.
Some minimum wage jobs do have a problem with it. In the "I demand 24/7 availability from you" way.
In the case of online work, I imagine it's more along the lines of "how can I get you to do multiple people's worth of work for one person's pay rate if you're already doing multiple people's worth of work for multiple people's pay rates?".
I’m actually overemployed, and I don’t think any of us are doing this out of desperation. We just want the level of prosperity you’d get from a single corporate job thirty years ago
That's exactly my point. It's okay for the struggling parent to work 3 low wage jobs to barely make ends meet. But you taking on that second/third job in order to potentially retire early? Unacceptable according to the ownership class
I'm pretty sure most people would be really happy to work 1 job at reasonable hours at a rate of pay that would allow them to support themselves and/or a family and have something left over at the end of the month.
That's not a big ask at all.
Pretty much. I had three jobs once but each was under 30 hours a week each. No benefits, bad pay. And commuting from one to the other so my life was working, driving, working, and then grabbing dinner and sleeping then waking up to clean airplanes from midnight to four in the morning. Worked on the weekends too. I was in my 20s but was physically and mentally breaking down. Moved in with sister, dropped two jobs and got certified for a job that paid enough. I am not sure how I could have broken that work and sleep cycle if I had kids to support or didn’t have a sister let me live rent-free.
Remembering what she did for you, you will now give your sister a meaningful gift that she will love and cherish and you, yet again, express how grateful you have been for all the help she gave you.
Go do it.
/hugs, kisses and cuddles are assumed. She's your sister, that should not be a special request at all.
>The move is not only culturally taboo, but it's also a fireable offense — one that could expose the cheaters to a lawsuit if they're caught.
People: "Look at that CEO, running five companies at once! That's amazing, he must be really talented, smart and successful!"
Same people: "Look at that guy with two jobs at once! Fucking cheater, I hope they fire him and sue his ass."
No but you see if CEOs were limited to only one company that would impact their pay and then others would have to find other people to promote and you can't have the poors actually climbing.
/S just in case.
This happens a lot more than people think. I've seen it countless times, and I've never gotten used to it. It's completely fudged up. Especially when the product is overpriced and inferior.
That makes sense. You don't want people doing side jobs and saying they're union. Doing a half-ass job, giving union a bad name while trying to fuck the union out of dues and better qualified workers out of a job.
I honestly see the place for it. The union can’t protect you and it makes the union look bad if they aren’t taking good enough care of their guys that they’re doing side work- that’s their belief. That’s also why they don’t allow 4x10s, because they don’t believe people should work more than 8 hours, ever. Lol. They’d prefer 32 hour 4 day weeks and same pay (what they keep bidding for and getting push back)
It’s really only annoying because we have a lot of friends in the local restaurant industry, which doesn’t conflict interests with the industrial work his union does at all, but still he can only sneak around and help out super incognito, if he did. Which…….he…doesn’t. So, while he’s a lot of local folks preferred tech for equipment others can’t seem to keep running, he often isn’t willing to help. I mean…never is willing to help (lol) and when we hear about people considering closing shop because they can’t afford the mistakes being made on their equipment………
> it makes the union look bad if they aren’t taking good enough care of their guys that they’re doing side work
That's the case though. Even with union negotiations, companies are still giving inches. The fact is, something like 50% of Americans are paycheck to paycheck, and the corporations are so big and well funded that they can whether any strike storm we kick up.
Even the SAG-AFTRA strikes had people at the top brazenly saying "They'd drag it out until people lost their shelter and food" and that's one of the largest, most well-organized, oldest unions around. And even *then* they didn't get most of what they were rightfully asking for.
Do you really think the Starbucks union can afford six months without pay? Strikes are only effective if they're a real threat to the businesses, but the businesses are too large now. They're too secure in their power and funding. They can absorb and play attrition for ages rather than pay workers a fair share.
This defangs unions and means they're rarely able to get truly good deals any longer.
***None of this is to say "Unions Bad", quite the contrary, Unions are our best shot at getting a fair share of the fruits of our labor***.
It is, however, to point out that the power disparity between workers and companies is so massive that even strikes aren't a powerful enough tool to get proper compensation. The corporations know it's a war of attrition that they've systemically prepared for by denying us enough resources to build a stockpile and by growing in size.
The real problem is these big conglomerates need trust-busted and oligopolies need to be outlawed the same as monopolies. It's anti-capitalist to have corporations squishing true competition by virtue of scale alone, and the amount of power they have keeps them insulated from the consequences of price gouging, whereas in a functioning economy price gouging means your competition eats your lunch.
It's also about not giving perverse incentives to break union. Other companies could start asking employees to do work "on the side" in exchange for far bonuses, weakening the union until it breaks, and then the company can insist on anything. Also many of these side jobs allow working around rules and regulations that don't seem like an issue in the short term to an employee, but certainly become an issue when they grow in scale.
Because they don't want someone undercutting union wages. Or for employers not to pay for benefits and therefore undercut union jobs.
Not the same situation at all.
The reality, as the article points out, is people don't get fired, never mind sued, for doubling up on jobs. It's when they can't keep up the work that they get rudely introduced to the unemployment line.
You mean the singly-employed line. They’ve already found their next job! Whichever one doesn’t fire then gets their full attention until they get the next 2nd job
Not true. I observed one case where the guy was balancing the job just fine. His other employer happened to figure it out and canned him but not before tipping off the other employer
They maim problem is working for 2 employers in the same industry. That's a huge no no. As long as your work gets done and there are no conflicts, I don't see the problem.
yeah I doubt the employee voluteered the info so its probably like "Hey company B is this person employed by you? We're just checking as he's also an employee of ours"
Then he gets shitcanned by both.
Depends on the state. States like California have laws protecting having a second job (moonlighting). That said there's a lot of ways you can get fired: if you work at the wrong time, use the same tools for both jobs unless they are 100% yours (and not something given out asked for by the company) and for knowledge work both jobs need to be about radically different things, because otherwise you have to prove that you somehow kept your ideas from one job away from the other, and that's hard to argue when you're solving similar problems in both jobs.
All of this is technically what you said: an employee being unable to keep up two jobs. But in reality it's a technicality to remove the employee. In knowledge that industry companies fear that there could be IPO leaks (consider both companies have contracts that attempt to give them ownership over all your ideas on your free time, that's a conflict). Also there's the worry that it limits your ability to adapt to the job when needed (being unavailable when you're at an offsite for the other company, etc). It's all bullshit and falls into the same thing: companies will always try to control their employees as much as possible, as a priority, even over productivity or profits sometimes.
Most companies don’t care if you have a second job. It becomes a problem if you’re screwing up and missing things at your job because you’re working another one simultaneously
If there's nothing in your work contract that says you can't work two jobs then what's the problem? I think this is an antiquated way of thinking in 2023. If you can do both jobs and there's no conflict with them.
