• WallEx@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Huh? If the job can be done this fast and the contract says, you get this money for doing that, why should that be wrong, meaning why should anyone be unhappy?

    Except companies are just in for the money and would rather pay you less … Hmmm

    • quicksand@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      All I can say is I agree with you; however, lots of contracts have you agree that you only work for that company while you’re employed by them

      • WallEx@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, I think mine has a clause too, that requires me to at least inform my employee

        • quicksand@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s the point of the clause; to fire people who tell them they’re working a second full-time job. When required to be in office everywhere it becomes quite obvious very quickly. They’re upset they can’t tell if you’re two-timing or not if you work from home, so they want to make sure you come in and work for them

          • WallEx@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Petty tactics from petty people. If someone is doing the job they are paid for, why bother? It’s like the employers are entitled to the 40 hours or something, even if all the work is done.

    • EatATaco@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      and the contract says, you get this money for doing that

      Almost certainly the contract doesn’t say this tho.