Couldn’t you just pay them enough so that they don’t need a second job?
It shouldn't matter if people work multiple jobs. The former VP of HR at Microsoft shares how to react to double dippers — 'get over it.'
Submitted 1 year ago by SeaJ@lemm.ee to technology@lemmy.world
https://money.yahoo.com/shouldnt-matter-people-multiple-jobs-100401522.html
Comments
starlord@lemm.ee 1 year ago
kirk781@lemm.ee 1 year ago
The article also quotes
to “cheat” the system
As if people working two jobs are stealing and not working in exchange for proper value of money.
awesome357@lemmynsfw.com 1 year ago
It’s because the system is designed to keep us paid just enough to live and keep buying from companies, but not enough to have true independence. Working two jobs is cheating that system by giving you more money and freedom than they want you to have. Once you have financial security you can start to wonder about how fucked up this “system” truly is.
EatATaco@lemm.ee 1 year ago
I don’t follow. If you’re claiming you’re putting 40 hours of work in a week, or that is what your contract says, and you’re really only doing 20 because you’re splitting it between two jobs…isn’t that obviously cheating the system?
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t give a shit if people take advantage of a corporation to milk it for cash, but it seems to me to be pretty clearly cheating the system. If you want to get paid on what you produce, and not the time you put in, then you should structure your contracts that I way. I know a lot of my side work I don’t bill hourly precisely because I know it can be done quickly ( for me with experience) but it’s worth more to them.
scarabic@lemmy.world 1 year ago
It really should depend on the role. If part of your job is being available for inbound requests, or participating in group work of some kind, it seems reasonable to expect that during the business day you will be available and not randomly tied up with other commitments. It would be hard to have two such jobs.
If it’s a task completion kind of job then it shouldn’t matter exactly when the tasks get done as long as they get done.
But you should be able to have one “high availablility” job and one “task completion” job at the same time because your tasks can always be set aside if you are needed. Or two task completion jobs, for the same reason.
bezerker03@lemmy.bezzie.world 1 year ago
Most of these people are over paid actually. Making without stock over 150k and then around the same in RSUs or more.
The issue is many folks were only doing like 3 or 4 hr a day and then double dipped to collect another paycheck because they had the time to. I don’t necessarily fault them.
Friend of mine intentionally took a boring bank job making like 50k less than he was making (so around $125k a yr) so he could coast as a high performer there then planned and did find another gig in Pacific time (were east Coast) and then pulled two checks and still only worked like 42 hr a week.
This is the true reason there making work from home optional.
iquanyin@lemmy.world 1 year ago
so they should just sit and stare if they’ve finished their work? don’t be absurd, please. the whole system is way past its due date. our society needs to scrap it and start over. and i mean human society. the world, our species. the one we have now if fast leading us to extinction, along with most of the other creatures on earth. what he says isn’t the way, but it’s better than harassing people for doing more work when they finish their first job.
reksas@sopuli.xyz 1 year ago
Why would they ever do that? Only reason they would even consider such thing if if they are forced or if it somehow directly benefits them short-term. Maybe not even short-term because not doing so helps keeping people suppressed and lessens any threats to them.
AlecSadler@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I mean, yes-ish? My friend has 5 and makes way more than any one job would ever be willing to pay.
More power to him. Is he burning bridges? Probably. Is he banking a ton of money? Yeah. Is anyone getting hurt? Not really, he gets his asks done and that’s that - I’m not about to feel bad for a megacorp grossing hundreds of millions to billions a year.
phillaholic@lemm.ee 1 year ago
That smells like BS. No one can work 5 full time jobs and not be committing fraud somehow. Paying someone overseas to do the work, plagiarizing it, submitting the same work to more than 1 of them etc.
pdxfed@lemmy.world 1 year ago
If someone is completing what you ask of them, the ONLY reason anyone would ever care about what they do with their time is ego. But muh underlings! But muh meeting attendees! But muh sense of power!
Dinosaur companies will continue to suffer as they should.
SeaJ@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Reminds me of the CEO who said working for a company should be viewed as a team sport and you should not help out another team. All while he is on the board of another company. Can’t remember which CEO it was.
theneverfox@pawb.social 1 year ago
I think it sounds way worse when you distill it.
They want the power to take away your livelihood
phillaholic@lemm.ee 1 year ago
If you do everything you need to, are responsive to all communication, participate in group meetings, contribute to the business like everyone else I wouldn’t know you have a second job and therefore wouldn’t care. But this is a fake narrative because it’s impossible to do that for two jobs at once. If it’s not my company it’s the other one that’s being neglected. For certain projects work can be divided evenly, but when there are deadlines some people end up doing more otherwise we miss the deadline. So if one worker is slower the only alternative is fire them and that’s not really something I want to do just because someone isn’t as fast as something if they turn in good work. However if the reason it takes them so long is they are taking other work that’s a completely different story.
Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 1 year ago
Finally someone with authority says it!
Nobody would complain about a freelancer with multiple clients, even at the same time, provided they got their work done on time and on budget. Why isn’t it the same for employees? Why do bosses get to treat them like clients from hell?
CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 1 year ago
I’m not saying they’re justified in this, because frankly if someone is getting their work done, what they do outside of work hours isnt their boss’s business, but I can kinda imagine why a company might not like their employees to have a second job; people only have so much effort to give (consider all those stats people bring up whenever people talk about shortening the workweek, to the effect that working more hours diminishes productivity per hour and gives diminishing or even negative returns compared to fewer hours in many cases) and so a company might decide that an employee with a second job might not be as productive for them as they would be otherwise, due to being exhausted. Though really, if they do it’s honestly the company’s fault for paying so little as for someone to need a second job in the first place.
Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 1 year ago
CEOs and executives do this regularly, so unless their jobs are a lot simpler than they're claiming the "attention" argument is moot. They pay me to do a thing. I do the thing. They pay me what they'd say they'd pay. That's it.
lolcatnip@reddthat.com 1 year ago
FWIW, Microsoft explicitly allows having multiple jobs. Their policy basically amounts to “don’t cross the streams”.
Contend6248@feddit.de 1 year ago
Their employees doing the absolute minimum would explain some things
AlecSadler@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Really? Brb, getting job at Microsoft…
iquanyin@lemmy.world 1 year ago
they aren’t “double dipping.” that phrase means “taking more than you are allowed.” having a second job is just having a second job. the person writing the title either is tone def or doesn’t agree with the article.
FaeDrifter@midwest.social 1 year ago
The double dipping is referring to doing both jobs simultaneously. Like two remote jobs and you have both work laptops open, so between two jobs you can work 40 hours per week but be paid for 80. It’s distinctly different from clocking in for one job, then clocking out and going to another job and clocking in for that job.
NoSpiritAnimal@lemmy.world 1 year ago
If both sets of 40 hours are meeting goals then the company can shut the fuck up, morally speaking.
MondayToFriday@lemmy.ca 1 year ago
What if a compile job takes a long time? Would that be a good reason to context switch?
echodot@feddit.uk 1 year ago
Yeah but the alternative is that I spend the rest of the time on on here. If the company aren’t keeping me busy that’s their problem
Kodemystic@lemmy.kodemystic.dev 1 year ago
The real question is why do people need 2 jobs? If its just ambition or wtv then ok, but if its out of the need to pay the bills and just get by, why is it happening? Or course its convenient for this mfers to say that. Better have people working multiple jobs to get by and keep their mouth shut then having them rebeling, joinin unions, protesting and so on.
SeaJ@lemm.ee 1 year ago
He is specifically talking about people who are able to work from home who are generally employed full time. However he does point to workers who absolutely need to work two jobs to make ends meet as a reason why it should be viewed as okay. That is definitely problematic. Those people working two jobs just to live would definitely prefer to work just one.
ComradeKhoumrag@infosec.pub 1 year ago
I have a job where the unspoken agreement is they under pay you but you get to underwork proportionally to your favor. I’m more ambitious so I spend the free time on more work. I wouldn’t be surprised if this is more of a benefit to software people than most workers
phillaholic@lemm.ee 1 year ago
The type of worker that article is talking about don’t. They are making $250,000 per job. People making too little to live off largely don’t have jobs that you would lie about working 2 at the same time.
reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 1 year ago
double dipper
I wanna laser focus in on this phrase in particular because I think it’s bullshit. No one is double dipping, no one’s getting paid twice to do one job. You do a job, it’s to the satisfaction of your employer, they pay you. That is and has always been the deal. If I can do two jobs to the satisfaction of two employers I deserve and am entitled to two paychecks.
LoamImprovement@ttrpg.network 1 year ago
Yeah but employers want to be the only party who can have their cake and eat it by giving one person the work of three people and calling them ‘cross-trained.’
xenoclast@lemmy.world 1 year ago
The way employers work. There is no such thing as satisfied. By definition they want every single ounce of your existence to be spent on their enrichment. I’m pretty certain salaries were invented as a mental wedge to expect more and more for the same money.
phillaholic@lemm.ee 1 year ago
I think there are two different scenarios being conflated here. Having two jobs where you work 1, then work the other is overall fine. The issue is when you have two jobs that you work during the same time, in other words you work for both companies from 9-5 unbeknownst to those employers. If you’d like to do that you need to be an independent contractor or form your own company and do contracted work where the terms are entirely different between you and the company you do work for.
