Remote workers doing multiple jobs in the same time frame, getting away with it, underperforming.

[flashbac]

"Remote working has made it easier than ever for staff to moonlight. But how do they cope with clashing meetings and two bosses? And can the rewards be worth the lies?"

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/nov/16/its-the-biggest-open-secret-out-there-the-double-lives-of-white-collar-workers-with-two-jobs

Can you imagine having two computers on and being on two zoom meetings simultaneously? (Advice is to mute yourself and turn camera off.)

I think this if CF territory. I hope it doesn't become more mainstream. Remote working is a force for good. These CFs might ruin it for everyone.
And aibu to think the bullshittting aspect of this will be easier for men to get away with? Here is someone explaining how to get away with underperformance. Apparently if you keep sending your manager emails about how hard you are trying they will stay off your back:

overemployed.com/set-low-expectations-at-your-two-remote-jobs/

@AuntieJoyce

If any poster reading this is a payroll person I’d be interested to know how people get away with this in the UK. Do they not need a P45? Would you not have a strange tax code so that the deductions were right which would flag up you had another job?

I had an issue for quite a while where my 'main' tax code was used for an organisation that I just did a very little bit of occasional work for, which meant I was paying too much tax on my actual, main salary. This was therefore annoying but I had to sort it out with HMRC myself - no one in payroll at my main job seemed remotely fussed or concerned that my entire tax-free allowance was allocated to this other organisation, which is presumably how it would look if I really had had another full-time job there.

If someone is under performing, for whatever reason they need managing.

People get away with under performance because of poor management. Not always their immediate managers. Sometimes managers are doing their best but do t get support from above or told to leave it.

This also happens when people are in offices. Maybe not doing the 2 jobs. But definitely over looking under performances

Theres loads of tech out there, that makes it possible to monitor home working. I can see my teams on varying levels, from just seeing if they are 'green' on teams (which actually means very little) right down to their key strokes and everything inbetween. I also get a monthly, automated, report that outlines productivity, lost time etc.

I don't check the detail often. Only j cases where productivity is low for an extended period. Someone telling me they were working hard wouldn't cut it.

Companies can, if they are willing to handle this, be able to see everything and can stop this. For alot of them it's easier to turn a blind eye.

Bit honestly, my experience is the slackers at home were slackers in the office. Checking their side business, answering personal emails/messages. Or even disappearing for 40 mins to go to the loo and make a coffee 3 or 4 times a day.

The vast majority of people who worked well in the office, work well at home, in my experience. Especially the ones who donr want to go back.

I had an issue for quite a while where my 'main' tax code was used for an organisation that I just did a very little bit of occasional work for, which meant I was paying too much tax on my actual, main salary. This was therefore annoying but I had to sort it out with HMRC myself - no one in payroll at my main job seemed remotely fussed or concerned that my entire tax-free allowance was allocated to this other organisation, which is presumably how it would look if I really had had another full-time job there

It's not that they're not interested it's that HMRC wont deal with the employer. The employee has to sort it out. HMRC just tell the employer what the tax code should be. If it's wrong employee has to sort it, there's nothing employer can do.

I don’t see this being a problem

They won’t be able to perform properly
So will either be let go of one or both eventually

Or realise for themselves and go back to one

@Spiceup

You're right. I did wonder at the time how much the bosses actually knew or if they even cared. Her sales figures were remarkable and they did enjoy her rare appearances at the office.

What I meant is that no one asked me at any point about the fact that I was set up as if I had another main job elsewhere, so it wouldn't have been flagged if I really had because of the tax codes, which is what a PP asked about. I wasn't necessarily expecting them to sort it for me but I was surprised that no one even queried it.

@flashbac and @CSJobseeker

Nope. Not "bullshit". One of my contracts was a freelance role and the other one specifically said that I am not prevented from working for other employers unless I do a set number of hours a month and am available for work during normal working hours. It was in the private sector (legal)

They won’t be able to perform properly
So will either be let go of one or both eventually

You make letting someone go sound so easy....rather than the time consuming, risky and expensive business it is. Of course it's possible, but also reasonable for employers to avoid putting themselves in positions that encourage people to behave in a way where it will be necessary.

and am available for work during normal working hours

You know that means not doing two jobs at once right?

If you were genuinely working two jobs in the exact same hours, it would be viewed as gross misconduct anywhere.

Probably proves that a lot of these endless Zoom meetings are a complete waste of time if people can get away with doing two at once and not having their cameras on so you can see that they're there. Don't these jobs include any actual work to do?

There are clearly a lot of people not fully actually working when they are wfh. Unless you have very clear productivity targets it can be hard to pick up in a lot of jobs. In the job I do, a task might take 30 minutes or 5 hours for example depending on the complexity of the detail, which you won't know until you get into it. It's very easy to claim that it took you 5 hours, actually take 30 minutes and do your own thing for 4.5 hours. It's obvious from some people's lack of availability to support people (the one thing that the people insisting their productivity has increased never address - how has your increase in productivity affected others?) that they are not working at the same level they used to.

If people are genuinely more productive at home, then I don't know why companies are not increasing objectives. If you're paid for 8 hours work a day and finish it in 6, then you should be asking for 2 hours more of work, not swanning off. And if there is no more work, then maybe the company will need less staff?