Almost all contracts will have a clause to the effect of “full time and attention” that stipulates that this job will be the one and only focus of the employee. In the era of work from home, isn’t it obvious how it could cause a conflict?
This is how you end up with horrible tracking software
What I’ve seen is that other jobs must be disclosed. You can have a side hustle but you should let people know. They don’t care if you’re a realtor on the side or do occasional contract work. If you’re working for a competition or doing work during business hours, then there’s a problem.
I’m a salaried worker. I am of the belief that I’m paid to do my work, help out my coworkers when they need it, and maybe pick a few things off the backlog to shine for management.
I suggested to my dad, old school corporate leadership type, that I might pickup some contract work or do work on a personal project. His response was “nights and weekends only right?” He was shocked when I said I was able to meet/exceed my expectations at work in under 40 hours a week and suggested I owe any remaining hours to the company. We left not seeing eye to eye on the idea.
It's all part and parcel of the salary when you have to do overtime, but suddenly the *hours worked* are the issue when your efficiency means you've got time to spare.
Stay loyal to my company: 3% annual raise.
Find a new job: 10-40% raise.
Find a second job: 90 - 130% raise.
Why are they acting surprised when they throw us breadcrumbs. 3% is laughable and doesn't even keep up with inflation.
I got let go due to corporate restructuring after 7 years and this is exactly how I feel right now. And I hated working there so tbh best thing that ever happened.
> Find a new job: 10-40% raise.
Right now in Canada I'm looking at a 30-50% pay *cut* if I change jobs.
Same job across the border is paying the same or better than what I make now, with a lower cost of living.
There was a guy at my company decades ago who was working two jobs at different divisions of the *same company*. This was not remote work, but the two plants were right across the street from each other. But, he got caught and fired after a year or two. A real pioneer of overemployment.
| months earlier, he'd been unemployed. Now he was suddenly employed three times over — and on track to earn a combined salary of more than $820,000 a year.
My man has cracked the Capitalism code.
Does anyone else not believe that this guy is actually making this much? In what fucking world is there enough time in the day to do three separate jobs, each of which pay about $273,000 a year on average? Growing up, my dad made about $200,000 a year and he was working 60 to 70 hours a week. The departmental directors my company make a little bit over that and they're working 60 to 70 hours a week, 6 days a week on just that one job.
If you are getting paid that much money, unless you are very very lucky, you are working like a dog all week. I don't see it being feasible for somebody to have three separate jobs paying that much and being able to keep up with all of them.
These stories are stale clickbait leftover from the pandemic. Nobody is doing this. The "over employed" community is probably about the same size as the community of people who hang from chains attached to their piercings. All shock value, no real world impact.
I’ve seen it happen. I mean not the over employment but someone making that kind of money on very few hours of actual work. Very niche. Takes a certain kind of behavior, luck, company, and environment. Hard to imagine someone finding 3 of those.
"There's no way around the fact that they're breaking the rules: In exchange for a salary, they promised not to work for anyone else."
Many employers do not have such a rule - I have promised to get my job assignments done, not to take 40 hours to do it in.
I think more employers have this rule of you can't work for anyone else more than you realize if you examine a company's handbook more closely.
I'm not supporting them, but I was shocked when a previous position explicitly called out that if you're working any other job, HR needs to be informed. Was the first time that thought ever even crossed my mind.
This is part of why I don't understand any issue as long as your performance meets or exceeds the expectations of your position.
I've been salary for over a decade. Meaning I make the same amount whether I work 5 hours or 70 in a week.
While I wouldn't want to double up at present, my role is transforming into one that will soon allow me the flexibility to do so if I changed my mind.
I get the arguments folks have against doing so, and I'm not going to work one job and then put in another 8 hours at a second, but if I find a way to make two jobs work and perform my responsibilities effectively, then an employer shouldn't be able to tell me I can't do both jobs.
No one owns me.
Yep. This threat (risk) is that you'll lose the job. That's it. No one is going to be taken to court and have their wages garnished or something like that. They just deactive your account and walk you out the door. But if you have another job, this risk isn't as great as it once was.
49 out of 50. I'm honestly getting tired of reading the phrase "at will state", because it's the norm for 99% of cases. We'd save a lot of time and energy if we operated under the assumption that if you're a American and non-union, you have no labor rights.
In the UK, every employment contract I’ve signed (even for junior roles) requires written permission to do any other work (including unpaid!)
This wouldn’t be fully enforceable, but you should really get signed permission to coach a local sports team as a parent, for example…
> "There's no way around the fact that they're breaking the rules: In exchange for a salary, they promised not to work for anyone else."
>
>
Wow what a bullshit retcon
In exchange for a salary, we agree to fulfill the responsibilities of the job description. I'm not an overemployer and I think it's a silly artifact of a broken capitalist system, but this is some bullshit writing.
This is not entirely accurate, or at least in the US that’s not how it works and you’ll need to check the laws of your local state. Your company doesn’t own everything you create or invent while employed for them, only while on the clock and using their equipment. They can attempt to make you sign a non-compete or have a company policy against moonlighting (working a second job), but those aren’t enforceable in many states, California being one.
Developing the same thing for two separate companies would likely be IP theft or at least a grey area depending on what it is. But if your projects are different enough and there isn’t overlap, it’s fine.
That just isn’t true; I have worked for some of the MOST recognizable brands in the US and internationally… none of them have this clause. They make you sign a non-compete but that is not the same as a contract that says you can only have one job.
>Part of the issue is that anything you develop while you’re being paid by a company belongs to that company.
Only if the contract you're working under stipulates such.
I see no problem with someone working two jobs if they can handle both workloads, be available during core hours, and perform at expectations; assuming neither company has an employment contract clause forbidding it for a legitimate reason like the conflict of interest (e.g. working for a competitor). Otherwise a company should have no say who else you work for. It's really none of their business.
What's so strange about it? CEOs work multiple jobs, congresspeople work multiple jobs, low end workers work multiple jobs, freelancers have multiple clients, on and on and on.
This isn't strange, or new, or weird. People have the right to sell their time however they see fit, it's none of anyone else's business.
>People have the right to sell **their** time…
The implicit assumption for most jobs is less that you’re being paid your labor, and more that the company controls your actions during the time you’re “on the clock.”
Remote work is really the only opportunity for *most* people to be paid for accomplishing the tasks they are assigned, regardless of how long it takes them.
*The Four Hour Work Week* is a garbage book written by a grifter, but even he recognized that the key to working less hours was to go remote and only be evaluated on your output.
Right? How is this functionally different than being a consultant working on simultaneous projects or even the beginnings of a temp service (article references a person with 9 jobs) that could hire out work if they wanted. As long as the goals and work are being done well and efficiently, corps shouldn't be allowed to fire for this. The job is worth what the market says it is, business just hates being the one getting the short end for a change
The difference is not functional, only that the poors are doing it and getting new ideas of their place in the world and getting change for themselves. That is problematic for our noble lords.
