Is simultaneously (and secretly) working 2 full time remote jobs good for FIRE?

[blackomen]

Saw this article: https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/people-who-work-from-home-secret-two-jobs

Basically, some people decided now that since remote jobs are so abundant, they decided to take on two of them at a time..  not 2 part time jobs but 2 full time and just doing both of them mediocrely instead of one really well.  And since they're not in the office, their boss can't really tell this is happening.  In the worst case that they get fired from one, they have another one to fall back on.

Theoretically, you can probably retire in 20-25 years instead of 40, all else being equal (though the progressive tax rate might complicate things a little and make it take a little longer than 40/2 = 20.)

[ender]

I guess if you didn't hate your life sure?

But if you work 20-25 years hating your life vs 40 years being normal that seems like a foolish decision.

[JoJo]

Seen a story like this before where the guy outsourced his jobs to someone in India and made it look like he was doing the work.

[Metalcat]

A lot of people do the equivalent work of two full time jobs as it is.

I've always just worked on commission on a flexible schedule, so I see work in terms of workload. If someone can reduce their workload for one job to part time and add another equal amount of workload on top of that, then I can see it making sense, as long as the person isn't contractually obligated not to.

"Full time job" is not a universal concept in terms of workload. They vary dramatically from job to job and worker to worker.

I could especially see doing this to pay off debt.

However, can we just note that we're on an early retirement website, almost no one here plans to work 40 years at a full time job before hitting FI, not unless they came late to the game.

If someone was doing this, it would only make sense to do it in work they don't mind half adding and not getting stressed about or having much ambition about, so there's no way someone would want to do this for 20 years.

[cool7hand]

If you can live with yourself doing a mediocre job and living a lie, you might want to take a hard look in the mirror.

[youngwildandfree]

If you can live with yourself doing a mediocre job and living a lie, you might want to take a hard look in the mirror.

It's only living a lie if you sign something saying you are contracted only with one company correct? The definition of "mediocre job" is also subjective. If you are giving the job your full attention for 40 hours there isn't even an ethical question IMHO.

[Metalcat]

If you can live with yourself doing a mediocre job and living a lie, you might want to take a hard look in the mirror.

I don't necessarily agree with this.

Some people are highly efficient and not looking to move up in a certain industry. If I'm happy with the job I have at a certain level and I can keep up with my colleagues while putting in half the effort, then why would I double my output?

Once I hit a certain high level of productivity at my last job, and there was no position above mine to move into, I took my foot off the gas and just started working at a more chill pace.

No one is obligated to over perform at their job.

Unless the job specifies contractually that the person is not allowed to do other paid work within certain times of day, then there's nothing wrong with not disclosing having a second job.

If someone is breaching a contract to do this, then yeah, that's a bad idea for multiple reasons. But if there's no violation of employment rules going on, and the person is performing well at both jobs, then where is the problem?

[Sibley]

If you're getting paid for 40 hours of work, and during those 40 hours you work on another job, that is fraud. Don't do that. Double dipping isn't ok.

If you get paid for 40 hours, spend those 40 hours doing the job, have a 2nd job for 40 hours and spend 40 hours doing that (80 hours total per week), that's potentially ok. Usual caveats of conflict of interest, employer policy, etc apply.

However, you'd be really dumb to do it long term.

[YttriumNitrate]

I wonder how HR at the companies are not aware of this. If you made $100k at your first job, and $100k at the second, only the first $142,800 is subject to social security taxes so eventually there's going to be a refund for over-payment of SSI taxes.

[terran]

I wonder how HR at the companies are not aware of this. If you made $100k at your first job, and $100k at the second, only the first $142,800 is subject to social security taxes so eventually there's going to be a refund for over-payment of SSI taxes.

I'm not sure an employer even CAN reduce your social security withholding if you tell them you make over the wage base limit because of another job, but either way you can claim a refund for an overpayment when you file your taxes.

[Hash Brown]

I read that someone was once caught red-handed because both jobs used the same payroll company. 

This really isn't different than working two jobs at different times because you can probably finish the work at night.  The only problem is conflicting meetings. 

[GuitarStv]

If you're getting paid for 40 hours of work, and during those 40 hours you work on another job, that is fraud. Don't do that. Double dipping isn't ok.

Yep.  It's also something that is likely to backfire on you . . . and if you're found out, word will get out.  That can make it pretty tricky to find employment after the two jobs you're working on fire you.

