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/

I really hope you're right but I don't see why a move to flexible working would bring any of that about in and of itself.

Because when just being present in an office isn't the qualifying factor of promotions and advancement, and actually performance is then its better for women.

Also, as more people return to the office, its actually becoming more obvious that problems caused by crap managers, aren't because wfh was the problem.

Our MD brought poorly performing teams back early. Those teams are still performing poorly and he has had to admit its down to him not spotting the poor management and, therefore not dealing with it.

Its now being dealt with and we have a record amount of in house female promotions and the teams that did improve are back to flexible working and performing when at home.

Its a pattern we have seen within lots of companies we have deal with as clients, suppliers and collaborators.

Actually, post above me is the exact example of putting more pressure on women rather than making it easier for them!!

Because when just being present in an office isn't the qualifying factor of promotions and advancement, and actually performance is then its better for women.

The problem is that I can see this in an organisation that becomes fully remote, but in organisations where most people are in the office at least some of the time (which seems to be the most common way in which employers are designing new flexible working arrangements) then I think being in the office will still be the qualifying factor, whatever people say. And I think that won't be obvious to the people (predominantly women with children) who opt out of the office until later.

@Nyxly I think the strength of your manager was to acknowledge HIS errors.

In a big structure, I can easily see said managers passing in the bucket and letting other people been sacked rather than acknowledging their poor performance (which would put THEM at risk)

WFH can massively help women. I wouldn't be able to commute into the city daily and do my role. But WFH means I can fit both children and work in. It's a niche role with limited females anyway. I changed jobs because daily I was exposed to microagressions in the workplace having to work in close proximity to men who came into the profession from the forces. I don't get that WFH. I also have male colleagues who now also WFH and take time off for school runs etc. People are accepting of parents.

WFH not only benefits females it also benefits people with disabilities, lower socioecomic groups who can't afford commutes etc, as well as others. It opens up oppurtunity.

Funnily enough I read this while watching series 2 of Workin' Moms on Netflix, where the main character ended up doing the same. Didn't end well but obviously it's a sitcom and not real life

As a freelancer WFH (and I've always WFH so it's not like that can be taken away from me) I'm often 'on the clock' at £20 an hour for 3/4 clients simultaneously. You'd be surprised at how much you can get away with, and how they believe something could take you 4 hours when it only took 1.

I can believe it. Good for you, if your skills mean you can do the work in 1/4 the time someone else can, damn straight you should be paid for it.

I'd always felt this was over exaggerated by the government to scare firms into getting us into the office again, to help their rental companies. But perhaps not!

[quote PerfectlyUnsuitable]@Nyxly I think the strength of your manager was to acknowledge HIS errors.

In a big structure, I can easily see said managers passing in the bucket and letting other people been sacked rather than acknowledging their poor performance (which would put THEM at risk)[/quote]
It is a big structure. It's not a small privately owned company.

And yes, it's been one of the benefits of the pandemic. Our MD has had his eyes open to alor of things and also been forced to acknowledge some home truths.

I actually think that all that wfh with flexible hours puts even more pressure on women to do BOTH the working full time AND doing all the childcare etc…. Because they ought to be able to organise themselves and work around each other.
Basically it’s giving more work to women rather than making it easier for them. Already all over MN with issues of clash between school drop off and meetings etc….

Thats a social issue though. Working in an office doesn't make men, who opt our of working as a team with the mother of their children, suddenly better.

Women, whose partners leave everything to them have more to do when working in an office environment, in a smaller time frame.

And if men, think it's not really work if it's from home....then thats the issue there. Not wfh. And I would bet the vast majority of men who think like that already leave it to their partners anyway.

Working, plus looking after kids and a house is stressful. I have done it as a single parent. However, it's not made easier by having f an office to go to.

I have two jobs - the paid one and parenting!

Doing this sounds v stressful tbh so I don’t think I’d be in a hurry

Our internal staff "Union" has recently sent a note out to tell people that "my computer wasn't working" won't be accepted as a reason for non attendance at a meeting, unfinished work etc unless a fault has been logged with IT.

Unwritten, implied clauses won’t hold up either...!

Your tax code could be different for any numbers of reasons – your total income (from selling crafts at the weekend, owning property, trust fund, whatever) isn’t your employer’s business.