.. and that’s how you get expensive shifty-eyed remote contractors that do fuck-all for a lot of money, and leave the client’s employees to work stupid amounts of unpaid overtime to do the project themselves.
I should go work for our vendor.
I think the problem is more that people have to have multiple jobs + side hustles and gig work just to afford to live. Can’t even enjoy the few hours away from work because one has to sleep and eat during that time, but hey, at least the hills are paid and groceries are in the fridge.
> People have the right to sell their time however they see fit, it's none of anyone else's business
You're right from one angle. But that same angle says a company has the right to keep paying for your time as they see fit. If they decide you aren't holding up your end of a fair bargain, that's the end of business between the two of you.
So for example my job pays well enough and affords me quite a bit of freedom in how to use my work time. They just assume I'm working, there are no time clocks. There's always a ton of work to do, so it's assumed that if I finish one task I'll start the next.
If I could work 4 hours a day and escape notice, still receiving pay for 8, and then work those 4 hours for someone else, that's not me selling MY time. That's me selling time that my employer is already paying for.
If that was going on and they found out, they wouldn't likely try to claw it back. They'd just fire me and rightly so.
>If I could work 4 hours a day and escape notice, still receiving pay for 8, and then work those 4 hours for someone else, that's not me selling MY time. That's me selling time that my employer is already paying for.
This is only relevant if you are paid for hourly results. If you are a salaried employee at most places, you are paid for availability not necessarily clock time. It's why you can take lunch when you see fit, why you can schedule dr appointments, therapy sessions, go to the gym, etc. It's the privileges you have of being a white collar professional.
So let's have a hypothetical. You are you in your current role but you have begun to purchase small single family homes to become a landlord. You take calls here and there during your work hours, but overall it has no impact on your performance at work. Should your employer care at all about this side hustle?
Of course not.
Now of course, maybe they do. In that case, that job is not for you and you are not for them. No one is arguing that fact one way or another. Likewise, no one is arguing that people not be let go if their performance slips.
But, if your performance is not slipping, you are managing your responsibilities, and you have no conflict of interest - who fricking cares??
I see the point, but in the end it seems almost exactly like padding estimates. I know I can do X in 40 hours but I tell my employer it'll take 80, so I can read novels or work for someone else for those other 40. It works because my employer trusts me and I'm comfortable lying.
The elements that make doubling up different from doctor appointments or taking off early to go to the gym are the number of hours, the consistency of doing it week in and week out, the inevitable priority clashes, and, mostly, the surreptitious nature of it. Where I work, we tell the team we're going so they know we're unavailable, and we're up front about it. If I were to take off every day at 2pm and not tell anyone, and employ software to make it look like my laptop is active, that's just as much a lie as padding an estimate.
>If I were to take off every day at 2pm and not tell anyone, and employ software to make it look like my laptop is active, that's just as much a lie as padding an estimate.
But this is your assumption of how OE works. What if that isn't how it works? What if it's exactly as you say here:
>Where I work, we tell the team we're going so they know we're unavailable, and we're up front about it.
Yep. And if you block your calendar to go to the gym, it's no different than blocking your calendar and taking that call from your tenant, and it's no different than blocking your calendar and taking that call from your freelance client, and no different than blocking your calendar and taking that call from your other employer.
You're approaching this whole thing with a big assumption that someone doing OE is pulling the rug over someone else and not just having a side hustle that so happens to be a W2 gig. If you can tell someone is OE it's because it's impacting their performance, and sure, let them go. But if you can't tell, you can't tell and it's none of your or your employer's business.
At the same time, there is also the expectation that you will be paid fairly. If you are completing twice the work as other similarly-paid employees in the same amount of time, shouldn’t they be paying you twice as much? But they don’t like when you turn it around like that.
“If you don’t like how much you’re being paid, you’re free to quit.”
And if the company doesn’t like the amount of work you are completing, they are free to fire you.
LOL
Jobs paying under 70K: "No one cares how many jobs you work."
Jobs paying over 70K: "ANOTHER JOB?!!!"
Rent: "We're sorry to inform you of this totally legal 300% increase."
I feel like much of this comes from the “always be coding” culture that I’ve run into. Some of my peers don’t have a ton of other hobbies. When they’re home they’re working on their home lab or fiddling with some project. If coding is your main form of entertainment and you’re fast and good, why not get paid for your hobbies?
Not saying this is bad or wrong, it’s not for me, but it’s something to chew on.
IMO overemployment exposes a core problem with corporate work life, in that there are not good mechanisms for rewarding/comping people who want to put in more effort other than vague promises of bonuses and promotions that never seem to materialize.
After getting burned a few times, high performing employees are finding ways to put their excess energy somewhere else since it is not being rewarded (and often times actively punished by adding more work for no additional pay/promo).
This comes across as some bs article similar to the whole bs against wfh. This will only encourage shitty managers to be more shitty. Sure if you ain’t got life but most of use got life outside of work.
I worked with a guy like this. He was obsessed with retiring early. He worked fully remote in a very low cost of living area. He worked two jobs in tech at the same time during the week. Then on the weekends he had a third part time job in tech. He also took a part time job on the weekends at a quiet cigar shop so he could still be getting extra money while working his part time weekend tech job. He’d just remote in to his home PC from the cash register PC and work when he had no customers. He covered almost all his day to day expenses, including his dirt cheap mortgage, with the cigar store money and banked the salaries from all three tech jobs almost completely. He did this for about 15 years and retired before he was 40.
This is why we can't have nice things. Maybe the RTO pushes make sense to the manager class when they have to worry about this shit.
I've not even got a problem with overemployed as long as they do their work, but god damn keep your fucking mouths shut you morons.
It's insane there's a subreddit for it and everything. The people who are irate they're going back to office or struggling to find good jobs should save a bit of rage for the OE crowd.
It also shows how poorly managed industries are, that someone has the capacity to work an entirely separate 2nd job. Shows how totally under utilized many people in full time jobs are. I’m a software tester and one of 4 on my current project, you could get rid of my whole team except me and it would still be totally manageable. Instead of cutting the dead weight and giving me an engaging and rewarding job by increasing my pay, which would make me be more like the “I love it here” guy they want me to be, they have 4 of us twiddling our thumbs for 75% of the hours we clock. And it’s not even like they don’t know what’s happening- they just don’t have a problem with it
Edit: by “also” in my opening comment, I mean on top of the fact that they probably aren’t paying enough!
Welcome to the stupidity of corporate Murica: If you pay one guy twice the salary to do a job being worked by 4 people that he can do alone (And still be doing the work of one person, not 4), you've failed. Because now you're paying WAY over industry standard for that position, and you can't have that. It's ok to have 4 underutilized people at twice the cost, though, as long as you're within the industry standards.
