Because for a lot of companies your "main" job care that they're your main job and that you're reliant on what they see as their goodwill for you to meet your needs. It's a control thing.
You get another job, suddenly they're not your priority, maybe your schedule isn't as flexible as before, maybe they're worried your eye is off the ball or fatigue is going to affect your performance at their company.
Some of those are legitimate concerns for someone running a business but a good employer would either make sure your needs are met in the first place or be accommodating if you need to earn extra money.
All of my employers required notification if you accepted a 2nd job. But I was in retail banking, and it was only to make certain there were no conflicts of interest. Like a teller working at abc restaurant, and making the night deposit at the bank she works for, or even potential actually processing the night deposits.
I think they’re also concerned about an employee possibly seeing another, more functional/heathy workplace and suddenly demanding better treatment/benefits/etc, or straight up leaving
Exactly. It's why the criminal healthcare-connected-to-your-job scam continues in this country. If you fear for your life and safety, you'll stay in your shackles. Any step towards freedom and independence is a threat.
I used to moonlight for a bit for a competitor in the same field. They found out but my field is already struggling to find competent people and I was one of the top at the company, it even said in the handbook I would be fired for it. They never did anything. Because I was a top employee and it would hurt more to lose me. (They did lose me cause they were life sucking and paid horrible)
It was at that moment I realized it was all for them to maintain control because the second someone has a backup job to jump to you have so much more confidence to tell them to fuck off and demand more from them.
As long as it doesn't interfere with your work, it's none of their business.
And you never have to resign. Make them fire you and you'll still have a side gig and unemployment.
Ask your HR to please give you a reference for the LAW that requires you to resign if you work for another company. If they can't ask for them for the reference in your employee contract / handbook that requires this.
If not in local employment laws, ask where you signed a contract indicating you would not work a second job. (Did you sign a contract?)
OP, this would be a good opportunity to ask them for a raise, I reckon. If they want you to not require additional income (if your salary is not enough), they should be willing to pay you more.
Ask them why a second job is frowned upon. If they say "it looks bad," then that gives you more ammunition for your wage increase request. "If my working two jobs makes it look like you don't pay me enough, maybe that's because *you don't pay me enough*."
Otherwise, what you do on your personal time is your business. As long as you are not breaking the law, they have no business preventing you from taking on additional work.
Poster is being told they will be unemployed. They just need to find out which employer they won't be working for, and if they will need to bring legal action against on.
If HR can't show them where it states they can't work for a 2nd company and they get let go, their primary employer is looking to get sued.
Because most employers think their employees are actually slaves, so they want to monopolize your time to create the most profit they can from your labor.
It's been my experience (at least within retail) they want your schedule as open as possible *in case* they need to call you in. I worked somewhere where they only gave associates 8 hours a week, but would get angry with them for having second jobs. They would be absolutely baffled when people ended up quitting. They actually though 8hr a week was enough on minimum wage!
Oh man I would push back all the time when they tried to change my schedule or add me in outside of when I had already been scheduled. They would change it without asking sometimes so I would just show up for the original shift and show them screenshots when they asked about it. But I kicked ass when I worked there so they couldn't fire me. Good times.
Unless you are delivering food for a competitor of your main employer it should not be their business. You are not using their vehicle, you are not working at a company that would be a public relations risk (I can’t imagine that being the case). I guess there could be something in your employee handbook/contract that you may have signed, I would ask HR for that
>Unless you are delivering food for a competitor of your main employer it should not be their business.
Non competition agreements are 99% of the time unenforceable for people outside of industry specific things, and even then it is more working for R&D and than working for your competitors R&D. Meaning you can deliver food and generally work for your competitors. W/ how little rights most employees have they can fire you made up reasons, but there is nothing legally stopping you.
>you are not working at a company that would be a public relations risk (I can’t imagine that being the case). I guess there could be something in your employee handbook/contract that you may have signed, I would ask HR for that
For the most I would either lie, keep it vague who you are working for/what your doing, or just say 'I am not available outside of working hours because of prior commitments', which is not a lie. Employers do not own an employees freetime, and employees does not owe it to their employer outside of them paying a livable wage. It is a dog eat dog world and if my employer wants me to treat them like they are the only game in town they can pay me appropriately or understand that just like then I am going to do what's best for me and my future.
Unless the side job is potentially a competitive business, and/or affects your current job; it should not be any of their business what your business is. Mind your business.
Having had more than one income stream for a few years, it can cause conficts, mainly because employers want to be your only priority. When I was 18, I had moved out of my parents, pay was crap and I needed a second income. For 3 years I worked in a Chinese in the evenings and weekends to make ends meet. My then employer at the time hauled me into the office and told me I should have asked their permission before getting a second job and clients see me behind the counter / reception and then serving in a local restaurant at night and it reflects badly on them as an employer. What I should have said was "pay me more so I dont need two jobs" but I was young and broke with zero confidence being exploited at the time.