[Metalcat]

If you're getting paid for 40 hours of work, and during those 40 hours you work on another job, that is fraud. Don't do that. Double dipping isn't ok.

If you get paid for 40 hours, spend those 40 hours doing the job, have a 2nd job for 40 hours and spend 40 hours doing that (80 hours total per week), that's potentially ok. Usual caveats of conflict of interest, employer policy, etc apply.

However, you'd be really dumb to do it long term.

Yes, assuming the person is violating some kind of contractual obligation, then yes, it's a bad idea.

Not all jobs are the same though. I've never had a full time job where I was paid for my time.

[YttriumNitrate]

I wonder how HR at the companies are not aware of this. If you made $100k at your first job, and $100k at the second, only the first $142,800 is subject to social security taxes so eventually there's going to be a refund for over-payment of SSI taxes.

I'm not sure an employer even CAN reduce your social security withholding if you tell them you make over the wage base limit because of another job, but either way you can claim a refund for an overpayment when you file your taxes.

The employer also kicks in 6.2% of the first $142,800, so even if the employee promtly files for a refund, there's going to be a tax irregularity for the employer.

[bacchi]

A friend is working a fulltime W2 and an hourly contract job. When he gets a break, or during lunch, he works the contract job. Add in some evening hours and the weekend and he can get almost 30 hours on the contract gig.

This is a good time to remind people that, in the US, exempt W2 jobs legally can tilt to more than 40 and less than 40. It's the nature of being an "exempt" employee. There is no overtime pay and there is no undertime pay.

[Metalcat]

I wonder how HR at the companies are not aware of this. If you made $100k at your first job, and $100k at the second, only the first $142,800 is subject to social security taxes so eventually there's going to be a refund for over-payment of SSI taxes.

I'm not sure an employer even CAN reduce your social security withholding if you tell them you make over the wage base limit because of another job, but either way you can claim a refund for an overpayment when you file your taxes.

The employer also kicks in 6.2% of the first $142,800, so even if the employee promtly files for a refund, there's going to be a tax irregularity for the employer.

Assuming their an employee at both jobs and not doing anything on a self employed, contract basis.

[yachi]

If you can live with yourself doing a mediocre job and living a lie, you might want to take a hard look in the mirror.

It's only living a lie if you sign something saying you are contracted only with one company correct? The definition of "mediocre job" is also subjective. If you are giving the job your full attention for 40 hours there isn't even an ethical question IMHO.

The article is worth a read.  Here are some quotes:

Why be good at one job, they thought, when they could be mediocre at two?

Many say they don’t work more than 40 hours a week for both jobs combined.

"It’s two jobs for one," says a 29-year-old software engineer who has been working simultaneously for a media company and an events company since June. He estimates he was logging three to 10 hours of actual work a week back when he held down one job. "The rest of it is just attending meetings and pretending to look busy."

[Rosy]

I don't see a problem with it as long as you get the job done and you do not violate your contractual obligations.
I don't know why in the US everything always seems to be geared toward favoring only the employer.
If you can do a 40hr job in half the time and take on another that should be your business.

I do think it is not right to actually decide to do a mediocre job and I don't understand how people can live with themselves when they actively seek to deceive and harm their employer and thereby weakening the company because this is the only way they can stick it to the man - stupid.
Most places, if the company does well the employees will benefit unless you chose a shitty company.

Whereas I have no trouble with a guy who outsourced part of his job to India.
Sounds kinda brilliant even if it is fraudulent, but ...clever:).

You do what you gotta do to get where you want to be - early retirement or mountains of debt require optimizing and out-of-the-box solutions.

[Metalcat]

I don't see a problem with it as long as you get the job done and you do not violate your contractual obligations.
I don't know why in the US everything always seems to be geared toward favoring only the employer.
If you can do a 40hr job in half the time and take on another that should be your business.

I do think it is not right to actually decide to do a mediocre job and I don't understand how people can live with themselves when they actively seek to deceive and harm their employer and thereby weakening the company because this is the only way they can stick it to the man - stupid.
Most places, if the company does well the employees will benefit unless you chose a shitty company.

Whereas I have no trouble with a guy who outsourced part of his job to India.
Sounds kinda brilliant even if it is fraudulent, but ...clever:).

You do what you gotta do to get where you want to be - early retirement or mountains of debt require optimizing and out-of-the-box solutions.

