61–70 of 104 posts
Contractors/consultants do it all the time - in fact it's frowned upon, including by US government/IRS, if you don't do work for multiple clients, including in parallel. What's the surprise?
Great idea, but do remote employees get paid the same? Say 100k+ for an SF based company?
I had a DBA, very senior, who was working for me on contract while maintaining a full time job at another Silicon Valley company. I was paying him $50K/Year to ensure that none of our Oracle Systems ever had an issue, and in the event of a problem, he would fix it. What I liked about this arrangement is that he was highly incentivized to ensure that he would have to do the least amount of work, so his deployments wer…
Was the other company aware of this arrangement too? Just curious.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't think I said it's evil, just wrong. Obviously it's how the market works, and I've taken advantage of this myself. Just saying that, aside from "well, we can get away with it", it's not that defensible.
> Don't think I said it's evil, just wrong. OK. But I'm saying it's not wrong either. It is exactly how our economy works. Other large scale economic systems have not been successful. We know no better way of arranging things. If companies didn't compete, the economy would not be functional and we wouldn't be able to have nice things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Don't think I said it's evil, just wrong. OK. But I'm saying it's not wrong either. It is exactly how our economy works. Other large scale economic systems have not been successful. We know no better way of arranging things. If companies didn't compete, the economy would not be functional and we wouldn't be able to have nice things.
I sincerely doubt you have enough data to state that paying same-skilled remote employees somehow makes the economy non-functional.
Our entire economy relies on free actors being able to buy goods and services from their choice of supplier, based on price, quality, or most other factors.
It's clear that this is required for our economy to function. Therefore it can never be "wrong" for some entity to do this unless you can identify some other unfair distortion in a particular case, but you haven't.
An employer not offering more in a particular region is just exercising this ability to choose, the general form of which we must grant to have a functioning economy.
If you want to argue that it's wrong, then the onus is on you to explain why the general case of free market competition should not apply in this case. But you haven't.
Double dipping is the wrong phrase here. Having two jobs or two gigs is not double dipping. Double dipping is typically a form of cheating by getting paid 2x for 1x amount of work. Say I was being paid to create a website for two clients and it took me 100 hours to finish it. Then I used the same codebase for another client, spent 5 hours modifying it, and then delivered it to them billing another 100 hours. That wou…
If I tell you that I'll produce a certain product for $15,000 and you're OK with that, does it really matter in the end if it took me 5 hours or 150? Either way, you pay the same amount.
Now, if you have a contract that specified time & materials and I pad the hours, then I can agree we could have a problem.
I had a DBA, very senior, who was working for me on contract while maintaining a full time job at another Silicon Valley company. I was paying him $50K/Year to ensure that none of our Oracle Systems ever had an issue, and in the event of a problem, he would fix it. What I liked about this arrangement is that he was highly incentivized to ensure that he would have to do the least amount of work, so his deployments wer…
Since when is working two jobs a bad thing? Plenty of people work two or three jobs to make ends meet. If you can make both work, and you aren't violating any contracts or NDAs, I don't see why you should feel bad about that.
It is ok when you don't lie in the process. It is not ok when you pretend to work full time while actually working only equivalent of part time in each workplace (does not matter all that much whether drop in productivity is due to burnout or cheating on time spent by working). The productivity of programmers is often hard to measure, if you don't take advantage of it then it is fine. There are jobs that dont require…
If you can only work 5 days a week, and need to put in 40 hours per week per job, then yeah, sleep is going to be a problem. If one or both of the jobs are such that you can do less than 8 hours some weekdays and make it up with some weekend work then two full time jobs should be possible without sleep problems.
168 hours per week - 40 hours per job x 2 jobs - 8 hours sleep per day x 7 days - 2 hours for shopping/food/shower per day x 7 days = 18 hours. You could almost take on a third half time job!