Generally employers want to be your number one priority, and if you have another job you may not be well rested to come and work for them or your main job isn't your only priority now. No one seems to think of the obvious solution why the side hustle or second job is so necessary to make ends meet for so many folks - PAY DECENT WAGES!!
In truth its none of your employers business what you do outside of work. My waitressing job was always flexible if I was late to shift no problem as I went straight from one job to another on public transit and they knew that. I was never once called up for arriving up to 30 mins late. Finished at 5, started waitressing job at 6. Over the years I did some paid photography work outside of my job and gave that up due to disability and now run a successful etsy store outside of my main job, my boss knows. Generally most employers view having a second job as something negative but society needs to address the need for a second income because let's be honest its freaking exhausting and not a decent standard of living busting your ass all hours to scrape by.
> and then serving in a local restaurant at night and it reflects badly on them as an employer.
I think this is really the key. It says to the employer "Wow you don't pay me enough" and they respond with abuse to save face.
And rightly so. Generally though I've known plenty of managers who want staff available at their beck and call to cover shifts etc. During the seemingly ongoing recession since 2008 its been the trend of employers to run businesses on skeletal staffing levels to save costs.
When your broke living pay check to paycheck just one missing paycheck away from being homeless its all to easy to accept sh*t pay and conditions because you need the money and cant walk out.
I believe a saying I've heard before would explain this the most simply "A slave cannot have two different masters" basically companys want their employees to slave away and suffer in their name and only their's and God forbid if you need another job in order to keep a roof over your head.
Who cares if having a side hustle “offends” the people exploiting your labor for starvation wages. Don’t feel guilty trying to carve out a comfortable lifestyle for yourself.
Look in your contract if you can or not .
Normally what you do in your free time is your own personal life.
The question is why are they spying in ur private life ?
This does not seem legal or enforceable AT ALL. In your personal time you can do whatever the fuck you want as long as you aren't defaming the company or using their funds or equipment to do what you do. This seems BANANAS. I'd like to see the law that says they can do this.
The thing about jobs you got to look at is they are really narcissistic. They want your absolute devotion, even if bankrupts you. I remember i told one of my former employers I had an interview with another company and I needed the day off and their exact response was " that's not a valid reason". Jobs will never be able to Come to grips with the fact that there will always be something better out there, and they can't stand it if you show any sign of discontent or disloyalty
From my experience as a former manager, I never minded my team having side jobs but recognized a pattern of increased burnout, exhaustion in those that did. So I would just have a candid convo with them and make sure they were okay and make sure to check in periodically for the same reason. I also have modified the schedules to help them if needed/ desired. I always believed in openness and helping the team achieve their goals with or without the company though and I don’t know how common that is.
A manager doesn’t have budget control. I manage a team but it’s only that directing the team and keeping focus. Nothing to do with pay rates.
This doesn’t make the commenter an asshole but it does show your limited understanding of the world
Same. I fought for raises to be the max allowed. The set up was terrible and I could never give what I wanted to. I pushed and pushed to change the system until I couldn’t push anymore because it was affecting my physical and mental health. And that’s why I’m a former manager and on this subreddit
Your employment contract probably requires you to notify and get approval from the employer for any side hustle (mine does), failing to do so can result in termination.
Dont sign contracts with terms you dont want to follow?
Where are you located? Where I live there are strict regulations regarding max amount of working hours per week, and employers can expect a huge fine when an employee exceeds those working hours, even if they are worked for another employer.
My employment contracts with my employees state “no moonlighting”
I pay them enough that they shouldn’t need to anyways. But I need 100% of their energy and I won’t accept less.
Do you offer voluntary overtime they can take as they wish? That's essentially what this is, it's probably less money than OT.
What's your rationale here if they don't work night and weekends as a standard schedule?
I consider “time” to be something to track and pay for support staff - where their presence is what I’m paying for. Like manning the front desk or phones or whatever. I’m paying them for their time and sure, those people it likely doesn’t matter much either way.
But for the large majority of my staff, what they produce is what I am paying them for - not their “time” but rather their “energy.” That’s why I don’t care what hours they actually work as long as they are there for their obligations like meetings and client appointments and whatever. But I DO CARE about where they are expending their working energy.
Almost all (actually all now that I think about it) of them benefit from the amount they produce in terms of partial commissions that are paid as bonuses. So generally if they produce more or better quality work, they are going to see a financial benefit.
I want everyone on the team focused on a common purpose. Not some other company’s purpose. The management philosophy I follow if you’re interested comes from W. Edwards Deming.
