Honestly, I don't feel bad for the companies who hire the person. I feel bad for the people who need to work with them. I'm sure we've all worked with people who aren't pull their weight and it drags things down and makes everything a little bit worse. Even if you don't end up doing more work because of them, which you often will, it's just crap having one person who takes 3-days to do a 4-hour task.
At work, I don't go the extra mile because it'll help the company or will make them more money. I do them because it's helping someone out. The woman from finance needs an export of the data, I'll create her an export because it makes her life easier. The guy from devops needs a bug fixed because it's annoying the living hell out of him. I'll fix it after hours so it stops annoying him. For the most part I don't care about the company. But I do care about the people around me.
Also IANAL, but if you're contract says 40 hours, you're to work for 40 hours. Doesn't matter if they're needed or not. If they're not needed you stand/sit and wait for new work. Working for another company while getting paid to work for another would almost certainly be considered fraud in many countries. Especially those where lying on your CV is fraud.
Agreed, if and only if the overemployment results in a detrimental service from the employee to the employer - as you say, if someone isn't pulling their weight and the reason for that is they're doing something else for someone else, then fair enough. Bang to rights.
On the contract point - beg to disagree. Sorry to invoke everyone's favourite villain, but if a certain oligarch can be CEO at three different companies and do an effective job, that kind of example makes ordinary Joes think, why not me? Not just him either - MPs in the UK often have second, third jobs even though their constituency business should take 40 hours. I've no idea about the US but I'd imagine senators, representatives also have other positions, boards and so forth. Is it one rule for the rich and another for the peons?
Personally I'm like you, I like being useful and if I'm in a fallow period I tend to fill it. But the argument itself, you should be working for 40 hours regardless, how far does that extend during working hours? Are we allowed to walk the dog? Collect the kids from school? Put a load of washing on? Sweep up? Load the dishwasher? The logical conclusion from '40 hours, do or die' is that we should do none of those things, as these are time theft from the employer.
> Not just him either - MPs in the UK often have second, third jobs even though their constituency business should take 40 hours. I've no idea about the US but I'd imagine senators, representatives also have other positions, boards and so forth. Is it one rule for the rich and another for the peons?
You're entitled to have as many jobs as you want. If the contract allows you to work whatever hours you want it's fine. But you'll find the UK courts will make you pay back salary if it's found you have 2 jobs that allow you to work from home but state the work hours at 9-5 for both of them.
> But the argument itself, you should be working for 40 hours regardless, how far does that extend during working hours? Are we allowed to walk the dog? Collect the kids from school? Put a load of washing on? Sweep up? Load the dishwasher? The logical conclusion from '40 hours, do or die' is that we should do none of those things, as these are time theft from the employer.
Again, we'll go for UK law. You're entitled to breaks and in fact your employer is legally obligated to ensure you take breaks. So taking a break to put a load of washinng on or take your dog for a walk or just sit there and watch youtube is entirely allowed. Obivously, if it's found you're working 20 hours instead of 40 hours your employer is entitled to fire you for gross misconduct.
> I'm sure we've all worked with people who aren't pull their weight
This presumes anyone notices that weight isn't being pulled, which is confusing.
Obviously people get away with this scheme for long periods of time, it stands to reason that the overemployed person could have satisfied teammates in all contexts.
People who get mad about this are projecting their own insecurities onto this situation, as if it must be obvious that someone is cheating and getting away with it by harming others. The world is not fair in that way. Sometimes people cheat, no one gets harmed, and the cheater is better off.
I’ve worked at multiple companies where people have been coming up to their probation period and people
Have pointed out that they aren’t pull their weight. These people kept their job because managers often think 0.5x is better than 0x. In one case, the guy was falling asleep in meetings in person.
At work, I don't go the extra mile because it'll help the company or will make them more money. I do them because it's helping someone out. The woman from finance needs an export of the data, I'll create her an export because it makes her life easier. The guy from devops needs a bug fixed because it's annoying the living hell out of him. I'll fix it after hours so it stops annoying him. For the most part I don't care about the company. But I do care about the people around me.
Also IANAL, but if you're contract says 40 hours, you're to work for 40 hours. Doesn't matter if they're needed or not. If they're not needed you stand/sit and wait for new work. Working for another company while getting paid to work for another would almost certainly be considered fraud in many countries. Especially those where lying on your CV is fraud.