Yeah, I think it's a US thing that everyone is assuming that it would amount to fraud, because perhaps it's standard for employment contracts in the US to be that restrictive?

I've pushed back HARD on every single restrictive clause in any work contract I've ever signed because I've always had side hustles and need to protect my right to my business territory and my intellectual property.

[Sibley]

I don't see a problem with it as long as you get the job done and you do not violate your contractual obligations.
I don't know why in the US everything always seems to be geared toward favoring only the employer.
If you can do a 40hr job in half the time and take on another that should be your business.

I do think it is not right to actually decide to do a mediocre job and I don't understand how people can live with themselves when they actively seek to deceive and harm their employer and thereby weakening the company because this is the only way they can stick it to the man - stupid.
Most places, if the company does well the employees will benefit unless you chose a shitty company.

Whereas I have no trouble with a guy who outsourced part of his job to India.
Sounds kinda brilliant even if it is fraudulent, but ...clever:).

You do what you gotta do to get where you want to be - early retirement or mountains of debt require optimizing and out-of-the-box solutions.

Yeah, I think it's a US thing that everyone is assuming that it would amount to fraud, because perhaps it's standard for employment contracts in the US to be that restrictive?

I've pushed back HARD on every single restrictive clause in any work contract I've ever signed because I've always had side hustles and need to protect my right to my business territory and my intellectual property.

I don't have a problem with side hustles. However. I work salary, I've always been salary. I'm being paid for 40 hours of work a week. Thus, even if I don't have work to do, I'm still required to be available for work. If my hours are 9-5 then during those hours I'm not available for other work.

If you want to do a 2nd job from 5-9, go for it. But 9-5 is off limits. Even if you're otherwise reading a book.

[Metalcat]

I don't see a problem with it as long as you get the job done and you do not violate your contractual obligations.
I don't know why in the US everything always seems to be geared toward favoring only the employer.
If you can do a 40hr job in half the time and take on another that should be your business.

I do think it is not right to actually decide to do a mediocre job and I don't understand how people can live with themselves when they actively seek to deceive and harm their employer and thereby weakening the company because this is the only way they can stick it to the man - stupid.
Most places, if the company does well the employees will benefit unless you chose a shitty company.

Whereas I have no trouble with a guy who outsourced part of his job to India.
Sounds kinda brilliant even if it is fraudulent, but ...clever:).

You do what you gotta do to get where you want to be - early retirement or mountains of debt require optimizing and out-of-the-box solutions.

Yeah, I think it's a US thing that everyone is assuming that it would amount to fraud, because perhaps it's standard for employment contracts in the US to be that restrictive?

I've pushed back HARD on every single restrictive clause in any work contract I've ever signed because I've always had side hustles and need to protect my right to my business territory and my intellectual property.

I don't have a problem with side hustles. However. I work salary, I've always been salary. I'm being paid for 40 hours of work a week. Thus, even if I don't have work to do, I'm still required to be available for work. If my hours are 9-5 then during those hours I'm not available for other work.

If you want to do a 2nd job from 5-9, go for it. But 9-5 is off limits. Even if you're otherwise reading a book.

That's assuming that that's what your contract states.

As I've said multiple times, I don't have an issue with it as long as there's no contractual obligation against it. I also indicated that I push back on employment contracts that stake claim over how I use my time or what I can work on.

Your stating this as if all "full time" jobs have the same contractual requirements, but they don't. Not all full time jobs involve your employer having dominion over how you use all of the hours of your day.

Many do, but some are also deliverable-based.

I've had staff where I own their time, but I've also had other staff where I only care about their deliverables, so if they want to pick their nose for half of their workday, I don't care, as long as their production stays where it's supposed to be.

Not every full time job is exactly the same.

[GodlessCommie]

It's been a thing in software consulting world for a long while.

[GodlessCommie]

If you can live with yourself doing a mediocre job and living a lie, you might want to take a hard look in the mirror.

Free market works both ways. Employers will get away with paying employees as little as they can, and employees will get away with doing as little work as they can.

I see no reason to be constrained by moral considerations towards an entity that itself is not constrained by moral considerations.

[Morning Glory]

My job is salaried and they actually encourage us to do additional part-time or supplemental work in the field, in order to stay up-to-date with current practice.  If someone wanted to work an additional full time job I don't think there would be an issue from their side unless the person was falling asleep in meetings or not getting their work done. That said, it sounds absolutely miserable and would involve working nights, weekends, etc. to get everything done.