Ultraviolet@lemmy.world 1 year ago
If you’re getting the work done for both jobs, what’s the problem? If they want to double your workload, they can pay you double.
reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Im not conflating anything. A job is an expectation of work to be done for a wage. I do the work, I get the wage. If the expectation is outlined at the beginning as the job monopolizing my time and me doing whatever work comes along when I’m on the clock, then that’s the job I took and I need to be available to them. But in a lot of jobs the expectation is just to meet certain targets of work to be completed. If I meet those targets, the employer owes me the agreed upon wage. To imply that doing anything less than as much as humanly possible is some sort of fraud normalizes exploitation and abuse.
If I pay the grocery store a dollar for an apple, am I entitled to as many apples as they can possibly deliver me? Obviously not.
If I pay a worker a dollar for a task, am I entitled to as many tasks as they can possibly deliver me? A lot of employers seem to think so.
Sylvartas@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Sounds like there is a very easy solution to this : pay people more so they don’t have to take a second job ?
pascal@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Working multiple jobs is a part of the fabric of the working world
is this guy for real? is this a common thought in America?
Does it sound fucking dystopic only to me?!
Madison420@lemmy.world 1 year ago
It’s commonly accepted but not commonly enjoyed.
RaoulDook@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I have met very few people in the USA that worked 2 jobs. I have never had more than one job at a time.
Additionally, I have spent a couple decades in poverty and hanging around people of similar means while those conditions were true.
Malfeasant@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Not even two part time jobs, or one full time the other part time?
I have twice worked two jobs at once. Both times I was young, late teens/early 20s. Once I was working for one bike shop, but getting fed up with management, when the owner of another bike shop started hiring me on occasion when he needed extra help- which eventually led to me quitting the first shop and working at the second one full time. The other time, I was working for my uncle’s construction business, and I took a second job at a video store one day a week mainly for the benefit of free movie rentals.
phillaholic@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Working a second job outside of the hours or scope of tour main job is one thing, but many people double dipping are literally getting paid by two companies for the same hours. That’s different imo.
snooggums@kbin.social 1 year ago
Like people who arr the boards of multiple companies, in leadership roles in multiple companies, and pretty much anyone at the top of company structures?
phillaholic@lemm.ee 1 year ago
No, not like your example. If a CEO is secretly serving on another companies board you may have a point, but we’re talking about people having two jobs with the clear implication that their employers don’t know it.
“Doing what they are hired to do” is very often defined in employment agreements as working x number of hours. You can’t really say you’re doing what you’re hired to do if you take a second job that you perform during the same hours when you’re not allowed to under your agreement.
If someone wants to work 9-5, then 5-1 and somehow can manage both that’s different. For liability sake alone it’s a problem.
donuts@kbin.social 1 year ago
Not really. If they're fulfilling their contractual obligations to their employer(s), then who the hell cares?
It's long past time that we stop treating employees like they're chattel of the company that they work for. You hire someone to do a job, which they either do to your satisfaction or not, but you don't own them and you shouldn't get to control the parameters of their life.
phillaholic@lemm.ee 1 year ago
They aren’t fulfilling their contractual obligations if they aren’t allowed to have a second job and are doing it anyway, so this notion is nonsense to begin with. If you get paid hourly you can’t be working for someone else while getting paid by the first company for the same time. For salaried, typically there are expectations of how long you’ll be working or even your availability.
The company I work for has more than three decades of experience with WFH, and it’s almost always clear when someone is trying to double dip. It’s impossible to keep it hidden for long. Eventually you will have conflicting schedules, and excuses start piling up. Even if the work is good, very few jobs are done in a vacuum where you never need to talk to anyone or work things through. Most situations like that are handled by subcontractors who have all the freedoms you’re talking about. In fact the only situation I can even think of that would fit the mold of how work is being framed here is through contractors.
Dyskolos@lemmy.zip 1 year ago
If you CAN do both at the same time, who gets hurt?
phillaholic@lemm.ee 1 year ago
It’s preposterous to think you CAN simultaneously do so without impact either at all. All it takes is two meetings or two impromptu phone calls at once. You will choose one over the other, in which case the company you didn’t prioritize is hurt as well as the other employees that you’re collaborating with.
Become a contractor if you want to double dip. You set your own schedule, work as many jobs as you want, and even get to choose your own raises.
___@lemm.ee 1 year ago
The other perfectly qualified person out of the job so that you could buy a second house?
astronaut_sloth@mander.xyz 1 year ago
It depends on the terms of employment. If they are salaried, then there are no real work hours and just work to do. In general, if someone is salaried, they’re paid to do a job not when they do it.