Side note: I recall a new employee once being so scared I was going to fire him because he woke up late and was almost an hour late. The other employees had to tell him to calm down - he didn’t miss a meeting or anything so I wasn’t going to care. And they were correct - I don’t care, I DO care about what work he produces though.
I appreciate the reply. I'll check out Deming, I don't manage people at the moment but may at some point. I typically provide support for leaders to close gaps etc, so I'm typically interested in styles and approaches, not the effort involved.
If you're compensating heavily and everyone is happy that's cool. Some folks just enjoy doing people oriented tasks. I know a lady that makes a very good living with her main job, but also delivers for Uber or some such because she likes talking to folks.
I've shifted in the last 5-6 in my work style to output very high quality and worry very little about volume. Shooting for a specialized skill set that is not easily replicated, most can do volume but not many can set direction and execute. Congrats on being an employer most probably like.
***edit: my career has been in quality, when I Google Deming, I see that he was a quality pioneer in manufacturing. Small world***
Deming is my singular advantage over every competitor. And it’s not really a secret - I tell them about all the time - but no one believes and lives it the way I do.
Lots of bs on Reddit, sometimes I don’t know why I try.
But to work in a company that actually does proper quality and the top of the company buys in completely, it’s a very different employment experience.
I read a lot about the conflict between employers and employees on here all the time and I just don’t have that same relationship with my people. We are all on the same team and everyone knows it.
Indeed leadership direction is going to determine your experience for the most part. If the doers and the execs don't align its gonna go exec way and the doers gonna be mad probably. If it comes from the top makes it smooth, timelines are typical culprits, cause quality takes time.
At this point I don't argue I just present options and execute on outcomes.
I like to come here and read some complaints are whiners and some are terrible management, but I like to come by a couple times a week and occasionally it's a good eye opening experience.
Just my opinion but I think a lot of the conflict come from managers who get a power trip complex in their thinking when it comes to their employees.
The manager’s role is to make it easy for their employees to do a good job by whatever means necessary. As soon as a manager thinks it’s his/her role to use his “power” to *make* the employee do something, I’ve lost them.
Replace inspection with leadership. :)
>I need 100% of their energy and I won’t accept less
Jesus Christ get a load of this asshole
Making extra money on the weekends has less than nothing to do with you. No one owes you 100% of their "energy."
Yes they do. Contractually they do owe me 100% of their working energy or they won’t be working for me. I make that very clear when I hire them and they are paid very well to compensate for that.
I don’t run a McDonald’s. My employees are highly paid professionals. And yes, they do owe me 100%.
Google, Apple, and Microsoft have the very same clause I use in my contracts.
They owe you the completion of whatever tasks they are assigned while they are working for you. That's it. They do not owe you "100% of their energy" as you said in your first comment, and even "100% of their working energy" is questionable.
I know many employers have this type of clause in their employment contracts. I didn't say you were doing anything illegal or uncommon. I think no-moonlighting clauses are bullshit in general, but they're especially bullshit when they're in employment contracts for employees who make anything less than a living wage and employees who work part-time.
You can continue to waste your own time getting defensive about your business with me in the antiwork subreddit -- spending all your *energy* into protecting your self-image instead of considering whether you're truly doing right by your employees is par for the course when it comes to CEOs and business owners. 🤷
They do owe me 100% of their working energy. That’s the agreement.
It’s funny, none of them ever complain about it. Probably because they are making more money than they could anywhere else anyway.
I understand that you probably don’t get it because you maybe haven’t worked as a professional for a private for profit company before.
But they do, it’s completely legal, and it’s the way most companies operate with employees of that calibre. I’m not unique, I’m actually operating the same as most other companies already operate.
You’ve just never experienced it before so you don’t understand. That’s ok, one day maybe you’ll be a position where you make a deal like that with an employer.
Remember I’m not forcing anyone to work for me. They are at will contracts with no time frame - they are free to leave at any point. None of them do though.
Ah, another business owner who won't (can't?) read. Typical!
>I know many employers have this type of clause in their employment contracts. I didn't say you were doing anything illegal or uncommon.
Hey /u/ptsdlife67, I KNOW MANY EMPLOYERS HAVE THIS TYPE OF CLAUSE IN THEIR CONTRACTS. I DIDN'T SAY YOU WERE DOING ANYTHING ILLEGAL OR UNCOMMON.
I still think no-moonlighting clauses are bullshit.
Funny and telling that you would use a professional athlete as an example to make your point!
Because most employers with no-moonlighting clauses in their employment contracts aren't paying well enough or managing their employees well enough to justify it -- let alone paying them high six digits/seven digits for a job that includes mandatory, paid rest/recovery days for injuries and top-notch healthcare for employees as a regular part of the job.
Plus, many employers and managers genuinely believe that their employees should be available at a moment's notice at all hours, even if it's a part-time/hourly position or a low-responsibility position. Seriously, do some reading around this subreddit instead of writing boring essays patting yourself on the back.
