double dipper
I wanna laser focus in on this phrase in particular because I think it’s bullshit. No one is double dipping, no one’s getting paid twice to do one job. You do a job, it’s to the satisfaction of your employer, they pay you. That is and has always been the deal. If I can do two jobs to the satisfaction of two employers I deserve and am entitled to two paychecks.
Yeah but employers want to be the only party who can have their cake and eat it by giving one person the work of three people and calling them ‘cross-trained.’
I think there are two different scenarios being conflated here. Having two jobs where you work 1, then work the other is overall fine. The issue is when you have two jobs that you work during the same time, in other words you work for both companies from 9-5 unbeknownst to those employers. If you’d like to do that you need to be an independent contractor or form your own company and do contracted work where the terms are entirely different between you and the company you do work for.
Im not conflating anything. A job is an expectation of work to be done for a wage. I do the work, I get the wage. If the expectation is outlined at the beginning as the job monopolizing my time and me doing whatever work comes along when I’m on the clock, then that’s the job I took and I need to be available to them. But in a lot of jobs the expectation is just to meet certain targets of work to be completed. If I meet those targets, the employer owes me the agreed upon wage. To imply that doing anything less than as much as humanly possible is some sort of fraud normalizes exploitation and abuse.
If I pay the grocery store a dollar for an apple, am I entitled to as many apples as they can possibly deliver me? Obviously not.
If I pay a worker a dollar for a task, am I entitled to as many tasks as they can possibly deliver me? A lot of employers seem to think so.
If the expectation is outlined at the beginning as the job monopolizing my time and me doing whatever work comes along when I’m on the clock, then that’s the job I took and I need to be available to them.
Yes. THAT is the expectation we are talking about. If a company doesn’t expect that, then there is no issue.
in a lot of jobs the expectation is just to meet certain targets of work to be completed. If I meet those targets, the employer owes me the agreed upon wage.
Great. If that’s what your employment agreement says there isn’t a problem. Congrats on finding a white collar salaried job that involves no collaboration or expectations on availability.
If I pay the grocery store a dollar for an apple, am I entitled to as many apples as they can possibly deliver me? Obviously not.
That’s akin to hourly pay. You work an hour you get $10. You buy an Apple you pay $1. Salary is like an all you can eat buffet. You pay $20 you eat 1 Apple, 2 Apples, 3 Apples, etc. But also there are rules; Can’t take anything home, can’t share your food with a non-paying person, you’ll probably get cut off at some point if you eat too much or waste food etc.
If I pay a worker a dollar for a task, am I entitled to as many tasks as they can possibly deliver me?
I think this is the big misconception. You’re describing contract work, not salaried employment.
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.Couldn’t you just pay them enough so that they don’t need a second job?
The article also quotes
to “cheat” the system
As if people working two jobs are stealing and not working in exchange for proper value of money.
It really should depend on the role. If part of your job is being available for inbound requests, or participating in group work of some kind, it seems reasonable to expect that during the business day you will be available and not randomly tied up with other commitments. It would be hard to have two such jobs.
If it’s a task completion kind of job then it shouldn’t matter exactly when the tasks get done as long as they get done.
But you should be able to have one “high availablility” job and one “task completion” job at the same time because your tasks can always be set aside if you are needed. Or two task completion jobs, for the same reason.
In all events, the point is being able to perform your job without undue obstacles. If you can do that, and you’re meeting the goals and criteria set for you, nothing else should matter.
It’s because the system is designed to keep us paid just enough to live and keep buying from companies, but not enough to have true independence. Working two jobs is cheating that system by giving you more money and freedom than they want you to have. Once you have financial security you can start to wonder about how fucked up this “system” truly is.
Do you really think anyone out there really wants you to not have more? Doesn’t seem to me that anyone cares. I think the concern is that you will perform your job halfway, not that you will become too solvent. Having more money to spend is always good for the capitalists. Hurting productivity is the fear (whether right or wrong).
I don’t follow. If you’re claiming you’re putting 40 hours of work in a week, or that is what your contract says, and you’re really only doing 20 because you’re splitting it between two jobs…isn’t that obviously cheating the system?
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t give a shit if people take advantage of a corporation to milk it for cash, but it seems to me to be pretty clearly cheating the system. If you want to get paid on what you produce, and not the time you put in, then you should structure your contracts that I way. I know a lot of my side work I don’t bill hourly precisely because I know it can be done quickly ( for me with experience) but it’s worth more to them.
It really depends on the job. For example, security guards need to be present AND vigilant. It’s not reasonable for them to be fooling with spreadsheets on their phone or something. However, a spreadsheet worker is not technically required to sit in their chair 40 hours. They need to get a certain amount of work done. Who cares when they do it? The rub comes when some people think that the spreadsheet job is mandated 40 hours in the chair but it really isn’t. That’s not in the papers you signed. It’s just a “soft expectation” or assumption that management had. If you are completing all the work expected of you during a day, it shouldn’t matter if it took you a full 8 hours or not.
Having said that, someone who only completes what’s given and never contributes extra on their own initiative, or looks for additional ways to be helpful, is not going to be as appreciated. They might not get promoted as fast. But that’s different than cheating.
If you’re salaried, you’re not usually obligated to work a certain number of hours, you’re just obligated to complete tasks on time. If someone holds two salaried positions and works fast enough that they get all obligations for both completed in 40 hours a week, they’re not cheating anyone.
I manage a decent sized team of salaried people and I am 100% behind this.
If I were to have a criticism it would be of management hiring more people than they really need, not paying good wages, and/or not recognizing when one of their people is ready for a bigger role.
It’s never happened on my team that I know of, but if I were to run into that case and my guy was getting his job done properly then zero fucks would be given.
If I were to have a criticism it would be of management hiring more people than they really need
A lot of companies I’ve worked at have been the opposite 😅 management making do with less by making people work harder to the point of burnout is not very helpful.
Agreed on management not recognizing when one of their people is ready for a bigger role, it’s even worse when the person is performing that role and has expectations of that role but doesn’t have the title or salary bump to show for it.
Oh definitely lots of places under hire, that wasn’t really what I was getting at. I meant if someone is in a full time role at a job and has enough free time to take a whole as other job without any apparent impact on his output, odds are good they have a lot more people on the team than they really need and a good proportion of people’s time gets spent on the illusion of work getting done more so than the substance.
Ive worked many salaried jobs in my life. I’ve never seen a work contract that simply defines your tasks you have to get done. Not saying that it doesn’t happen, but I would be hard pressed to believe it’s common. I don’t even know how you would do that because what tasks I do always shifts, especially in tech. On top of that, how long a task takes is extremely unpredictable. Sometimes I fly through something, sometimes that last 10% takes 90% of the time.
It’s less about contractual and legalities and more about the feel of the workplace. A lot of places, especially remote jobs, are more laid-back and open-minded than traditional 9-to-5 ass-in-seats old fashioned office jobs.
The real question is why do people need 2 jobs? If its just ambition or wtv then ok, but if its out of the need to pay the bills and just get by, why is it happening? Or course its convenient for this mfers to say that. Better have people working multiple jobs to get by and keep their mouth shut then having them rebeling, joinin unions, protesting and so on.
The type of worker that article is talking about don’t. They are making $250,000 per job. People making too little to live off largely don’t have jobs that you would lie about working 2 at the same time.
