It's my job to balance the workload such that they have enough work to make it worth it for me to employ them, and increase that workload where bearable so I can make more profit from their employment. If they are not underperforming and still doing two jobs, then I have failed my task because I have not effectively exploited their abilities for profit.
Ever had a medical claim by your over employed staff? Which insurance pays?
Do you pay for training?
In case of intellectual property theft from you or the other company, do you know what are your obligations? (Receiving company is can held liable.)
What amount of taxes do you withhold? What are the penalties for withholding significantly wrong taxes in your jurisdiction?
Of course you pay for training, why wouldn't you?
Working for competing companies is even stupid than being overinsured, and could potentially be illegal (for the employee).
Company withholdings don't change so this is not your concern.
1. The employee's insurance pays; in the US, they pay at least part of their insurance costs so it is unlikely for them to be covered by two services. If so, they can choose. If they were injured on the job, or in some capacity based on your work, then how is it different? Actually, how is this situation different from them purchasing outside insurance or being covered by their spouse? It's unlikely to be a problem and if it is it's not unique.
2. Sure, why not?
3. What does this have to do with them having multiple jobs? If they steal your intellectual property, that's a problem whether or not they are employed elsewhere. How does double employment compound this? If you hired someone from another job and they brought stolen property with them, is that different?
4. They are responsible for letting you know how much to deduct. You can do standard mandatory deductions based on expected salary and as long as you pay the required employment taxes based on the salary you pay them there isn't a difference in withholding on your end, only on theirs. If they owe more in tax, what do you care?
It's not like that. Since work is a market, you exchange a previously agreed amount of money for a previously agreed amount of work and knowledge.
Otherwise, the employees can also say they failed at their task if they wouldn't determine you to part with a large sum while putting in the minimum possible amount of work and working two jobs minimum.
That coin has two sides.
I have no idea why they would want to work two jobs minimum as a part of their task at my job specifically, but yes, part of being an employee is understanding how much money you can get paid in a negotiation with your employer and getting that amount is a success.
“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”
It makes it easier to identify things like pointless ‘not invented here’ syndrome, or where a company is being very inefficient in an area because they don’t know of any alternatives.
It’s common for companies to hire in outside consulting firms or independent contractors who also work for a great many companies in an industry for the exact same reason. It’s a way of keeping on top of what the industry norms are.
Plenty of pros and cons there, but that is a big part of why.
The other reason is the board of directors works for the shareholders, and represents their interests. Institutional shareholders hold shares in a lot of different companies, and if they have someone they know and are comfortable with performance wise, most would prefer to have them on the boards of as many companies as they think they have the expertise to oversee.
That’s pretty much never what happens though if someone does it when applying for a full time salary position, and line managers know it, which is why you see people get worked up about it. People doing it try to convince themselves it’s not a scam, but it almost always is.
The folks doing this on boards, despite any hate and derision they are getting here, are often exceptionally talented, educated, and have a long list of references where they have been doing it before successfully. They were voted in with full visibility to their other board memberships, and while being open about it and any potential conflicts of interest. They’re just not software engineers. I have yet to meet one that didn’t work their asses off either, just not in the way you might recognize.
There can be (and is, of course) nepotism, cronyism, etc. that happens, same as anywhere, and the shareholders who vote that in get what they deserve as well in my experience. Sometimes it’s also as simple as ‘x owns this company, and wants y to takeover when they’re gone, so y sits on the board.’. Rare in public or widely held companies though.
Ownership has it’s privileges, and it’s costs after all.
Just because something is the status quo and it is happening without mass protests, doesn’t mean people are agreeing to it.
Too fucking bad they don't "like it". I don't give one bit of care to the centimillionaire and up club.
Oddly, that's the second time I've used that word today: talking about Rishi Sunak earlier.
If that's not "stealing" but regular people actually working multiple jobs with actual deliverables in a way you couldn't even tell is,
then "stealing" is good and I will help as many to do it as possible, especially from the HN poster companies coming out and countersignaling it so hard.
I've worked a full time w/ benefits job and freelanced on the side. The only aspect of that I would feel that would be unethical is if I were to mix IP from the firms that should remain private.
Otherwise, who the hell cares. If I'm doing task work and meeting expectations then I'm holding up my end of the bargain. I'm not a slave and my work does not own me. Standing around the proverbial water cooler wasting company time is acceptable, but doing something productive during my downtime is not?
If the people are actually delivering equivalently to other employees then there's no need to worry if they're working one or two extra jobs.
How does have more than 1 job change this logic?
If you can get the job done then I don't see why it matters, and if you can't I don't see why it matters if you can't and you only have 1 job or you can't and you have 2?
Especially since rescinded offers have suddenly become acceptable, I think most people going forward should at least have the two jobs overlap by 2 weeks.
Look up the overemployed subreddit.