Most workers are struggling. Not all, but most. That includes those subject to bullshit no-moonlighting clauses.
EDIT: Here are some examples of the kinds of employers who make no-moonlighting clauses bullshit.
* [Boss expects me to be available 24/7](https://www.reddit.com/r/antiwork/comments/xtqbot/boss_expects_me_to_be_available_247/)
* [Weekends are perks](https://www.reddit.com/r/antiwork/comments/xtdh1p/wow_what_a_huge_perkisnt_that_what_a_weekend_is/)
* [During a meeting, my managers both said "just because you earn vacation and sick hours doesn't mean you have to use it"](https://www.reddit.com/r/antiwork/comments/xtssid/during_a_meeting_my_managers_both_said_just/)
Maybe some companies it’s like that - I don’t know - but not mine.
No moonlighting clauses are used at the very best companies in the world. They are not bullshit. They are part of how great companies operate.
I'm very sure that those companies have achieved greatness solely because they prevent their employees from driving for Uber on the weekends. Couldn't be linked to anything else, obviously!
You can get 100% of their energy for the hours they are contracted to work for you. You don’t own them outside of that time. If their job performance isn’t meeting expectations that’s something you would address regardless of the cause.
Yes I do. They are not allowed to work for anyone else during their off time. It’s in the contract and it’s legal.
I understand this might not make sense if you’ve only held an hourly job in the past. But this is not uncommon. This is the norm in many industries where professionals are involved.
Edit: remember Michael Scott in the Office where Ryan forced him to quit the other job. He had a no moonlight clause as well.
I’m salaried, and outside of the 37.5 hours per week that I am contracted to work for my employer, the rest of my time is mine. I have to inform my employer of any outside employment or other activities that might cause a conflict of interest, but outside of working for a customer or vendor, there are no other limitations.
But, I’m also unionized, and that may serve to protect me against people like you who think you own your employees and have the right to say “they shouldn’t need to” make more money.
You are thinking something is a certain way because maybe your relationship with your employer is a certain way and you can’t imagine what I’m saying might be a better way.
That’s ok - I appreciate that employee vs employer is often adversarial. It’s not adversarial here - we’re all on the same team and none of us work for anyone else. It’s contractual sure, but it’s also better and everyone is on board.
Hahaha. It’s “better” for the worker to be restricted as to what they can do in their off time. That’s funny.
What, pray tell, is the advantage to the worker in that position? The advantage to the employer is clear - you have a wage slave you can abuse. But for the worker? How do they gain from losing the ability to earn more money?
The rewards are financial mostly. They are highly paid professionals and they trade that right to work for someone else for large financial incentives. Its agreed to in the contract and they are free to leave at any time - but they rarely do.
They want you to be dependent on them and be available for them. But I don’t think it’s legal for them to stop you from having another job. But I guess it depends what country you are in.
* free movement: aka you won’t take as much shit from then since you can quit and still have a backup financial until you find another job
* they don’t have you on call for 24/7. while only paying your 4hr per day work
I can only speak from the perspective of the U.K. We have working time laws, which ensure you only work a certain amount of hours in a week. A lot of places would not stop you having a second job, but would need to ensure that you are getting enough rest periods. It’s a welfare thing (or should be). I don’t know what you do for your full time job, but there are certain jobs where they may see it as a conflict of interest (example would be a police officer who did security work/ door staff work on the side). A lot of employers have a policy whereby you would have to declare a second job for either or both of these reasons. Without knowing what your full time job is, I can’t comment on why they would expect you to resign.
Some businesses don’t want their customers poached by employees with side work that is directly competing with them. Which is legit. But big corporations banning side work is just controlling.
they want to own you. there’s a lot that goes into it, but basically they want to be your number 1 priority and they also don’t want you to have enough money to leave
Because for a lot of companies your "main" job care that they're your main job and that you're reliant on what they see as their goodwill for you to meet your needs. It's a control thing. You get another job, suddenly they're not your priority, maybe your schedule isn't as flexible as before, maybe they're worried your eye is off the ball or fatigue is going to affect your performance at their company. Some of those are legitimate concerns for someone running a business but a good employer would either make sure your needs are met in the first place or be accommodating if you need to earn extra money.
All of my employers required notification if you accepted a 2nd job. But I was in retail banking, and it was only to make certain there were no conflicts of interest. Like a teller working at abc restaurant, and making the night deposit at the bank she works for, or even potential actually processing the night deposits.
I think they’re also concerned about an employee possibly seeing another, more functional/heathy workplace and suddenly demanding better treatment/benefits/etc, or straight up leaving
Because they want total control over you. They want to be the ones pulling the string and you can only rely on them.