[Sibley]

I don't see a problem with it as long as you get the job done and you do not violate your contractual obligations.
I don't know why in the US everything always seems to be geared toward favoring only the employer.
If you can do a 40hr job in half the time and take on another that should be your business.

I do think it is not right to actually decide to do a mediocre job and I don't understand how people can live with themselves when they actively seek to deceive and harm their employer and thereby weakening the company because this is the only way they can stick it to the man - stupid.
Most places, if the company does well the employees will benefit unless you chose a shitty company.

Whereas I have no trouble with a guy who outsourced part of his job to India.
Sounds kinda brilliant even if it is fraudulent, but ...clever:).

You do what you gotta do to get where you want to be - early retirement or mountains of debt require optimizing and out-of-the-box solutions.

Yeah, I think it's a US thing that everyone is assuming that it would amount to fraud, because perhaps it's standard for employment contracts in the US to be that restrictive?

I've pushed back HARD on every single restrictive clause in any work contract I've ever signed because I've always had side hustles and need to protect my right to my business territory and my intellectual property.

I don't have a problem with side hustles. However. I work salary, I've always been salary. I'm being paid for 40 hours of work a week. Thus, even if I don't have work to do, I'm still required to be available for work. If my hours are 9-5 then during those hours I'm not available for other work.

If you want to do a 2nd job from 5-9, go for it. But 9-5 is off limits. Even if you're otherwise reading a book.

That's assuming that that's what your contract states.

As I've said multiple times, I don't have an issue with it as long as there's no contractual obligation against it. I also indicated that I push back on employment contracts that stake claim over how I use my time or what I can work on.

Your stating this as if all "full time" jobs have the same contractual requirements, but they don't. Not all full time jobs involve your employer having dominion over how you use all of the hours of your day.

Many do, but some are also deliverable-based.

I've had staff where I own their time, but I've also had other staff where I only care about their deliverables, so if they want to pick their nose for half of their workday, I don't care, as long as their production stays where it's supposed to be.

Not every full time job is exactly the same.

Ah. I think I know the issue. I'm in the US. Contracts are uncommon. It's a different environment for you.

In the US - you'll quite possibly get fired for working 2 jobs in the same block of hours. From both jobs. Even if your performance is good.

[Metalcat]

I don't see a problem with it as long as you get the job done and you do not violate your contractual obligations.
I don't know why in the US everything always seems to be geared toward favoring only the employer.
If you can do a 40hr job in half the time and take on another that should be your business.

I do think it is not right to actually decide to do a mediocre job and I don't understand how people can live with themselves when they actively seek to deceive and harm their employer and thereby weakening the company because this is the only way they can stick it to the man - stupid.
Most places, if the company does well the employees will benefit unless you chose a shitty company.

Whereas I have no trouble with a guy who outsourced part of his job to India.
Sounds kinda brilliant even if it is fraudulent, but ...clever:).

You do what you gotta do to get where you want to be - early retirement or mountains of debt require optimizing and out-of-the-box solutions.

Yeah, I think it's a US thing that everyone is assuming that it would amount to fraud, because perhaps it's standard for employment contracts in the US to be that restrictive?

I've pushed back HARD on every single restrictive clause in any work contract I've ever signed because I've always had side hustles and need to protect my right to my business territory and my intellectual property.

I don't have a problem with side hustles. However. I work salary, I've always been salary. I'm being paid for 40 hours of work a week. Thus, even if I don't have work to do, I'm still required to be available for work. If my hours are 9-5 then during those hours I'm not available for other work.

If you want to do a 2nd job from 5-9, go for it. But 9-5 is off limits. Even if you're otherwise reading a book.

That's assuming that that's what your contract states.

As I've said multiple times, I don't have an issue with it as long as there's no contractual obligation against it. I also indicated that I push back on employment contracts that stake claim over how I use my time or what I can work on.

Your stating this as if all "full time" jobs have the same contractual requirements, but they don't. Not all full time jobs involve your employer having dominion over how you use all of the hours of your day.

Many do, but some are also deliverable-based.

I've had staff where I own their time, but I've also had other staff where I only care about their deliverables, so if they want to pick their nose for half of their workday, I don't care, as long as their production stays where it's supposed to be.

Not every full time job is exactly the same.

Ah. I think I know the issue. I'm in the US. Contracts are uncommon. It's a different environment for you.