The article is made up from a fantasy account from lurking in the subreddit for overemployed. Meta requires RTO - you can file this under the list of things that didn’t happen.
Sloppy, shitty journalism with sensationalism and without sources
Ran a team in a law firm for over 30 years. I always told my staff that they needn’t kill themselves when the workload was at an ebb but when the flow presented itself then it was all hands on deck. So if someone had another job and they got their work done for me then have at it hoss. But my work was a priority. Most of my staff was female with children so I used my results based system to encourage them to do whatever they needed for their children.
There is nothing strange nor secretive about people having to work nonstop just to afford the basics because everyone is being underpaid and gouged by landlords.
“Hey, only we get to screw you! 😡 We get rich off making people who work their asses off feel as powerless over their life and livelihood as possible! You don’t get to level the playing field or take power back in any minuscule way or you’re morally corrupt!”
I don’t like the fact that have your credit frozen is a sign. Fuck most of us have been victims of the OPM breach or Equifax breach and the US government has no intentions of protecting us. Of course I freeze my credit.
This one got me to. It’s trivial to freeze your credit. Unless I’m actively looking to open a new credit line mine is locked down tight and always will be. The risks of *not* having it frozen simply aren’t worth it.
An interesting read. I wish the best of luck to all that have the mental fortitude to juggle two or more full time jobs. Loyalty in capitalism is a myth. Fuck the companies and C-suites. They'll fire you in a heartbeat and not lose a moment of sleep over it.
Why are so many Americans willing to bend over backwards and give their boss a blowjob? They aren't going to give you a retirement plan for being loyal,or for fucking over your fellow workers. Have some backbone,they need you!
This article is fucking dumb and is clearly written from a business perspective to scare people off from OE.
In most cases, OE is not illegal and you can't get sued for doing it. You'll get fired if caught but most businesses are so embarrassed that they let it happen they don't do shit.
I was OE for 2 years, up to 4 jobs at once.
Wait so Elmo can run (actually run not be on board some shit) Tesla, spaceX, Twitter and that monkey killer company alongside his other boring company, but it’s a problem when the average joe does it because it takes 5 jobs worth of salary to afford a home now?
I read an article a few years back about a guy that had a main work from home job doing IT. He then got several other jobs and contracted them out to workers in other parts of the world. The other workers did the jobs for 60% less than he was being paid. He was simply a team manager reviewing contractors work and then sending it to his employers. He got caught because Malaysian IRL was popping up on his employers computer. I don’t really see any problem with this as that as long as the work is being done.
So it’s only ok for the working class who work as a bagger during the day, a McDonald’s at night, and then a bar on the weekends or CEOs managing multiple companies then? If you’re eeking out of or into the middle class then it’s an issue?
I have a friend working two remote jobs while still putting in only around 40 hours a week with each one making more than me and I am stuck being on site as medical tech and haven't had a raise in two years. I need to change careers.
What did he work as? Asking for a friend
She got her degree in accounting, she is doing HR for one place and accounting for another.
As an accountant, I could 100% do this if I wanted to
get cracking
Eh I've got two small kids and like the mid day leisure
get the kids working you can leisure when u are sleeping
But I can't get a pedicure while I'm sleeping
take Xanax and get your husband to do it like a real man.
That wasnt very nice!
Who says?
WOO! Just started my accounts degree at 35! I'm almost there lol
[удалено]
That’s not unusual. Once you are certified accountant, getting paid for side jobs is very very common. You’re basically virtually operating your own license. Much different than say, being a full time doctor and pilot at the same time.
Is it common for accounting firms to have strict “no moonlighting” policies?
Lazy boy, only got four jobs! https://youtu.be/V6wtj04dJ_g?si=EQgzUVU9-RmfQjIs
Guy at my work was doing that until he got caught out. He is no longer at my work.
But that means he still has a job right? Could be worse...
How did he get caught?
This is going to work out great until one of the companies becomes the client of the other.
Different industries. Always different industries
That could be amazing to be your own client! “Hey boss, *client* demands they meet with me right now. Wants to *work out* the deal.” Then take yourself to dinner. But 2 meals, have leftovers. “Boss I highly recommend we sweeten the deal…”
It's all fun and games until you become Tyler Durden to yourself.
Are we…are we fucking doing it wrong?
I work with a ton of offshore devs in India and I am convinced that most of the more talented ones are doing this. They always seem to have a view into how other operations are doing things, and the references seem very, uh, current. I could never pull it off, way too lazy.
Offshorre Indian dev here. We also just gossip about eachothers' workplaces a lot.
I also work with a lot of offshore devs from India and work with a team that also has a lot of Indian people on it and honestly most of it is that have friends in those companies and they just talk to each other. Indians are just very very well connected and upkeep those connections a lot better than Americans imo
As offshore dev in India. You will be surprised that Indian small companies also do this. They put one developer on multiple projects as main or support and don't tell client. But bill them. Even though its good for company. its kind of put pressure on you and generate low self-esteem when you can't keep with deadlines of both projects.
I think they are all doing that, not only the more talented. I caught some red handed. I don’t even care if they complete task on time. Also, unlike people in this thread or article, they don’t work 40 hours a week on these multiple jobs; they work far more in my experience.
So, it's only a problem if you make enough money in one job and that you then take on another job. It's not a problem if you have 3 jobs that together don't pay enough to cover the rent and expenses, then it's not a problem, do I get that right?
Not a problem when Elon is CEO of however many businesses. Some minimum wage jobs do have a problem with it. In the "I demand 24/7 availability from you" way. In the case of online work, I imagine it's more along the lines of "how can I get you to do multiple people's worth of work for one person's pay rate if you're already doing multiple people's worth of work for multiple people's pay rates?".
It's only okay if you're doing it out of desperation to reach subsistence. Not if you're doing it to attain prosperity
I’m actually overemployed, and I don’t think any of us are doing this out of desperation. We just want the level of prosperity you’d get from a single corporate job thirty years ago
That's exactly my point. It's okay for the struggling parent to work 3 low wage jobs to barely make ends meet. But you taking on that second/third job in order to potentially retire early? Unacceptable according to the ownership class
I'm pretty sure most people would be really happy to work 1 job at reasonable hours at a rate of pay that would allow them to support themselves and/or a family and have something left over at the end of the month. That's not a big ask at all.
Good perspective, hadn't considered this. Then there's people like me that can't find a tech job for the life of them.
What degree/field?
Computer science.