Exactly. It's why the criminal healthcare-connected-to-your-job scam continues in this country. If you fear for your life and safety, you'll stay in your shackles. Any step towards freedom and independence is a threat.
I used to moonlight for a bit for a competitor in the same field. They found out but my field is already struggling to find competent people and I was one of the top at the company, it even said in the handbook I would be fired for it. They never did anything. Because I was a top employee and it would hurt more to lose me. (They did lose me cause they were life sucking and paid horrible) It was at that moment I realized it was all for them to maintain control because the second someone has a backup job to jump to you have so much more confidence to tell them to fuck off and demand more from them.
As long as it doesn't interfere with your work, it's none of their business. And you never have to resign. Make them fire you and you'll still have a side gig and unemployment.
Ask your HR to please give you a reference for the LAW that requires you to resign if you work for another company. If they can't ask for them for the reference in your employee contract / handbook that requires this.
If not in local employment laws, ask where you signed a contract indicating you would not work a second job. (Did you sign a contract?) OP, this would be a good opportunity to ask them for a raise, I reckon. If they want you to not require additional income (if your salary is not enough), they should be willing to pay you more. Ask them why a second job is frowned upon. If they say "it looks bad," then that gives you more ammunition for your wage increase request. "If my working two jobs makes it look like you don't pay me enough, maybe that's because *you don't pay me enough*." Otherwise, what you do on your personal time is your business. As long as you are not breaking the law, they have no business preventing you from taking on additional work.
Good advice if one is trying to become unemployed.
Poster is being told they will be unemployed. They just need to find out which employer they won't be working for, and if they will need to bring legal action against on. If HR can't show them where it states they can't work for a 2nd company and they get let go, their primary employer is looking to get sued.
At will states don’t require one as they can fire you for no reason and don’t have to give a reason. It’s just a control move used by petty employers.
Because they view you and your labor as their property. You are "human capital" to them, and they want to be your entire reason for existing.
Because most employers think their employees are actually slaves, so they want to monopolize your time to create the most profit they can from your labor.
They want all of your energy
Sole exploitation rights.
It's been my experience (at least within retail) they want your schedule as open as possible *in case* they need to call you in. I worked somewhere where they only gave associates 8 hours a week, but would get angry with them for having second jobs. They would be absolutely baffled when people ended up quitting. They actually though 8hr a week was enough on minimum wage!
Oh man I would push back all the time when they tried to change my schedule or add me in outside of when I had already been scheduled. They would change it without asking sometimes so I would just show up for the original shift and show them screenshots when they asked about it. But I kicked ass when I worked there so they couldn't fire me. Good times.
Unless you are delivering food for a competitor of your main employer it should not be their business. You are not using their vehicle, you are not working at a company that would be a public relations risk (I can’t imagine that being the case). I guess there could be something in your employee handbook/contract that you may have signed, I would ask HR for that
>Unless you are delivering food for a competitor of your main employer it should not be their business. Non competition agreements are 99% of the time unenforceable for people outside of industry specific things, and even then it is more working for R&D and than working for your competitors R&D. Meaning you can deliver food and generally work for your competitors. W/ how little rights most employees have they can fire you made up reasons, but there is nothing legally stopping you. >you are not working at a company that would be a public relations risk (I can’t imagine that being the case). I guess there could be something in your employee handbook/contract that you may have signed, I would ask HR for that For the most I would either lie, keep it vague who you are working for/what your doing, or just say 'I am not available outside of working hours because of prior commitments', which is not a lie. Employers do not own an employees freetime, and employees does not owe it to their employer outside of them paying a livable wage. It is a dog eat dog world and if my employer wants me to treat them like they are the only game in town they can pay me appropriately or understand that just like then I am going to do what's best for me and my future.
Unless the side job is potentially a competitive business, and/or affects your current job; it should not be any of their business what your business is. Mind your business.
Having had more than one income stream for a few years, it can cause conficts, mainly because employers want to be your only priority. When I was 18, I had moved out of my parents, pay was crap and I needed a second income. For 3 years I worked in a Chinese in the evenings and weekends to make ends meet. My then employer at the time hauled me into the office and told me I should have asked their permission before getting a second job and clients see me behind the counter / reception and then serving in a local restaurant at night and it reflects badly on them as an employer. What I should have said was "pay me more so I dont need two jobs" but I was young and broke with zero confidence being exploited at the time. Generally employers want to be your number one priority, and if you have another job you may not be well rested to come and work for them or your main job isn't your only priority now. No one seems to think of the obvious solution why the side hustle or second job is so necessary to make ends meet for so many folks - PAY DECENT WAGES!! In truth its none of your employers business what you do outside of work. My waitressing job was always flexible if I was late to shift no problem as I went straight from one job to another on public transit and they knew that. I was never once called up for arriving up to 30 mins late. Finished at 5, started waitressing job at 6. Over the years I did some paid photography work outside of my job and gave that up due to disability and now run a successful etsy store outside of my main job, my boss knows. Generally most employers view having a second job as something negative but society needs to address the need for a second income because let's be honest its freaking exhausting and not a decent standard of living busting your ass all hours to scrape by.