In the US - you'll quite possibly get fired for working 2 jobs in the same block of hours. From both jobs. Even if your performance is good.

Seriously?
You don't have employment contacts in the US??

Yeah, where I live, most full time jobs come with very specific contracts. My last contract as an employee was 12 pages long and specified nothing about time obligations, only deliverables.

My other contracts were self employed contract positions, so a lot of labour laws didn't apply, meaning 24-30 page contracts because everything needed to be spelled out. If there was no contract, then the default laws actually worked in my favour, hence the ultra long contracts.

So I could theoretically take on *any* job and negotiate that how I use my hours is up to me, that I own intellectual property outside of the specific tasks, and that I have no non compete clauses and I would be able to do as many jobs as I want.

Which is exactly what I did.

[youngwildandfree]

If you can live with yourself doing a mediocre job and living a lie, you might want to take a hard look in the mirror.

It's only living a lie if you sign something saying you are contracted only with one company correct? The definition of "mediocre job" is also subjective. If you are giving the job your full attention for 40 hours there isn't even an ethical question IMHO.

The article is worth a read.  Here are some quotes:

Why be good at one job, they thought, when they could be mediocre at two?

Many say they don’t work more than 40 hours a week for both jobs combined.

"It’s two jobs for one," says a 29-year-old software engineer who has been working simultaneously for a media company and an events company since June. He estimates he was logging three to 10 hours of actual work a week back when he held down one job. "The rest of it is just attending meetings and pretending to look busy."

It's an interesting article. I was thinking about the broader idea of what it means to do a mediocre job and/or live a lie in the context have having multiple employment commitments. Per my job contract, I cannot even take a phone call from a rental tenant during "work hours" (specified to be a least 40 hours a week). That's not how anyone at my place of employment actually lives their life. But the companies lawyers made the contract very strict just in case someone tries to claim unjust termination.

[Sibley]

Seriously?
You don't have employment contacts in the US??

Yeah, where I live, most full time jobs come with very specific contracts. My last contract as an employee was 12 pages long and specified nothing about time obligations, only deliverables.

My other contracts were self employed contract positions, so a lot of labour laws didn't apply, meaning 24-30 page contracts because everything needed to be spelled out. If there was no contract, then the default laws actually worked in my favour, hence the ultra long contracts.

So I could theoretically take on *any* job and negotiate that how I use my hours is up to me, that I own intellectual property outside of the specific tasks, and that I have no non compete clauses and I would be able to do as many jobs as I want.

Which is exactly what I did.

There are SOME contracts. Generally, these are union jobs. And independent consultants (who aren't W-2 employees for a consulting/contracting company) should have contracts. Other than that - nope. At will employment. I've never had an employment contract as you are familiar with. But even the union jobs I'm aware of you could still get into real trouble by double dipping.

If you're a consultant working under a contract, than of course that contract will govern. Note that in those scenarios, the IRS has rules about what constitutes an employee vs contractor and if you get caught by them messing it up they'll make you hurt. Contractors have fewer (basically none) legal protections, but it's probably the closest to what you experience.

So I think the answer to OP's question is going to be location based. US - don't. Rest of the world - you might be fine (depending on specifics).

[youngwildandfree]

Seriously?
You don't have employment contacts in the US??

Yeah, where I live, most full time jobs come with very specific contracts. My last contract as an employee was 12 pages long and specified nothing about time obligations, only deliverables.

My other contracts were self employed contract positions, so a lot of labour laws didn't apply, meaning 24-30 page contracts because everything needed to be spelled out. If there was no contract, then the default laws actually worked in my favour, hence the ultra long contracts.

So I could theoretically take on *any* job and negotiate that how I use my hours is up to me, that I own intellectual property outside of the specific tasks, and that I have no non compete clauses and I would be able to do as many jobs as I want.

Which is exactly what I did.

There are SOME contracts. Generally, these are union jobs. And independent consultants (who aren't W-2 employees for a consulting/contracting company) should have contracts. Other than that - nope. At will employment. I've never had an employment contract as you are familiar with. But even the union jobs I'm aware of you could still get into real trouble by double dipping.

If you're a consultant working under a contract, than of course that contract will govern. Note that in those scenarios, the IRS has rules about what constitutes an employee vs contractor and if you get caught by them messing it up they'll make you hurt. Contractors have fewer (basically none) legal protections, but it's probably the closest to what you experience.