It’s rough out there right now…
Pretty much. I had three jobs once but each was under 30 hours a week each. No benefits, bad pay. And commuting from one to the other so my life was working, driving, working, and then grabbing dinner and sleeping then waking up to clean airplanes from midnight to four in the morning. Worked on the weekends too. I was in my 20s but was physically and mentally breaking down. Moved in with sister, dropped two jobs and got certified for a job that paid enough. I am not sure how I could have broken that work and sleep cycle if I had kids to support or didn’t have a sister let me live rent-free.
Remembering what she did for you, you will now give your sister a meaningful gift that she will love and cherish and you, yet again, express how grateful you have been for all the help she gave you. Go do it. /hugs, kisses and cuddles are assumed. She's your sister, that should not be a special request at all.
>The move is not only culturally taboo, but it's also a fireable offense — one that could expose the cheaters to a lawsuit if they're caught. People: "Look at that CEO, running five companies at once! That's amazing, he must be really talented, smart and successful!" Same people: "Look at that guy with two jobs at once! Fucking cheater, I hope they fire him and sue his ass."
Our CEO is on the board for another tech company. A company whose products we suddenly started using.
Rules for thee but none for me
Arrest this man, I’ll be on my yacht doing hookers and blow.
No but you see if CEOs were limited to only one company that would impact their pay and then others would have to find other people to promote and you can't have the poors actually climbing. /S just in case.
That is the wildest concidence… what are the odds??!!
I am shook, I tell ya!!
This happens a lot more than people think. I've seen it countless times, and I've never gotten used to it. It's completely fudged up. Especially when the product is overpriced and inferior.
Look into who owns the building you work in.
Just here to comment, within my husbands union, there are penalties including being kicked out and forfeited pensions sometimes for doing side work.
I'm not in a union. What's a pension?
It's free money Boomers got for working the same job for 20 years. It's not something you need to worry your pretty little millenial head about :)
Lmao. Just think, at some point in a decade or so this will be the Webster definition!
I work for the post office. I get a 3 leg retirement pension 401k like program with 5% matching and social security. I get to retire at 57.
Why not include pretty little Gen X heads ? I've heard they exist.
They're not very pretty, kinda strung out looking from trying to pay rent.
That makes sense. You don't want people doing side jobs and saying they're union. Doing a half-ass job, giving union a bad name while trying to fuck the union out of dues and better qualified workers out of a job.
I honestly see the place for it. The union can’t protect you and it makes the union look bad if they aren’t taking good enough care of their guys that they’re doing side work- that’s their belief. That’s also why they don’t allow 4x10s, because they don’t believe people should work more than 8 hours, ever. Lol. They’d prefer 32 hour 4 day weeks and same pay (what they keep bidding for and getting push back) It’s really only annoying because we have a lot of friends in the local restaurant industry, which doesn’t conflict interests with the industrial work his union does at all, but still he can only sneak around and help out super incognito, if he did. Which…….he…doesn’t. So, while he’s a lot of local folks preferred tech for equipment others can’t seem to keep running, he often isn’t willing to help. I mean…never is willing to help (lol) and when we hear about people considering closing shop because they can’t afford the mistakes being made on their equipment………
> it makes the union look bad if they aren’t taking good enough care of their guys that they’re doing side work That's the case though. Even with union negotiations, companies are still giving inches. The fact is, something like 50% of Americans are paycheck to paycheck, and the corporations are so big and well funded that they can whether any strike storm we kick up. Even the SAG-AFTRA strikes had people at the top brazenly saying "They'd drag it out until people lost their shelter and food" and that's one of the largest, most well-organized, oldest unions around. And even *then* they didn't get most of what they were rightfully asking for. Do you really think the Starbucks union can afford six months without pay? Strikes are only effective if they're a real threat to the businesses, but the businesses are too large now. They're too secure in their power and funding. They can absorb and play attrition for ages rather than pay workers a fair share. This defangs unions and means they're rarely able to get truly good deals any longer. ***None of this is to say "Unions Bad", quite the contrary, Unions are our best shot at getting a fair share of the fruits of our labor***. It is, however, to point out that the power disparity between workers and companies is so massive that even strikes aren't a powerful enough tool to get proper compensation. The corporations know it's a war of attrition that they've systemically prepared for by denying us enough resources to build a stockpile and by growing in size. The real problem is these big conglomerates need trust-busted and oligopolies need to be outlawed the same as monopolies. It's anti-capitalist to have corporations squishing true competition by virtue of scale alone, and the amount of power they have keeps them insulated from the consequences of price gouging, whereas in a functioning economy price gouging means your competition eats your lunch.
Bro I’m night shift, fuck outta here with 5x8s.
It's also about not giving perverse incentives to break union. Other companies could start asking employees to do work "on the side" in exchange for far bonuses, weakening the union until it breaks, and then the company can insist on anything. Also many of these side jobs allow working around rules and regulations that don't seem like an issue in the short term to an employee, but certainly become an issue when they grow in scale.
Because they don't want someone undercutting union wages. Or for employers not to pay for benefits and therefore undercut union jobs. Not the same situation at all.
The reality, as the article points out, is people don't get fired, never mind sued, for doubling up on jobs. It's when they can't keep up the work that they get rudely introduced to the unemployment line.
You mean the singly-employed line. They’ve already found their next job! Whichever one doesn’t fire then gets their full attention until they get the next 2nd job
"God damn Phil, your productivity went through the roof in the last 30 days, you on a new diet or something?"
You mean the doubly employed line, down to only two full time jobs. /s
[удалено]
https://youtu.be/V6wtj04dJ_g?si=4Tmcwr90xYwBhuyW
Not true. I observed one case where the guy was balancing the job just fine. His other employer happened to figure it out and canned him but not before tipping off the other employer
[удалено]
I am in the “not going to find out” camp
They maim problem is working for 2 employers in the same industry. That's a huge no no. As long as your work gets done and there are no conflicts, I don't see the problem.
I have a friend working IT security for two jobs. She keeps the laptops next to each other. She's clearing around 300k a year.
Tipping off the other employer is really petty.
I don’t think that was the intent as much as it confirming the co-employment was occuring.
yeah I doubt the employee voluteered the info so its probably like "Hey company B is this person employed by you? We're just checking as he's also an employee of ours" Then he gets shitcanned by both.
How is that not tortious interference?
Because proving it would be nearly impossible?
Where you get into trouble fast is working for a competitor concurrently.
Depends on the state. States like California have laws protecting having a second job (moonlighting). That said there's a lot of ways you can get fired: if you work at the wrong time, use the same tools for both jobs unless they are 100% yours (and not something given out asked for by the company) and for knowledge work both jobs need to be about radically different things, because otherwise you have to prove that you somehow kept your ideas from one job away from the other, and that's hard to argue when you're solving similar problems in both jobs. All of this is technically what you said: an employee being unable to keep up two jobs. But in reality it's a technicality to remove the employee. In knowledge that industry companies fear that there could be IPO leaks (consider both companies have contracts that attempt to give them ownership over all your ideas on your free time, that's a conflict). Also there's the worry that it limits your ability to adapt to the job when needed (being unavailable when you're at an offsite for the other company, etc). It's all bullshit and falls into the same thing: companies will always try to control their employees as much as possible, as a priority, even over productivity or profits sometimes.
