181–190 of 220 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't care. As long as I can do the job they pay me to do, that should be their only concern.
great, then go on social media and bad mouth your employer and see if HR bats an eye, they should be only concerned about your output right.
It is not their concern what I do on social media. It is unfortunate that there is so much power imbalance that most employees are afraid to criticize their employers in public.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As long as you can fire them and find a replacement for the same price, why would you ever increase pay? Especially for a worker that is underperforming?
more power to you if you can as easily replace people as you describe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is a fair assumption - putting 16 hours of work a day seems much less likely than someone working remotely and doing the bare minimum at 2 jobs for as long as they can get away with it.
Doing the bare minimum is both legal and ethical though. If it wasn't it wouldn't be the minimum.
Employees trade their hours for the company's money. If you want to trade deliverables for money, you have to be a contractor on a deliverable-based contract. It's a lot riskier, which is why it pays more... sometimes. If you are in a full-time job, and not putting in full-time hours, you're defrauding your employer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doing the bare minimum is both legal and ethical though. If it wasn't it wouldn't be the minimum.
Legal, maybe. Ethical? Not to me. Think of it this way: would you tell your employer you were planning to work two jobs, and put in the minimum effort into them? Would you be above-board and transparent about your conflicting responsibilities and schedules? If not, you're committing fraud: "intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value." (The value, in this case, is the fr…
What exactly an employer is paying for with a salaried employee is fairly nuanced and specific to the work. "They're paying for your time" isn't wrong but it's insufficient to explain a lot of the real dynamics there.
Specifically that would make every time you look away from the computer a privilege purely at the discretion of your employer. Not a condition many of us would accept given other options. So it seems to me either this isn't the pure moral reality of the transaction, or we're all transgressors here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
sorry - I put this "have different (full time) employment contracts" in my comment to try and make that point clear.. Its full-time employment, salaried. Also, salaried generally means you get paid the same amount regardless of hours worked, which is another thing people seem to overlook. Anyway, as others have already commented better then I - many big/well known companies do not have issue with moonlighting.
Also, salaried generally means you get paid the same amount regardless of hours worked, which is another thing people seem to overlook. Except the spirit of that agreement to not worry about the variance of working, say, 35 hours one week, 45 the next. They still quite definitely expect you to work an average of about 40 hours -- and usually provide language in the employment/consulting stating exactly that. In fact,…
I stand by my point - there's no reason to assume everyone is 'cheating'...
I currently have 1 full time job, 1 full time contracting, and 4 clients that pay me a retainer for a set amount of hours they can use week to week. It's going fine; I measure that based on my performance reviews all being excellent, my clients all paying the bills on time, and all work is done in a timely fashion. I do individual contributor infrastructure engineering at the senior+ level. Managing the calendar is t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Legal, maybe. Ethical? Not to me. Think of it this way: would you tell your employer you were planning to work two jobs, and put in the minimum effort into them? Would you be above-board and transparent about your conflicting responsibilities and schedules? If not, you're committing fraud: "intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value." (The value, in this case, is the fr…
I'm not particularly making an assertion about whether working two jobs is ethical, just that doing the minimum is. Again, if the minimum isn't the least it is acceptable to do, then what is, then what does that word even mean? What exactly an employer is paying for with a salaried employee is fairly nuanced and specific to the work. "They're paying for your time" isn't wrong but it's insufficient to explain a lot of…
Sure, I'll agree with that, up to a point. And I think, for me, that point is "would you behave differently if your employer had full knowledge of your actions."
Ultimately, people who work two simultaneous jobs are abusing the trust of their employers, and if it becomes commonplace, it's just going to hurt the rest of us. Instead of trusting employees to do the right thing, employers will put draconian employee tracking measures in place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not particularly making an assertion about whether working two jobs is ethical, just that doing the minimum is. Again, if the minimum isn't the least it is acceptable to do, then what is, then what does that word even mean? What exactly an employer is paying for with a salaried employee is fairly nuanced and specific to the work. "They're paying for your time" isn't wrong but it's insufficient to explain a lot of…
> I'm not particularly making an assertion about whether working two jobs is ethical, just that doing the minimum is. Sure, I'll agree with that, up to a point. And I think, for me, that point is "would you behave differently if your employer had full knowledge of your actions." Ultimately, people who work two simultaneous jobs are abusing the trust of their employers, and if it becomes commonplace, it's just going t…
And why would my employer ever have full knowledge of my actions during the workday? Even in the hypothetical it's extremely invasive. If I need to pray five times a day several of those are landing during the workday. Fuck a boss who thinks they need to know about that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not the person who asked the question but thanks again for sharing this. I'm in a similar situation but without the full time job -- I can understand the retainer, but with the contracting do you charge per hour? I'd imagine you charge per day/week but that also feels a bit hard to balance evenly with a full time job.
I charge a flat retainer every 2 weeks that gives a client the ability to give me work if they need stuff done, and the ability to call me in the middle of the night if things go down. I've never had an issue balancing it; after the initial work of bringing a client on board the infrastructure handles itself. I've put a lot of work into automation and tooling, so the engineering teams I work for are able to self serv…
You've inspired me -- I'll be looking to try and make some more contracts like this in the future.
> This isn't software engineering, it's infrastructure, which means I'm not on the hook to work on new product features sprint to sprint. There are times when I only have to do an hour or so worth of work for a client.
Great, and I think it's honestly a very high ROI improvement as well, enabling a team of 5 developers to commit, deploy and generate value faster is absolutely worth it.
The only things I've considered in that space that could be as lucrative as you're doing now has been reducing cloud costs (and taking % of cost saved over 6mo).