I think this proves that a lot of full-time office jobs are largely smoke and mirrors – the work can be done much faster than the time allocated. If you’re a quick worker, why should you be penalised? You should be able to work fewer hours for the same salary. But of course we still look at hours worked rather than output. It’s mad, really.

That was meant to quote @flashbac:

“You wouldn't get very far with that defence in an employment tribunal!
All employment contracts have unwritten, implied clauses like: fidelity, the duty of trust and confidence.”

And the other issue of course is that it’s difficult for other members of the family when someone is working from home.

I know MN insists this isn’t the case but it is.

Our internal staff "Union" has recently sent a note out to tell people that "my computer wasn't working" won't be accepted as a reason for non attendance at a meeting, unfinished work etc unless a fault has been logged with IT.

It’s always had short shrift at my work, once people had the chance to organise themselves after the beginning on lockdown 1. Unless logged with IT of course. And once there’s the option of going to the office, people are expected to do that if they can’t work from home.

Poor management is the problem with underperforming staff.

Plus if one job paid enough to survive on very few people would want to juggle a second.

Once again it’s bash the worker and ignore the bigger issues.

@RedskyThisNight

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.

For many increased productivity while working from home doesn't mean that you have a 9-5 contract and are now able to finish at 4pm or take a two hour lunch. It means being able to finish at 5pm instead of doing an hour's unpaid overtime.

@RealMermaid

It's not "CF territory", it's fraud. Companies need to be smart in how they set up contracts and policies so that when they discover staff doing this they have the ability to deal with it properly.

It is not fraud. I swear, people on this site throw that word around so carelessly. Both sides sign a contract that services will be delivered. Conflict of interest clauses depend on the contract. One side delivers the services and doesn't cause a conflict of interest. Done and dusted.

@AtLeastThreeDrinks

Unwritten, implied clauses won’t hold up either...!

Your tax code could be different for any numbers of reasons – your total income (from selling crafts at the weekend, owning property, trust fund, whatever) isn’t your employer’s business.

I think this proves that a lot of full-time office jobs are largely smoke and mirrors – the work can be done much faster than the time allocated. If you’re a quick worker, why should you be penalised? You should be able to work fewer hours for the same salary. But of course we still look at hours worked rather than output. It’s mad, really.

You need to look up your employment law!

*"Most contracts of employment have implied terms attached to them. These include:

The duty to maintain mutual trust and confidence
This duty applies to both the employee and the employer, although it is typically relied on by the employee, particularly in claims of constructive dismissal.

Each party has a duty to conduct himself, herself or itself in such a way to maintain trust and confidence in the relationship of employment. If, for example, an employer acts in such a way to damage the relationship, perhaps by amending the contract and imposing unfair conditions and the employee, then the employee might claim that this trust has been broken.

The duty of fidelity
During employment an employee should be loyal to an employer and not to act against his, her or its interests.

As examples, an employee should not carry on a business in direct competition; or use business assets for personal gain without the permission of the employer.

Since this implied duty only exists during employment, post-employment restrictions should be expressly written down in the employment contract if they are to be binding after the employee has left."*
www.netlawman.co.uk/ia/implied-terms-employment

To be fair the people in the article say they aren't underperforming - they're doing what's asked of them, they're just not pointing out that that takes a lot less than their allocated work hours.

I do two gig economy type jobs at the same time, not suppose to. But the pay is terrible and doing them both gets its closer to a living wage. I use two monitors and put each window on each screen.

Because when just being present in an office isn't the qualifying factor of promotions and advancement, and actually performance is then its better for women.

But in the real world that doesn't happen. It might be hiw we'd like it to be, how it should be, but it's not how things are in practice.

Meantime women (and their partners) believe they can and should be able to manage everything at home and become invisible at work.

Moonlighting already happens quite in industries where zero hours contracts are involved. I work in childcare and when I worked for a nursery that used zero hours contracts everyone was moonlighting while going into the office and the ladies on part time contracts did it the most.

It’s not suddenly worse just because the wfh middle class do it lol

Many MPs do this, what's the issue?

Umm have you not noticed that just this month it has become a huge issue culminating in both parties proposing that it's banned?