And yes, totally agree about others picking up the slack. These people are going to get pissed off soon, because if you're in an organisation where no one spots you're not working, the people doing lots of extra aren't noticed either.

This must be very unusual. I WFH and my job is extremely fast paced and complicated. I can guarantee even when I nip to the loo my phone will ring. Would love to know what these easy WFH jobs are that you could possibly do 2 at once. Utterly bonkers.

Sounds like another attempt to bash flexible working which can help women and minority groups and force the workplace back to a structure that favours men. The men who dominate the management and supervisory positions and fail to manage their staff properly will not be held to account in this way.

Now who would that help?

This is part 194 of regular series of "slacking flexible worker" stories which have appeared since Boris and his city centre property owning chums screeched that work only happens in offices (unless its them moonlighting in the BVI of course).

If your paye new income is taxed at 50%, is it worth it?

The tax code would change however this probably wouldn't be flagged up elsewhere in large organisations unless they made it their policy.

Your total annual income is absolutely nothing to do with your employer.

Their job (if PAYE) is to ensure they make the relevant payments based on the tax code supplied by HMRC, for the work you do for them.

Bit honestly, my experience is the slackers at home were slackers in the office. Checking their side business, answering personal emails/messages. Or even disappearing for 40 mins to go to the loo and make a coffee 3 or 4 times a day.

But there are so many more options for slackers at home! In the office they have to be a bit surreptitious in the ways you describe and there's a limit to what you can do like that. You might be able to answer some emails for your cake-making business but you're not going to be able to start making the cakes. At home you can do that, or just sit and watch Netflix all afternoon. I agree that those people will have been slackers before, but they have now had the opportunity to take it to a whole new level.

DH did this for a few weeks. He was finishing up a contract who begged him to stay a bit longer, but he had already said yes to a new one. It wasn't too bad as the new role was much less stressful and he did it fine. Now he keeps joking that he should find another job on top of his current one as it wasn't too bad!

Hmm it just seems like another convenient reason to bash wfh. Our govt really seem to be trying very hard to get people back on the roads, into offices and of course spending as much money as possible in pret etc. Sorry, but I suspect the actual cases of this ever happening are tiny, the article pushes a convenient agenda. Just my own feelings though!

I'm not this is real or realistic, I WFH I've never worked harder

@C8H10N4O2

Sounds like another attempt to bash flexible working which can help women and minority groups and force the workplace back to a structure that favours men. The men who dominate the management and supervisory positions and fail to manage their staff properly will not be held to account in this way.

Now who would that help?

This is part 194 of regular series of "slacking flexible worker" stories which have appeared since Boris and his city centre property owning chums screeched that work only happens in offices (unless its them moonlighting in the BVI of course).

Flexible working doesn't help women. It will harm them. They end up doing all the domestic work with less paid help and the "flexible" aspect means that men some people who choose to be in the office will be more visible. It's incredibly naive to imagine that it's not office relationships that contrinute significantly to a large proportion of opportunities.

It might mean that women can still work whilst taking on all the domestic stuff, but believing it is good for women will harm career prospects.

@HappySantasaurus

Hmm it just seems like another convenient reason to bash wfh. Our govt really seem to be trying very hard to get people back on the roads, into offices and of course spending as much money as possible in pret etc. Sorry, but I suspect the actual cases of this ever happening are tiny, the article pushes a convenient agenda. Just my own feelings though!

I agree. I do know of one instance where this happened - it was a colleague I worked with and we barely saw him (via teams). They were a contractor already so probably easier for them to get away with it.

If people are genuinely more productive at home, then I don't know why companies are not increasing objectives. If you're paid for 8 hours work a day and finish it in 6, then you should be asking for 2 hours more of work, not swanning off. And if there is no more work, then maybe the company will need less staff?

This attitude is so wrong. If you’re being paid to do a job and you’re doing that job well, why does it matter if you’re taking 6 hours instead of 8?

I don’t think this is reserved to WFH. When I was working in an office 2 people were eBay sellers and spent much of the day handling that (including sending their parcels ). Another person who set up their own business would openly be doing all the admin work for that at the desk. Several people flagged it with management but it was swept under the rug.

There will always be CFs finding a way. In most roles I don’t think it’s any easier/harder to do while WFH.

I’m WFH still and we’ve been so short staffed due to COVID, people leaving and the huge volume of work that I need every minute to get my one job finished!

[quote flashbac]"Remote working has made it easier than ever for staff to moonlight. But how do they cope with clashing meetings and two bosses? And can the rewards be worth the lies?"

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/nov/16/its-the-biggest-open-secret-out-there-the-double-lives-of-white-collar-workers-with-two-jobs

Can you imagine having two computers on and being on two zoom meetings simultaneously? (Advice is to mute yourself and turn camera off.)

I think this if CF territory. I hope it doesn't become more mainstream. Remote working is a force for good. These CFs might ruin it for everyone.
And aibu to think the bullshittting aspect of this will be easier for men to get away with? Here is someone explaining how to get away with underperformance. Apparently if you keep sending your manager emails about how hard you are trying they will stay off your back:

overemployed.com/set-low-expectations-at-your-two-remote-jobs/[/quote]
Many MPs do this, what's the issue?