So I think the answer to OP's question is going to be location based. US - don't. Rest of the world - you might be fine (depending on specifics).

This must be industry dependent. I’ve had several jobs across multiple US states in the last 12 years, and all have included employment contracts. None have been union jobs.

[Metalcat]

Seriously?
You don't have employment contacts in the US??

Yeah, where I live, most full time jobs come with very specific contracts. My last contract as an employee was 12 pages long and specified nothing about time obligations, only deliverables.

My other contracts were self employed contract positions, so a lot of labour laws didn't apply, meaning 24-30 page contracts because everything needed to be spelled out. If there was no contract, then the default laws actually worked in my favour, hence the ultra long contracts.

So I could theoretically take on *any* job and negotiate that how I use my hours is up to me, that I own intellectual property outside of the specific tasks, and that I have no non compete clauses and I would be able to do as many jobs as I want.

Which is exactly what I did.

There are SOME contracts. Generally, these are union jobs. And independent consultants (who aren't W-2 employees for a consulting/contracting company) should have contracts. Other than that - nope. At will employment. I've never had an employment contract as you are familiar with. But even the union jobs I'm aware of you could still get into real trouble by double dipping.

If you're a consultant working under a contract, than of course that contract will govern. Note that in those scenarios, the IRS has rules about what constitutes an employee vs contractor and if you get caught by them messing it up they'll make you hurt. Contractors have fewer (basically none) legal protections, but it's probably the closest to what you experience.

So I think the answer to OP's question is going to be location based. US - don't. Rest of the world - you might be fine (depending on specifics).

If I'm understanding some of the posts I've read here, "at will" employment basically benefits the employer?

Because here in Canada, without a contract, all of the labour laws apply. Unless someone could defend in court why they own their employee's time, then termination wouldn't be legal.

So if I'm hired to be a lifeguard and I don't have a contract, then it's reasonable for me to be expected to not use my hours for anything other than lifeguarding.

However, if I've been hired to write content for a website and my job requires a certain amount of content by certain deadlines, then the employer would have to have it contractually specified if they want to control my time, otherwise they would have a tough time proving in court that my termination was legitimate if I was producing the required work product.

DH works a job where he has to produce work product, but it's a unionized job with specific hours dictated by contract. So even though he easily *could* carry a second full time job based on how efficiently he delivers on his deliverables, it's not legal for him to do so.

[dividendman]

If you can work two (or more) "full-time" jobs and do them adequately enough to not get fired, then what's the problem?

If the employer is seeing sub-par work they should fire the employee, if they're seeing good enough work, where's the harm?

I'm confused.

[Chris Pascale]

Obviously this is ok, because the right attitude is to think of yourself as self-employed. Sure, maybe you're working for AT&T or the State Department, but those places are really just clients of Me, Inc.. So, there's nothing wrong with taking customer service calls for Chase Bank (lord knows they need to help!) or writing erotic fan fiction from your desk.

On a serious note, I have doubled up on multiple projects from one office while being paid on a W-2. While doing so, I was transparent with my employer, and let him know I had to call in for a charitable board meeting, or that I'd be leaving an hour early if I had a final while in graduate school. On some occasions I even received mail at my place of work to make sure I'd get it more quickly. But, again, my employer was on board with me having side projects that I operated from the office I occupied in his building.

[seattlecyclone]

If I'm understanding some of the posts I've read here, "at will" employment basically benefits the employer?

Basically yes. In theory there are benefits on both sides because both parties are free to negotiate the terms of the deal as they go along, but in practice the employer holds most of the cards most of the time.

[mistymoney]

I suspect one of my reports last year was doing this. he was a programmer/data scientist and kept thinking I don't know how long coding certain things should take. he had a FT contract gig when we hired him and I suspected within weeks he hadn't quit to take our offer. No problem there if he gave us good FT work but he didn't and tried to be deceptive about it.

I just kept addressing the low level of work output on 3 the coding projets and sending back reports with a errors to redo. When I sent back a 100 page report to redo due to multiple errors I found in the first 20 pages, he resigned. I was so relieved not to have to go through pip.

[Chrissy]

The article is just clickbait, looking for an angle.  Whether or not an employee is allowed to take on outside work is industry and company dependent.  Since most do not allow it, there's a prevailing expectation that it's "just not done".  Except sometimes it IS done.  Here's my situation:

I'm in the U.S.
I'm a W2 employee.
My job is unionized.
I have an employment contract.