Patches@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
They want it both ways - we are ‘overtime exempt’ because we’re ‘paid for the job’ but also after the job is done - they think they own us.
phillaholic@lemm.ee 1 year ago
This is not true. Salaries only means your pay is decided on a yearly basis and divided into each paycheck and not calculated and tracked per hour. Other conditions of employment including working hours and specific job duties are all part of your employment agreement. If your agreement has no set hours of any sort or limitations for other work, then there’s no problem. If a company is going to agree to pay you a salary, they are going to set how many hours you should be working, and reasonably expect you not to be double dipping.
TheHotze@lemmy.world 1 year ago
If they can get their work done on time, and with appropriate quality, who cares? If they can’t keep up with the workload, then they can get in trouble for that.
phillaholic@lemm.ee 1 year ago
The truth is they can’t, and that’s how they get caught, and why it comes up.
SeaJ@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Full time employees might have core hours and then flexibility outside of that. Otherwise, you do your work as quickly as possible and then outside of that is free time. Unless they are reusing the same work at two jobs, they likely are not double dipping. If their metrics are fine, there is no reason for a manager to care other than wanting to micro manage someone’s life.
phillaholic@lemm.ee 1 year ago
To be clear: If you Tell two employers that you are working for them from 1pm to 2pm, you are double dipping. The title of the article doesn’t line up with the content. Having a second job that you work outside of the hours / commitment of your first job is fine as long as you didn’t agree not to do so with your first employer. If you want to work 9-5 earning 6 figures in a WFH white collar job, then go out and get a night job at Target and are somehow able to succeed during your first job the vast majority of employers aren’t going to give a shit. The reason employers give a shit is this is a largely fake narrative. Studies have shown the 40 hour work week is too long. People working two jobs cannot keep it up for long and be as good at their jobs. Second, people are conflating having 2 separate jobs with working two jobs at the literal same time. Working 9-5 at two companies and juggling email and meetings between them. The article touches on this, but I completely disagree with the author. So much of business is based on collaboration that having to wait for a peer who is doing work for another company now costs the first company for every person that is waiting on them. Maybe 2% of my work can be done without a single other co-worker being involved in some way. During regular business hours the expectation is that you are being paid to work and collaborate with your co-workers on a regular basis outside of normal PTO etc.
njm1314@lemmy.world 1 year ago
That or start paying a lot more.
masquenox@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I’ve been a lifelong student of management and a leader for over 40 years
A leader is someone people choose to follow… not a corporate lapdog with a fancy title that has been imposed on them.
Skates@feddit.nl 1 year ago
Shit it’s a good thing all the people this person was ever in charge of chose to quit instead of following them, right? Otherwise your semi-though-out comeback would be worthless.
masquenox@lemmy.world 1 year ago
charge of chose
Riiiight… because nobody is coerced to do anything in a capitalist society because starvation and homelessness is easy, isn’t that so, genius?
Fedizen@lemmy.world 1 year ago
imaginenot having to pay bills.
tslnox@reddthat.com 1 year ago
lifelong student
So he’s an eternal amateur, with all theory but no practical experience?
Nobsi@feddit.de 1 year ago
A real CEO should make absolutely sure, that no employee has to work more than one job to be able to afford to live.
The US is just absolutely fucked in the head.
I don’t know a single other country (to be fair i don’t know many) where you couldnt survive if you had only one fulltime job.Maalus@lemmy.world 1 year ago
There’s a difference between has to work a second job, and decides to. Some people preffer having more money at the cost of their free time.
Nobsi@feddit.de 1 year ago
Jesse what are you talking about
phillaholic@lemm.ee 1 year ago
While a problem, this one is covering high paid tech workers who are pulling $250,000 per job.
Fedizen@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Undertone: We don’t pay enough for one job to be enough
dylanTheDeveloper@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Not everyone wants to live with 10+ other people in a single apartment in San Francisco
lorez@lemm.ee 1 year ago
I’d get over him, with a truck.
silverbax@lemmy.world 1 year ago
It’s completely accepted when CEOs and other executives serve on multiple boards or even run more than one company. Companies demanding 100% of any employee are just abusing labor and embracing unequal labor practices, and those practices aren’t against any law, companies just make up their own ‘policies’ to try and make their own laws.
cybersandwich@lemmy.world 1 year ago
They also have no problem when blue collar workers work 2 or even 3 jobs to get by.
Asafum@feddit.nl 1 year ago
Because we aren’t people, we’re meat machines. We don’t deserve a living wage and it’s expected of us to be working every second we’re awake. Do you let your tools rest?