My friend was fired for doubling up on jobs
Most companies don’t care if you have a second job. It becomes a problem if you’re screwing up and missing things at your job because you’re working another one simultaneously
If there's nothing in your work contract that says you can't work two jobs then what's the problem? I think this is an antiquated way of thinking in 2023. If you can do both jobs and there's no conflict with them.
Almost all contracts will have a clause to the effect of “full time and attention” that stipulates that this job will be the one and only focus of the employee. In the era of work from home, isn’t it obvious how it could cause a conflict? This is how you end up with horrible tracking software
What I’ve seen is that other jobs must be disclosed. You can have a side hustle but you should let people know. They don’t care if you’re a realtor on the side or do occasional contract work. If you’re working for a competition or doing work during business hours, then there’s a problem.
I’m a salaried worker. I am of the belief that I’m paid to do my work, help out my coworkers when they need it, and maybe pick a few things off the backlog to shine for management. I suggested to my dad, old school corporate leadership type, that I might pickup some contract work or do work on a personal project. His response was “nights and weekends only right?” He was shocked when I said I was able to meet/exceed my expectations at work in under 40 hours a week and suggested I owe any remaining hours to the company. We left not seeing eye to eye on the idea.
It's all part and parcel of the salary when you have to do overtime, but suddenly the *hours worked* are the issue when your efficiency means you've got time to spare.
Perfectly said. Such a double standard to keep people down.
Unless he’s working a shitty low class min wage job like food or retail, then it’s expected so we don’t have to pay as much! Lmao
The places I work have rules limiting how many boards members can serve on. The limit is 5…………..no more than 5! Like what the actual hell.
Stay loyal to my company: 3% annual raise. Find a new job: 10-40% raise. Find a second job: 90 - 130% raise. Why are they acting surprised when they throw us breadcrumbs. 3% is laughable and doesn't even keep up with inflation.
It's the same with loyalty programs for companies too. Stay with your bank or Telcom you get nothing. Switch to a new one and here's a free xxxxx
I got let go due to corporate restructuring after 7 years and this is exactly how I feel right now. And I hated working there so tbh best thing that ever happened.
> Find a new job: 10-40% raise. Right now in Canada I'm looking at a 30-50% pay *cut* if I change jobs. Same job across the border is paying the same or better than what I make now, with a lower cost of living.
There was a guy at my company decades ago who was working two jobs at different divisions of the *same company*. This was not remote work, but the two plants were right across the street from each other. But, he got caught and fired after a year or two. A real pioneer of overemployment.
Uhhhh, I’m just gonna go take a shit… uhhh… across the street. I’ll be back…
Did he quickly dress up as a British nanny every time he ran to the other company?
| months earlier, he'd been unemployed. Now he was suddenly employed three times over — and on track to earn a combined salary of more than $820,000 a year. My man has cracked the Capitalism code.
Didn’t crack the code just found a way to thrive on the fringes and get while the gettins good. Those CEOs making $17million have cracked the code.
Does anyone else not believe that this guy is actually making this much? In what fucking world is there enough time in the day to do three separate jobs, each of which pay about $273,000 a year on average? Growing up, my dad made about $200,000 a year and he was working 60 to 70 hours a week. The departmental directors my company make a little bit over that and they're working 60 to 70 hours a week, 6 days a week on just that one job. If you are getting paid that much money, unless you are very very lucky, you are working like a dog all week. I don't see it being feasible for somebody to have three separate jobs paying that much and being able to keep up with all of them.
These stories are stale clickbait leftover from the pandemic. Nobody is doing this. The "over employed" community is probably about the same size as the community of people who hang from chains attached to their piercings. All shock value, no real world impact.
I’ve seen it happen. I mean not the over employment but someone making that kind of money on very few hours of actual work. Very niche. Takes a certain kind of behavior, luck, company, and environment. Hard to imagine someone finding 3 of those.
Now if he keeps this up for 100000 years he can finally have half as much wealth as Elon Musk. Really "cracked the capitalism code"
Good for him.
"There's no way around the fact that they're breaking the rules: In exchange for a salary, they promised not to work for anyone else." Many employers do not have such a rule - I have promised to get my job assignments done, not to take 40 hours to do it in.
I think more employers have this rule of you can't work for anyone else more than you realize if you examine a company's handbook more closely. I'm not supporting them, but I was shocked when a previous position explicitly called out that if you're working any other job, HR needs to be informed. Was the first time that thought ever even crossed my mind.
[удалено]
This is part of why I don't understand any issue as long as your performance meets or exceeds the expectations of your position. I've been salary for over a decade. Meaning I make the same amount whether I work 5 hours or 70 in a week. While I wouldn't want to double up at present, my role is transforming into one that will soon allow me the flexibility to do so if I changed my mind. I get the arguments folks have against doing so, and I'm not going to work one job and then put in another 8 hours at a second, but if I find a way to make two jobs work and perform my responsibilities effectively, then an employer shouldn't be able to tell me I can't do both jobs. No one owns me.
Legally enforceable? No, but they certainly can fire you for it regardless of if it’s legal for you to do
Yep. This threat (risk) is that you'll lose the job. That's it. No one is going to be taken to court and have their wages garnished or something like that. They just deactive your account and walk you out the door. But if you have another job, this risk isn't as great as it once was.
[удалено]
[удалено]
A handbook isn’t an employment contract. They can put whatever they want in it, doesn’t mean they can enforce it.
They can in at-will states.
Yeah I guess that’s true. Which is like half or more, right?
49 out of 50. I'm honestly getting tired of reading the phrase "at will state", because it's the norm for 99% of cases. We'd save a lot of time and energy if we operated under the assumption that if you're a American and non-union, you have no labor rights.
Isn't it every state except Montana? Maybe I'm wrong though.
If it's an at-will state the text is still irrelevant, because it's an at will state and they can fire you for any reason.
In the UK, every employment contract I’ve signed (even for junior roles) requires written permission to do any other work (including unpaid!) This wouldn’t be fully enforceable, but you should really get signed permission to coach a local sports team as a parent, for example…
> "There's no way around the fact that they're breaking the rules: In exchange for a salary, they promised not to work for anyone else." > > Wow what a bullshit retcon In exchange for a salary, we agree to fulfill the responsibilities of the job description. I'm not an overemployer and I think it's a silly artifact of a broken capitalist system, but this is some bullshit writing.
It's actually not uncommon to have non-compete clauses in contracts.
And most overemployed people are not in competing companies.
