Employers should pay their FTEs for their work. If the job takes >40 hrs a week the pay should reflect both the time required and the quality of their work.
If an employee is doing a great job, the employer should have no power over what the employee does when they are not working- if they want to volunteer, or have a hobby, or exercise, or are a professional musician, or take care of friends or family, or stand on their head when they are not doing a great job working- it is NOT the employer's business!
When you are a manager, you expect employees to commit to your company 40 hours a week if they are full time. Full disclosure should be made if an employee is working on the side for other part time assignments.
I don’t think the question is really about one job vs. more than one. I think the questions are (1) what the alternatives are; (2) who is deciding on what works needs to be done; and (3) pay.
For (1), as has been mentioned, if someone has worked his or her full-time job but has extra time because of the lack of wasted time due to commuting, what to do with that time is a choice for that person to make. For those people who think certain jobs should be worked/require 60+ hours a week, get a clue. The competitive market environments where that is expected of employees (e.g., lawyers and consultants) are abusive, coercive and illegal. If one is actually empowered to set one’s own work time, more power to him or her. With the exception of actual business owners (I’m talking about majority ownership), that isn’t the case. Most people are selling their time; it isn’t owed.
There is also the issue that, in most work environments, “hours worked” is the metric used because it is easy to measure and compare but what actually counts is what is accomplished. Very few people are rewarded for working more hours (overtime pay is not a reward) but some are rewarded for achieving goals. It should be unsurprising that if goals are assigned, people will work to achieve them and consider the job done when they do. Note to the people who assign “stretch goals” that are difficult or impossible to achieve: those goals are generally ignored and usually do way more harm than good.
Ultimately, the problem is the distinction between an employer/employee relationship and a partner relationship. Employers shouldn’t expect their employees to prioritize the interests of the company beyond how it directly benefits the employee. To the entrepreneur CEO, maybe you ought to have a conversation with your CTO because he or she obviously doesn’t believe that doing more work on your company is likely to benefit him or or more than doing something else. You aren’t handcuffed, you just have different perspectives.
As for someone choosing to work (and get paid) more rather than some other use of their time, why is anyone entitled to judge someone else’s choices.
II could spend an hour writing/talking about this topic. This is the first time in 12 years I don’t have a parti-time + full-time gig. In my previously world as a faculty member, I was always in teaching overload. I’m back in my people services world and adjunct teach. I’m not teaching this semester and waiting for my course development role to be assigned. This isn’t done in “secret” and my leader supports teaching. Can someone work two full-time jobs? I don’t think this is new. It’s new for white collar jobs. It’s not uncommon for people in lower paying jobs to work a second full-time job. I just don’t think it’s healthy for people to work 80+ hours a week.
I think it's perfectly fine for someone to work 2 remote full-time jobs, or one part-time and one full-time, as long as he/she spends the requisite time per job as needed. For example, if someone has a 40 hour/week job and a 20 hour/week job, he should spend 60 hours/week working on them. It wouldn't leave much time (at all) for other things that make living worthwhile, but especially if it's for the shorter term, I wouldn't have a problem with it.
I am an entrepreneur CEO with a remote CTO whom I’m sure is working on projects in addition to our company. I am completely handcuffed because I am not technical and am entirely dependent on him. I suffer it daily but can do nothing.
Employers should pay their FTEs for their work. If the job takes >40 hrs a week the pay should reflect both the time required and the quality of their work.
If an employee is doing a great job, the employer should have no power over what the employee does when they are not working- if they want to volunteer, or have a hobby, or exercise, or are a professional musician, or take care of friends or family, or stand on their head when they are not doing a great job working- it is NOT the employer's business!
When you are a manager, you expect employees to commit to your company 40 hours a week if they are full time. Full disclosure should be made if an employee is working on the side for other part time assignments.
I don’t think the question is really about one job vs. more than one. I think the questions are (1) what the alternatives are; (2) who is deciding on what works needs to be done; and (3) pay.
For (1), as has been mentioned, if someone has worked his or her full-time job but has extra time because of the lack of wasted time due to commuting, what to do with that time is a choice for that person to make. For those people who think certain jobs should be worked/require 60+ hours a week, get a clue. The competitive market environments where that is expected of employees (e.g., lawyers and consultants) are abusive, coercive and illegal. If one is actually empowered to set one’s own work time, more power to him or her. With the exception of actual business owners (I’m talking about majority ownership), that isn’t the case. Most people are selling their time; it isn’t owed.
There is also the issue that, in most work environments, “hours worked” is the metric used because it is easy to measure and compare but what actually counts is what is accomplished. Very few people are rewarded for working more hours (overtime pay is not a reward) but some are rewarded for achieving goals. It should be unsurprising that if goals are assigned, people will work to achieve them and consider the job done when they do. Note to the people who assign “stretch goals” that are difficult or impossible to achieve: those goals are generally ignored and usually do way more harm than good.
Ultimately, the problem is the distinction between an employer/employee relationship and a partner relationship. Employers shouldn’t expect their employees to prioritize the interests of the company beyond how it directly benefits the employee. To the entrepreneur CEO, maybe you ought to have a conversation with your CTO because he or she obviously doesn’t believe that doing more work on your company is likely to benefit him or or more than doing something else. You aren’t handcuffed, you just have different perspectives.
As for someone choosing to work (and get paid) more rather than some other use of their time, why is anyone entitled to judge someone else’s choices.
II could spend an hour writing/talking about this topic. This is the first time in 12 years I don’t have a parti-time + full-time gig. In my previously world as a faculty member, I was always in teaching overload. I’m back in my people services world and adjunct teach. I’m not teaching this semester and waiting for my course development role to be assigned. This isn’t done in “secret” and my leader supports teaching. Can someone work two full-time jobs? I don’t think this is new. It’s new for white collar jobs. It’s not uncommon for people in lower paying jobs to work a second full-time job. I just don’t think it’s healthy for people to work 80+ hours a week.
I think it's perfectly fine for someone to work 2 remote full-time jobs, or one part-time and one full-time, as long as he/she spends the requisite time per job as needed. For example, if someone has a 40 hour/week job and a 20 hour/week job, he should spend 60 hours/week working on them. It wouldn't leave much time (at all) for other things that make living worthwhile, but especially if it's for the shorter term, I wouldn't have a problem with it.
The overemployed portion is sad. Too bad the world doesn’t move with changes - er, well, employers/companies change their wages due to the economy.
I am an entrepreneur CEO with a remote CTO whom I’m sure is working on projects in addition to our company. I am completely handcuffed because I am not technical and am entirely dependent on him. I suffer it daily but can do nothing.