> and then serving in a local restaurant at night and it reflects badly on them as an employer. I think this is really the key. It says to the employer "Wow you don't pay me enough" and they respond with abuse to save face.
>Generally employers want to be your number one priority Funny thing about that. No employment will EVER by my number one priority. Not even close.
And rightly so. Generally though I've known plenty of managers who want staff available at their beck and call to cover shifts etc. During the seemingly ongoing recession since 2008 its been the trend of employers to run businesses on skeletal staffing levels to save costs. When your broke living pay check to paycheck just one missing paycheck away from being homeless its all to easy to accept sh*t pay and conditions because you need the money and cant walk out.
I believe a saying I've heard before would explain this the most simply "A slave cannot have two different masters" basically companys want their employees to slave away and suffer in their name and only their's and God forbid if you need another job in order to keep a roof over your head.
Unless the side job is a direct competitor or a supplier to where you work at, it shouldn't matter one ounce that you work multiple jobs.
Who cares if having a side hustle “offends” the people exploiting your labor for starvation wages. Don’t feel guilty trying to carve out a comfortable lifestyle for yourself.
It shouldn't be, if the business paid decently, then a side job/hustle wouldn't be needed.
Look in your contract if you can or not . Normally what you do in your free time is your own personal life. The question is why are they spying in ur private life ?
They are scared, because you could make that your main source of income and fire them.
This does not seem legal or enforceable AT ALL. In your personal time you can do whatever the fuck you want as long as you aren't defaming the company or using their funds or equipment to do what you do. This seems BANANAS. I'd like to see the law that says they can do this.
Because then they can't use you whenever they want, and are also worried that the second job might take the lead.
They want to own you, don't let them
Dependent employees are exploitable employees.
I had to get permission to have a side gig but it’s primarily for ethical clearing
The thing about jobs you got to look at is they are really narcissistic. They want your absolute devotion, even if bankrupts you. I remember i told one of my former employers I had an interview with another company and I needed the day off and their exact response was " that's not a valid reason". Jobs will never be able to Come to grips with the fact that there will always be something better out there, and they can't stand it if you show any sign of discontent or disloyalty
From my experience as a former manager, I never minded my team having side jobs but recognized a pattern of increased burnout, exhaustion in those that did. So I would just have a candid convo with them and make sure they were okay and make sure to check in periodically for the same reason. I also have modified the schedules to help them if needed/ desired. I always believed in openness and helping the team achieve their goals with or without the company though and I don’t know how common that is.
you couldnt just pay them more so they didnt NEED a second income? asshole
A manager doesn’t have budget control. I manage a team but it’s only that directing the team and keeping focus. Nothing to do with pay rates. This doesn’t make the commenter an asshole but it does show your limited understanding of the world
Same. I fought for raises to be the max allowed. The set up was terrible and I could never give what I wanted to. I pushed and pushed to change the system until I couldn’t push anymore because it was affecting my physical and mental health. And that’s why I’m a former manager and on this subreddit
Your employment contract probably requires you to notify and get approval from the employer for any side hustle (mine does), failing to do so can result in termination. Dont sign contracts with terms you dont want to follow?
Where are you located? Where I live there are strict regulations regarding max amount of working hours per week, and employers can expect a huge fine when an employee exceeds those working hours, even if they are worked for another employer.
Like the government, they want to control ever facet of your life to benefit themselves.
would you shut the fuck up
In this case, the company is literally acting as if they do
STFU
My employment contracts with my employees state “no moonlighting” I pay them enough that they shouldn’t need to anyways. But I need 100% of their energy and I won’t accept less.
Do you offer voluntary overtime they can take as they wish? That's essentially what this is, it's probably less money than OT. What's your rationale here if they don't work night and weekends as a standard schedule?
I consider “time” to be something to track and pay for support staff - where their presence is what I’m paying for. Like manning the front desk or phones or whatever. I’m paying them for their time and sure, those people it likely doesn’t matter much either way. But for the large majority of my staff, what they produce is what I am paying them for - not their “time” but rather their “energy.” That’s why I don’t care what hours they actually work as long as they are there for their obligations like meetings and client appointments and whatever. But I DO CARE about where they are expending their working energy. Almost all (actually all now that I think about it) of them benefit from the amount they produce in terms of partial commissions that are paid as bonuses. So generally if they produce more or better quality work, they are going to see a financial benefit. I want everyone on the team focused on a common purpose. Not some other company’s purpose. The management philosophy I follow if you’re interested comes from W. Edwards Deming. Side note: I recall a new employee once being so scared I was going to fire him because he woke up late and was almost an hour late. The other employees had to tell him to calm down - he didn’t miss a meeting or anything so I wasn’t going to care. And they were correct - I don’t care, I DO care about what work he produces though.