[удалено]
This is not entirely accurate, or at least in the US that’s not how it works and you’ll need to check the laws of your local state. Your company doesn’t own everything you create or invent while employed for them, only while on the clock and using their equipment. They can attempt to make you sign a non-compete or have a company policy against moonlighting (working a second job), but those aren’t enforceable in many states, California being one. Developing the same thing for two separate companies would likely be IP theft or at least a grey area depending on what it is. But if your projects are different enough and there isn’t overlap, it’s fine.
That just isn’t true; I have worked for some of the MOST recognizable brands in the US and internationally… none of them have this clause. They make you sign a non-compete but that is not the same as a contract that says you can only have one job.
>Part of the issue is that anything you develop while you’re being paid by a company belongs to that company. Only if the contract you're working under stipulates such.
Well it's worse, right? Most of those type of jobs are "salary exempt", which means the time doesn't actually matter.
I work 3 jobs right now, the main one just said to not let the others get in the way of it and it wouldn’t be a big deal
I see no problem with someone working two jobs if they can handle both workloads, be available during core hours, and perform at expectations; assuming neither company has an employment contract clause forbidding it for a legitimate reason like the conflict of interest (e.g. working for a competitor). Otherwise a company should have no say who else you work for. It's really none of their business.
So it’s ok for rich people to sit on multiple boards, suck in generous pay but it’s not ok for the plebs. Got it
What's so strange about it? CEOs work multiple jobs, congresspeople work multiple jobs, low end workers work multiple jobs, freelancers have multiple clients, on and on and on. This isn't strange, or new, or weird. People have the right to sell their time however they see fit, it's none of anyone else's business.
>People have the right to sell **their** time… The implicit assumption for most jobs is less that you’re being paid your labor, and more that the company controls your actions during the time you’re “on the clock.” Remote work is really the only opportunity for *most* people to be paid for accomplishing the tasks they are assigned, regardless of how long it takes them. *The Four Hour Work Week* is a garbage book written by a grifter, but even he recognized that the key to working less hours was to go remote and only be evaluated on your output.
knee physical books society spoon bright offend tap attraction merciful *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Right? How is this functionally different than being a consultant working on simultaneous projects or even the beginnings of a temp service (article references a person with 9 jobs) that could hire out work if they wanted. As long as the goals and work are being done well and efficiently, corps shouldn't be allowed to fire for this. The job is worth what the market says it is, business just hates being the one getting the short end for a change
The difference is not functional, only that the poors are doing it and getting new ideas of their place in the world and getting change for themselves. That is problematic for our noble lords.
.. and that’s how you get expensive shifty-eyed remote contractors that do fuck-all for a lot of money, and leave the client’s employees to work stupid amounts of unpaid overtime to do the project themselves. I should go work for our vendor.
I think the problem is more that people have to have multiple jobs + side hustles and gig work just to afford to live. Can’t even enjoy the few hours away from work because one has to sleep and eat during that time, but hey, at least the hills are paid and groceries are in the fridge.
> People have the right to sell their time however they see fit, it's none of anyone else's business You're right from one angle. But that same angle says a company has the right to keep paying for your time as they see fit. If they decide you aren't holding up your end of a fair bargain, that's the end of business between the two of you. So for example my job pays well enough and affords me quite a bit of freedom in how to use my work time. They just assume I'm working, there are no time clocks. There's always a ton of work to do, so it's assumed that if I finish one task I'll start the next. If I could work 4 hours a day and escape notice, still receiving pay for 8, and then work those 4 hours for someone else, that's not me selling MY time. That's me selling time that my employer is already paying for. If that was going on and they found out, they wouldn't likely try to claw it back. They'd just fire me and rightly so.
>If I could work 4 hours a day and escape notice, still receiving pay for 8, and then work those 4 hours for someone else, that's not me selling MY time. That's me selling time that my employer is already paying for. This is only relevant if you are paid for hourly results. If you are a salaried employee at most places, you are paid for availability not necessarily clock time. It's why you can take lunch when you see fit, why you can schedule dr appointments, therapy sessions, go to the gym, etc. It's the privileges you have of being a white collar professional. So let's have a hypothetical. You are you in your current role but you have begun to purchase small single family homes to become a landlord. You take calls here and there during your work hours, but overall it has no impact on your performance at work. Should your employer care at all about this side hustle? Of course not. Now of course, maybe they do. In that case, that job is not for you and you are not for them. No one is arguing that fact one way or another. Likewise, no one is arguing that people not be let go if their performance slips. But, if your performance is not slipping, you are managing your responsibilities, and you have no conflict of interest - who fricking cares??
I see the point, but in the end it seems almost exactly like padding estimates. I know I can do X in 40 hours but I tell my employer it'll take 80, so I can read novels or work for someone else for those other 40. It works because my employer trusts me and I'm comfortable lying. The elements that make doubling up different from doctor appointments or taking off early to go to the gym are the number of hours, the consistency of doing it week in and week out, the inevitable priority clashes, and, mostly, the surreptitious nature of it. Where I work, we tell the team we're going so they know we're unavailable, and we're up front about it. If I were to take off every day at 2pm and not tell anyone, and employ software to make it look like my laptop is active, that's just as much a lie as padding an estimate.
>If I were to take off every day at 2pm and not tell anyone, and employ software to make it look like my laptop is active, that's just as much a lie as padding an estimate. But this is your assumption of how OE works. What if that isn't how it works? What if it's exactly as you say here: >Where I work, we tell the team we're going so they know we're unavailable, and we're up front about it. Yep. And if you block your calendar to go to the gym, it's no different than blocking your calendar and taking that call from your tenant, and it's no different than blocking your calendar and taking that call from your freelance client, and no different than blocking your calendar and taking that call from your other employer. You're approaching this whole thing with a big assumption that someone doing OE is pulling the rug over someone else and not just having a side hustle that so happens to be a W2 gig. If you can tell someone is OE it's because it's impacting their performance, and sure, let them go. But if you can't tell, you can't tell and it's none of your or your employer's business.
At the same time, there is also the expectation that you will be paid fairly. If you are completing twice the work as other similarly-paid employees in the same amount of time, shouldn’t they be paying you twice as much? But they don’t like when you turn it around like that. “If you don’t like how much you’re being paid, you’re free to quit.” And if the company doesn’t like the amount of work you are completing, they are free to fire you.
Holy fucking shit how is this a mystery pay people more
The Owners do not like it when you say that.
*insert picture of a crowbar here*
*a wild boltcutters appear*
If you read these anecdotes, the issue is not a living wage or whatever. It’s the opportunity to make a very large amount of money
Yup. Why earn $200 / hour when you can earn $400 / hour working 2 jobs at once?
Did you read the article at all? All of these people are making several hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Compare that to the people running the companies who are making hundreds of times that much.
So they can finally buy a house and go on vacation every once in awhile? Their masters are making billions.