Twenty years ago, a supervisor came to me and said, "Your boss is going to [X].  Are you going, too?"  I said, no, I already had a job.  He said, "Double-dip, baby!  That's what [Boss] is doing!"  So, I did.  Both were W2, and the additional job paid 3x what the first job paid.  In fact, I think I was allowed to take the additional job because the first job had a "More Remunerative Employment" section of the contract, meaning I could take an additional job if it was more money, but not less!  These were both long-term jobs.

Now I work for a totally different employer.  My company and my union both allow and even encourage taking on additional employment whenever possible.  I only take the short-term stuff because doing it long-term is brutal.  Fortunately, short-term stuff is usually what's offered me, because this is all upfront, so everyone knows I really work for [MegaCorp], whose brand is kinda why these outside employers want me in the first place.  MegaCorp views outside work as a way to get free networking and free employee development.  Generally, it's 1099 work, but sometimes it's W2.  A former boss used to throw extra jobs my way that she couldn't do herself.  Shit, sometimes I'm ASSIGNED these jobs, because it's for one of our subsidiaries.  I have the right to refuse, but it's double the money, so I don't mind. 

You see, my employer pays me to produce [X] by [date], and I'm 2-4x faster than everyone else, so I have a lot of time on my hands.  MegaCorp doesn't want me to spend that extra time being unhappy, looking for places to insert myself and sowing discontent, nor do they want to think up busy work for me, nor do they want to give me a raise.  Letting me take other work solves all those problems.

Where working 2 jobs gets hinky is if there's 1) deception, and 2) deliberately producing an inferior product because you're over-committed.  Those things are NOT COOL.  But, if everyone involved is a competent, functional human being, then it can work out very well for all parties.

My takeaway from reading the comments on this thread is that a lot of people are misclassified as salaried employees.

[lutorm]

If I'm understanding some of the posts I've read here, "at will" employment basically benefits the employer?

Because here in Canada, without a contract, all of the labour laws apply. Unless someone could defend in court why they own their employee's time, then termination wouldn't be legal.

At-will employment doesn't mean you don't have a contract. My job is at-will, which means either party can end the agreement for any reason at any time, but there's still an employment agreement specifying what we've agreed on.

[LiveLean]

This was the most ridiculous story ever. If you're self-employed, make your own hours and choose your own clients. If you have one full-time job that doesn't take much time, create a side hustle. Why go through all of this trouble and have two full-time jobs?

[Metalcat]

If I'm understanding some of the posts I've read here, "at will" employment basically benefits the employer?

Because here in Canada, without a contract, all of the labour laws apply. Unless someone could defend in court why they own their employee's time, then termination wouldn't be legal.

At-will employment doesn't mean you don't have a contract. My job is at-will, which means either party can end the agreement for any reason at any time, but there's still an employment agreement specifying what we've agreed on.

Thanks for the clarification.

Yeah, that's very different than here. Terminating staff here is either expensive or very complicated.

[swashbucklinstache]

This is super situationally dependent and might be a really bad idea totally aside from legal reasons. Sometimes for similar reasons that entry level freelance work might be a bad idea.

An example:
I work at a data analytics consulting company with a very limited number of clients in the industry. In this world, "contractual" deliverables are just a starting point - you build iteratively with the client until they say you're done or the money runs out. There's give and take but it's pretty far from black and white so waving contracts around isn't really a solution, that is if you ever want your company to get a contract again. Dealing with this nonsense, and using downtime (sustainably, and within your 40 hours) to e.g. think of new ideas the client hasn't even asked for or train yourself on new things is understood to be built into your compensation (not contractually).

Further, a lot of times a developer will be the sole developer on 2-4 projects, and every project is so different we're totally reliant on their estimates of how long work takes. If you're consistently estimating things low enough to have 20 hours of free time a week it's unlikely anyone will know for years. If anyone finds out you're sandbagging that hard, you will absolutely at least be a total pariah to your peer group. They understand that in knowledge work your 10x developer is not making 10x the salary and why, so "boss should've given me more then" or "I'm still doing 1.1 as much as Bob in the corner and that's the difference in our salaries" is going to fall on deaf ears. You might get fired just to save morale. There's a reason the 1099s get only the dregs of the work or the things only they can do in this industry.

