• lolcatnip@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    FWIW, Microsoft explicitly allows having multiple jobs. Their policy basically amounts to “don’t cross the streams”.

  • Nobsi@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Jesse what are you talking about? That is not what the article is about. How is that relevant?

  • starlord@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    Couldn’t you just pay them enough so that they don’t need a second job?

    • Bezerker03@lemmy.bezzie.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months 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.

        • WallEx@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 months 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

          • EatATaco@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            11 months ago

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

            Almost certainly the contract doesn’t say this tho.

            • WallEx@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              11 months ago

              Mine does. But I’m not working manual labor, so it definitely can and will differ I guess

              • EatATaco@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                11 months ago

                Is that a job you could get away with working 2 at the same time remotely?

                • WallEx@feddit.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Not really, maybe this one and a half time job or sth, I work 4-8 hours a day depending on what’s happening (I work in it)

          • quicksand@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            11 months 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
              ·
              11 months 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
                ·
                11 months 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
                  ·
                  11 months 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.