I highly doubt it’s in the bounds of the contract with any typical employer.

I usually have to sign a clause assigning copyrights for anything work related to the employer, for instance. Working for two tech companies and signing both clauses validly would not be possible since each would require going through an internal process to give permission to contribute code outside the company.

That said, if someone is working as an independent contractor being “over employed” would be fine as long as you aren’t double billing your time.

In fairness, these kinds of "anything you work on belongs to us, whether or not it's related to your work" contracts are not ethical; they aren't things that an ethical, honest corporation would participate in.

Every company I've worked for in the past 12 years has had a clause like that in the employment agreement. The companies were otherwise ethical, but it seems like more and more of them are adopting this boilerplate. This is in CA where clauses like this are getting more difficult to enforce, but if the company can make an argument that your side project is somehow related to their current or expected future business, they can ruin your day in court even in CA.

Yeah, I agree that they're common and that the companies that use them are probably "otherwise ethical" (although I think our ethical standards for businesses are tragically low).

Also non-enforceable in California

So if hold a job and are painter in your spare time does the corp owns your paintings as well? This is hilariously abusive

That is what these corporations would allege, although I don't know how well these contracts hold up in court and in reality most corporations aren't going to sue or fire you if you sell your paintings or whatever. But yeah, it's still pretty shitty.

These are very common, and a lot of it has to do with avoiding the complex situation of taking work related research or knowledge and saying "oh I did it in my own time."

I'm not advocating this is right, or ethical, but saying that it would be an understandable precaution. The statement, and requirements are made up front, and there are no surprises for either party.

I don't think anyone disputes that companies are doing this as a precaution nor that it's common practice. It's "understandable" in that we've become conditioned to expect corporations to ignore ethics or morals in service of their bottom line ("What do you expect them to do? They have a 'fiduciary responsibility' to their shareholders!"). In general, I think it's absurd to claim all employees' work just to protect against niche cases, and I would like to see this practice (and similar practices) outlawed.

Some US states have outlawed that practice and put restrictions on what is automatically transferred based on other factors like where, when and what device it was done on.

> I highly doubt it’s in the bounds of the contract with any typical employer.

Certainly not any recent contracts since this has popped up on corporate legal departments' radars.

What do you mean? I don't think ip assignments have gone away

My point was that, even if this was OK under most pre-pandemic contracts, you can be sure that savvy legal departments have since put in language that makes it definitely out-of-bounds now.

Work on two unrelated things?

I always wondered how far some companies will go to enforce this.

For example if my second job is as a professional actor in the local musical production, would all my creative IP and earnings belong to my main job? Maybe this example is too far remove from reality.

It totally depends on the state you are a resident of. Or the state they sue you in. Some states hold IP arrangements to be toilet paper. Some will enforce even the most egregious ones.

I am not a lawyer. It appears to me that being a contractor - rather than a salaried full-time-employee would be the route to go if you are interested in working more than one job. As a salaried FTE, the legal expectation is that you devote yourself 100% to your employer.

In business law classes, this is referred to as the "principal agent problem".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal%E2%80%93agent_proble...

Business-type people are going to use this viewpoint in order to perceive the situation. In India, there are some laws that basically say that you are required to put your main employer first and that it is effectively illegal for you to work more than one job - no matter how poorly that job pays you.

This is one post from very long ago about "work for hire" and IP assignment agreements: https://www.perlmonks.org/?node_id=153046

Another case that I can't fully remember the names of (so no links or references) was of a software developer in Texas or Oklahoma who developed something on his own time. His employer wanted the IP and pursued him in court for almost 2 decades bankrupting him and getting him thrown into jail (for contempt of court) when he refused a court order to turn over the source code and documentation.

How far will they go? Well, how much to they hate you? How much spite are they powered by? Narcissists and sociopaths will go to extreme lengths to destroy their "enemies". For a recent example, see ex-President Trump.