That last bit lightly relates to a similar thing with freelancing entry level work. You might earn 2-3x the comp of W2 entry level work, but if you're not careful you might be selecting yourself out of any senior level work. To be extreme, no one is hiring a person with 10 years of experience as a digital marketing consultant as the director of marketing at Coca Cola just like no one is promoting a mediocre entry level marketing associate 5x in the next 10 years to director level making 5x their starting salary...

[Edubb20]

Working two fulltime remote jobs should 100% be acceptable IF what you produce is enough to keep you employed by both. I'm not interested in someone's bullshit industrial revolution era moral code. I'm also not interested in talking about how much effort needs to be applied. If the outcomes justify your existence as determined by your employer, hooray for you!

[calimom]

When I was in the fifth grade, I had a wonderful teacher who was fun and entertaining, paid attention to the standards and testing of the day....and also ran his real estate practice from our classroom. The school was bursting at the seams, and Mr. R happily took one of the portable classrooms. Other teachers didn't care for them but Mr. R was fine with it and secretly had a phone installed. This was in the days where cellphones where not really yet in use. Often the phone would ring during a class and Mr. R would tell the caller he'd call them back, unless it was super important regarding a deal, which it often was. We watched a lot of video and would hear the teacher chat on the phone about contracts and the like.

Apparently, Mr. R sought out real estate originally to supplement his paltry teaching salary in the summer. His business and client list exploded and it became a year-round venture. A scandal was declared; our parents were split: we were learning and happy vs. kind of a sleazy thing. After my fifth grade year, Mr. S never taught again, real estate won out.

To this day, I credit him for knowing about Adjustable Rate mortgages, inspection reports, 30-day closes and the list goes on. It wasn't really right, but it was a life lesson for sure.

[Zamboni]

^Probably those things are just as valuable as other things you learned in 5th grade!

My own 5th grade teacher was so checked out that I would have taken Mr. R in a heartbeat. She's friends with my step mom, so I learned later that eventually she declared bankruptcy . . . which doesn't really surprise me if she ran her personal finances like she ran her class. Thankfully my 6th grade teacher was great and probably made up for all we missed.

[jim555]

What do you do if they both have a meeting at 9am?

[Metalcat]

What do you do if they both have a meeting at 9am?

I think it only works for jobs where you have control over your time to a large degree.

[clarkfan1979]

In my opinion, employers do not like side hustles because they lose leverage from the employee. For a "regular" employee, a side hustle is going to bring in more cash per hour than working an extra 10 hours/week on a salary job for a potential of a 3% raise at the end of the year.

One of my friends is a computer programmer. All of his contract work has been 40 hours/week and then he does side gigs. However, with his new job, he got equity in the company. Now it's different. Now he is willing to work more than 40+ hours/week and might turn down some side gigs.

[ender]

If I'm understanding some of the posts I've read here, "at will" employment basically benefits the employer?

I recently left a job with minimal notice which let me take a new job - this would not have been possible due to a few messy timing on my end without at-will employment (ie if I had a contractual notice period).

[Metalcat]

If I'm understanding some of the posts I've read here, "at will" employment basically benefits the employer?

I recently left a job with minimal notice which let me take a new job - this would not have been possible due to a few messy timing on my end without at-will employment (ie if I had a contractual notice period).

Yeah, it's been clarified for me. I was confused before.

[ender]

It's still the case that overwhelmingly that benefits the employer, though.

A not uncommon situation is someone giving notice and then being immediately terminated by the company.

[mathlete]

I have four and a half hours of meetings today. Schedules would start to conflict imo.

When I first started my career out of college, maybe I could have done it, but two entry level jobs in my career pay less than I make now. And then I would have two sets of coworkers.

[Metalcat]

I have four and a half hours of meetings today. Schedules would start to conflict imo.

When I first started my career out of college, maybe I could have done it, but two entry level jobs in my career pay less than I make now. And then I would have two sets of coworkers.

Schedules would start to conflict, in your opinion, for *your* kind of job, but not all jobs are like yours.

DH has a high level government job and as I said, he could absolutely do this if he was contractually allowed to because he has influence over meeting times.

But yes, a big caveat I said earlier is that it only makes sense if someone has no desire to move up in their particular field, because the extra effort could go towards upward mobility.

However, some industries don't offer as much income in upward mobility as having a second job would. It depends on the industry. So in some industries, it's much more lucrative to do more lower level work more efficiently than to move your way up.

As I said before, the world of jobs is enormous. You cannot make generalizations based on one type of career.