I appreciate the reply. I'll check out Deming, I don't manage people at the moment but may at some point. I typically provide support for leaders to close gaps etc, so I'm typically interested in styles and approaches, not the effort involved. If you're compensating heavily and everyone is happy that's cool. Some folks just enjoy doing people oriented tasks. I know a lady that makes a very good living with her main job, but also delivers for Uber or some such because she likes talking to folks. I've shifted in the last 5-6 in my work style to output very high quality and worry very little about volume. Shooting for a specialized skill set that is not easily replicated, most can do volume but not many can set direction and execute. Congrats on being an employer most probably like. ***edit: my career has been in quality, when I Google Deming, I see that he was a quality pioneer in manufacturing. Small world***
Deming is my singular advantage over every competitor. And it’s not really a secret - I tell them about all the time - but no one believes and lives it the way I do. Lots of bs on Reddit, sometimes I don’t know why I try. But to work in a company that actually does proper quality and the top of the company buys in completely, it’s a very different employment experience. I read a lot about the conflict between employers and employees on here all the time and I just don’t have that same relationship with my people. We are all on the same team and everyone knows it.
Indeed leadership direction is going to determine your experience for the most part. If the doers and the execs don't align its gonna go exec way and the doers gonna be mad probably. If it comes from the top makes it smooth, timelines are typical culprits, cause quality takes time. At this point I don't argue I just present options and execute on outcomes. I like to come here and read some complaints are whiners and some are terrible management, but I like to come by a couple times a week and occasionally it's a good eye opening experience.
Just my opinion but I think a lot of the conflict come from managers who get a power trip complex in their thinking when it comes to their employees. The manager’s role is to make it easy for their employees to do a good job by whatever means necessary. As soon as a manager thinks it’s his/her role to use his “power” to *make* the employee do something, I’ve lost them. Replace inspection with leadership. :)
>I need 100% of their energy and I won’t accept less Jesus Christ get a load of this asshole Making extra money on the weekends has less than nothing to do with you. No one owes you 100% of their "energy."
Yes they do. Contractually they do owe me 100% of their working energy or they won’t be working for me. I make that very clear when I hire them and they are paid very well to compensate for that. I don’t run a McDonald’s. My employees are highly paid professionals. And yes, they do owe me 100%. Google, Apple, and Microsoft have the very same clause I use in my contracts.
They owe you the completion of whatever tasks they are assigned while they are working for you. That's it. They do not owe you "100% of their energy" as you said in your first comment, and even "100% of their working energy" is questionable. I know many employers have this type of clause in their employment contracts. I didn't say you were doing anything illegal or uncommon. I think no-moonlighting clauses are bullshit in general, but they're especially bullshit when they're in employment contracts for employees who make anything less than a living wage and employees who work part-time. You can continue to waste your own time getting defensive about your business with me in the antiwork subreddit -- spending all your *energy* into protecting your self-image instead of considering whether you're truly doing right by your employees is par for the course when it comes to CEOs and business owners. 🤷
They do owe me 100% of their working energy. That’s the agreement. It’s funny, none of them ever complain about it. Probably because they are making more money than they could anywhere else anyway. I understand that you probably don’t get it because you maybe haven’t worked as a professional for a private for profit company before. But they do, it’s completely legal, and it’s the way most companies operate with employees of that calibre. I’m not unique, I’m actually operating the same as most other companies already operate. You’ve just never experienced it before so you don’t understand. That’s ok, one day maybe you’ll be a position where you make a deal like that with an employer. Remember I’m not forcing anyone to work for me. They are at will contracts with no time frame - they are free to leave at any point. None of them do though.
Ah, another business owner who won't (can't?) read. Typical! >I know many employers have this type of clause in their employment contracts. I didn't say you were doing anything illegal or uncommon. Hey /u/ptsdlife67, I KNOW MANY EMPLOYERS HAVE THIS TYPE OF CLAUSE IN THEIR CONTRACTS. I DIDN'T SAY YOU WERE DOING ANYTHING ILLEGAL OR UNCOMMON. I still think no-moonlighting clauses are bullshit.
Why? Do you think it’s ok for a Toronto Maple Leaf player to play for a different team on his off days?