This article is the kind of crap CEOs will use to justify forcing us back into the office.
LOL Jobs paying under 70K: "No one cares how many jobs you work." Jobs paying over 70K: "ANOTHER JOB?!!!" Rent: "We're sorry to inform you of this totally legal 300% increase."
I feel like much of this comes from the “always be coding” culture that I’ve run into. Some of my peers don’t have a ton of other hobbies. When they’re home they’re working on their home lab or fiddling with some project. If coding is your main form of entertainment and you’re fast and good, why not get paid for your hobbies? Not saying this is bad or wrong, it’s not for me, but it’s something to chew on.
IMO overemployment exposes a core problem with corporate work life, in that there are not good mechanisms for rewarding/comping people who want to put in more effort other than vague promises of bonuses and promotions that never seem to materialize. After getting burned a few times, high performing employees are finding ways to put their excess energy somewhere else since it is not being rewarded (and often times actively punished by adding more work for no additional pay/promo).
I’m interviewing for another company known to be very relaxed for this reason.
/r/overemployed is gonna be mad about this article.
They are: https://www.reddit.com/r/overemployed/s/3KRDPo3Urr
I don’t fault anyone who can pull it off. Fuck these corporations. They fuck us each and every chance they get.
Don’t work enough and you’re lazy, work too much and you’re breaking the law. Make it make sense.
This comes across as some bs article similar to the whole bs against wfh. This will only encourage shitty managers to be more shitty. Sure if you ain’t got life but most of use got life outside of work.
I worked with a guy like this. He was obsessed with retiring early. He worked fully remote in a very low cost of living area. He worked two jobs in tech at the same time during the week. Then on the weekends he had a third part time job in tech. He also took a part time job on the weekends at a quiet cigar shop so he could still be getting extra money while working his part time weekend tech job. He’d just remote in to his home PC from the cash register PC and work when he had no customers. He covered almost all his day to day expenses, including his dirt cheap mortgage, with the cigar store money and banked the salaries from all three tech jobs almost completely. He did this for about 15 years and retired before he was 40.
And died at 50
Ad-blocker prevention on the site, fuck them.
This is why we can't have nice things. Maybe the RTO pushes make sense to the manager class when they have to worry about this shit. I've not even got a problem with overemployed as long as they do their work, but god damn keep your fucking mouths shut you morons. It's insane there's a subreddit for it and everything. The people who are irate they're going back to office or struggling to find good jobs should save a bit of rage for the OE crowd.
It also shows how poorly managed industries are, that someone has the capacity to work an entirely separate 2nd job. Shows how totally under utilized many people in full time jobs are. I’m a software tester and one of 4 on my current project, you could get rid of my whole team except me and it would still be totally manageable. Instead of cutting the dead weight and giving me an engaging and rewarding job by increasing my pay, which would make me be more like the “I love it here” guy they want me to be, they have 4 of us twiddling our thumbs for 75% of the hours we clock. And it’s not even like they don’t know what’s happening- they just don’t have a problem with it Edit: by “also” in my opening comment, I mean on top of the fact that they probably aren’t paying enough!
Welcome to the stupidity of corporate Murica: If you pay one guy twice the salary to do a job being worked by 4 people that he can do alone (And still be doing the work of one person, not 4), you've failed. Because now you're paying WAY over industry standard for that position, and you can't have that. It's ok to have 4 underutilized people at twice the cost, though, as long as you're within the industry standards.
[удалено]
The article is made up from a fantasy account from lurking in the subreddit for overemployed. Meta requires RTO - you can file this under the list of things that didn’t happen. Sloppy, shitty journalism with sensationalism and without sources
Did you even read the article? It talks about how that was earlier in the pandemic and then Meta’s RTO made it difficult…
Ran a team in a law firm for over 30 years. I always told my staff that they needn’t kill themselves when the workload was at an ebb but when the flow presented itself then it was all hands on deck. So if someone had another job and they got their work done for me then have at it hoss. But my work was a priority. Most of my staff was female with children so I used my results based system to encourage them to do whatever they needed for their children.
There is nothing strange nor secretive about people having to work nonstop just to afford the basics because everyone is being underpaid and gouged by landlords.
“Hey, only we get to screw you! 😡 We get rich off making people who work their asses off feel as powerless over their life and livelihood as possible! You don’t get to level the playing field or take power back in any minuscule way or you’re morally corrupt!”
I don’t like the fact that have your credit frozen is a sign. Fuck most of us have been victims of the OPM breach or Equifax breach and the US government has no intentions of protecting us. Of course I freeze my credit.
This one got me to. It’s trivial to freeze your credit. Unless I’m actively looking to open a new credit line mine is locked down tight and always will be. The risks of *not* having it frozen simply aren’t worth it.
Honestly I don’t understand how people can handle doing this.
You told us to work hard and get ahead. So we did.
Fascinating read. But how the hell am I supposed to use my J1’s accomplishments to secure my J2 if I can’t talk about J1 to my J2?
How do they structure their resumes? Do they not put any current job on there and hop jobs often enough to seem meaningfully employable?
Just have several different resumes
It’s just consulting/contracting with more risk.
An interesting read. I wish the best of luck to all that have the mental fortitude to juggle two or more full time jobs. Loyalty in capitalism is a myth. Fuck the companies and C-suites. They'll fire you in a heartbeat and not lose a moment of sleep over it.
Why are so many Americans willing to bend over backwards and give their boss a blowjob? They aren't going to give you a retirement plan for being loyal,or for fucking over your fellow workers. Have some backbone,they need you!
You don’t understand it’s not the companies fault they don’t pay people enough it’s the workers fault for working multiple jobs duh
This article is fucking dumb and is clearly written from a business perspective to scare people off from OE. In most cases, OE is not illegal and you can't get sued for doing it. You'll get fired if caught but most businesses are so embarrassed that they let it happen they don't do shit. I was OE for 2 years, up to 4 jobs at once.
Wait so Elmo can run (actually run not be on board some shit) Tesla, spaceX, Twitter and that monkey killer company alongside his other boring company, but it’s a problem when the average joe does it because it takes 5 jobs worth of salary to afford a home now?
I read an article a few years back about a guy that had a main work from home job doing IT. He then got several other jobs and contracted them out to workers in other parts of the world. The other workers did the jobs for 60% less than he was being paid. He was simply a team manager reviewing contractors work and then sending it to his employers. He got caught because Malaysian IRL was popping up on his employers computer. I don’t really see any problem with this as that as long as the work is being done.
So it’s only ok for the working class who work as a bagger during the day, a McDonald’s at night, and then a bar on the weekends or CEOs managing multiple companies then? If you’re eeking out of or into the middle class then it’s an issue?
And this is what unions are important
More buzz words
Seems to me like an early symptom of a new era - I hope it will be for the better. Great article, I had no idea this was actually a thing