I do think that companies have an interest in knowing if you have a side hustle, in order to make sure there is no conflict of interest. And failure to disclose is a big deal.

Barring that, I don't like "full time and attention" clauses. As long as you provide the services to your employer that you agreed to apply in exchange for your salary, there shouldn't be an issue.

I owned a business that was my primary source of income for 15 years and continued to operate for 4 years after reentering the work force. I disclosed it to each every employer and had no issues at all. The only questions are typically "what does it do? (i.e: does it compete with us?)" and one employer asked "how much time does it require of you?"

It might vary among industries, but in the tech industry it is pretty common for people to have side projects - including income generating ones. As long as you disclose what you're doing and there is no conflict of interest then, in my experience, employers are pretty lax.

And since we're talking about full time jobs, and not owning businesses, there is also the option of going independent as a contractor. Some companies might still try to get you into an exclusive contract, but it's standard to contract to an hourly arrangement and then you can pick up as many contracts as you're comfortable juggling and work the exact amount of hours you want to. I would still disclose and turn down contracts if there were a conflict of interest, for ethical reasons, but from a logistical point of view more people should consider that if they want to work more hours and have that type of flexibility.

I think the issue is that there's a pretty broad spectrum between "do just enough work to not get fired" and "do the best job you reasonably can". Employers (in tech at least) expect the latter. I wouldn't like working with someone who's on the former end of the spectrum, regardless of the reason.

Oh agreed. I just think that there are some pretty big assumptions being made about what an individual with a side hustle is capable of achieving.

Speaking from personal experience, my promise to my employers was that they were my priority and that I would not allow my side hustle to affect my job performance. It never did.

There is also a lot of room for subjective opinions about what it means to "do the best job you reasonably can." Does that mean showing up on time, supporting your team, being available during work hours and producing high-quality work or does it mean giving up on work life balance, being on call and working overtime routinely?

It might be my age, but I wouldn't accept a position that expected the latter.

But, again speaking from experience, when I continued to operate my business while working full time it came from a place of ambition and wanting to do the best for myself and my family that I could. I worked hard, kicked ass at work and made a lot of money that put my family in a really good position.

Obviously there are lazy leeches and employers need to be on the lookout. That's why I prefer that job performance be the metric. Not whether or not someone has other sources of income.

In fact, to put on my dark cynical hat for a moment, I think that one reason employers might not like employees with other sources of income is that it means the employee isn't as dependent on the employer and so they don't have the same power dynamic. There are a lot of nasty implications there. I prefer leading through inspiring and having a work environment that is pleasant and fun.

> Us IC bottom feeders are 'cattle' to corporations; it seems some have decided to treat companies as 'fodder'.

This is appealing, but these people are pretty well compensated all things considered.

Sounds like psychological manipulation and justification of questionable actions from the Tech CEO's side.

Is that what made these tech workers slack on their job? I'll be the first to tell my manager and HR about bad employees, especially the ones that drop the ball so frequently.

It doesn't seem like I get any concessions for picking up their slack, so I make it a point to tell others that I am taking up their work and take credit. I don't wish for them to benefit from my benevolence, that's really just me getting stepped on by someone I thought I could rely on myself.

If these 'workers' could get fired more often, I applaud this psychological manipulation from the Tech CEO.

I don't remember any mentions of them slacking their job. Did I miss it?

Do you expect and get similarly full transparency on professional engagements from your execs and owners?

You're not your execs' and owners' employer.

That’s obvious

I meant the relationship is not symmetrical so it's not such an obvious gatcha that the people at the other end of the relationship aren't expecting to divulge their professional engagements to you but ask for the reverse. Your boss also doesn't have to submit a request for taking time off to you either.

And why is it so asymmetrical? Why do you accept that? I’m trying to understand your point besides simple reactionism

Because most of us don't work in anarchist co-ops?

I don't really get that impression reading the comments. Hacker news seems to be anarchist co-ops all the way down....