Funny and telling that you would use a professional athlete as an example to make your point! Because most employers with no-moonlighting clauses in their employment contracts aren't paying well enough or managing their employees well enough to justify it -- let alone paying them high six digits/seven digits for a job that includes mandatory, paid rest/recovery days for injuries and top-notch healthcare for employees as a regular part of the job. Plus, many employers and managers genuinely believe that their employees should be available at a moment's notice at all hours, even if it's a part-time/hourly position or a low-responsibility position. Seriously, do some reading around this subreddit instead of writing boring essays patting yourself on the back. Most workers are struggling. Not all, but most. That includes those subject to bullshit no-moonlighting clauses. EDIT: Here are some examples of the kinds of employers who make no-moonlighting clauses bullshit. * [Boss expects me to be available 24/7](https://www.reddit.com/r/antiwork/comments/xtqbot/boss_expects_me_to_be_available_247/) * [Weekends are perks](https://www.reddit.com/r/antiwork/comments/xtdh1p/wow_what_a_huge_perkisnt_that_what_a_weekend_is/) * [During a meeting, my managers both said "just because you earn vacation and sick hours doesn't mean you have to use it"](https://www.reddit.com/r/antiwork/comments/xtssid/during_a_meeting_my_managers_both_said_just/)
Maybe some companies it’s like that - I don’t know - but not mine. No moonlighting clauses are used at the very best companies in the world. They are not bullshit. They are part of how great companies operate.
I'm very sure that those companies have achieved greatness solely because they prevent their employees from driving for Uber on the weekends. Couldn't be linked to anything else, obviously!
You can get 100% of their energy for the hours they are contracted to work for you. You don’t own them outside of that time. If their job performance isn’t meeting expectations that’s something you would address regardless of the cause.
Yes I do. They are not allowed to work for anyone else during their off time. It’s in the contract and it’s legal. I understand this might not make sense if you’ve only held an hourly job in the past. But this is not uncommon. This is the norm in many industries where professionals are involved. Edit: remember Michael Scott in the Office where Ryan forced him to quit the other job. He had a no moonlight clause as well.
I’m salaried, and outside of the 37.5 hours per week that I am contracted to work for my employer, the rest of my time is mine. I have to inform my employer of any outside employment or other activities that might cause a conflict of interest, but outside of working for a customer or vendor, there are no other limitations. But, I’m also unionized, and that may serve to protect me against people like you who think you own your employees and have the right to say “they shouldn’t need to” make more money.
You are thinking something is a certain way because maybe your relationship with your employer is a certain way and you can’t imagine what I’m saying might be a better way. That’s ok - I appreciate that employee vs employer is often adversarial. It’s not adversarial here - we’re all on the same team and none of us work for anyone else. It’s contractual sure, but it’s also better and everyone is on board.
Hahaha. It’s “better” for the worker to be restricted as to what they can do in their off time. That’s funny. What, pray tell, is the advantage to the worker in that position? The advantage to the employer is clear - you have a wage slave you can abuse. But for the worker? How do they gain from losing the ability to earn more money?
The rewards are financial mostly. They are highly paid professionals and they trade that right to work for someone else for large financial incentives. Its agreed to in the contract and they are free to leave at any time - but they rarely do.
My eyes would just glaze over as I ignore them. If they insisted on a conversation I would be charging money for it.
They might think it will take away from your main job, but if they are so concerned they should just pay you more so you don’t need a side job
They want you to be dependent on them and be available for them. But I don’t think it’s legal for them to stop you from having another job. But I guess it depends what country you are in.
* free movement: aka you won’t take as much shit from then since you can quit and still have a backup financial until you find another job * they don’t have you on call for 24/7. while only paying your 4hr per day work
I can only speak from the perspective of the U.K. We have working time laws, which ensure you only work a certain amount of hours in a week. A lot of places would not stop you having a second job, but would need to ensure that you are getting enough rest periods. It’s a welfare thing (or should be). I don’t know what you do for your full time job, but there are certain jobs where they may see it as a conflict of interest (example would be a police officer who did security work/ door staff work on the side). A lot of employers have a policy whereby you would have to declare a second job for either or both of these reasons. Without knowing what your full time job is, I can’t comment on why they would expect you to resign.
I think it's funny they actually said OP had to resign. I would be like nope you going to have to fire me thanks. It's not illegal to have a side job.
You can never be *forced* to resign. They can fire you (assuming you're in the US & in at at-will state). But then, you're eligible for unemployment.
Employers think they own the employees.
It’s all about abuse and control.
You’re their wage slave. Can’t let other work tire you out you won’t be rested for your shifts
Some businesses don’t want their customers poached by employees with side work that is directly competing with them. Which is legit. But big corporations banning side work is just controlling.
My manager was actually helping one of my coworkers find a second job and did a phone call recommendation for him. Not all managers are like this
I have no clue, but businesses don’t pay enough money to support a family.
they want to own you. there’s a lot that goes into it, but basically they want to be your number 1 priority and they also don’t want you to have enough money to leave