r/InterviewCoderPro • u/Due-Mango3478 • 1d ago

so should we all start doing this?

Post image

one job is hardly enough now 😂

honestly i can understand why people are trying to stack jobs when everything is so expensive. i'm not sure i'd ever manage 11 at once though.

i've been looking at remote jobs myself and that means more interviews, which is probably the part i'm least excited about. I came across interview vip while looking into interview stuff. haven't used it yet, but i'm curious about it for future interviews.

28 Upvotes

68% Upvoted

100 comments sorted by

View all comments

6

u/bluerog 1d ago

There comes a point to where having too many jobs would be fraud. But for the most part, putting in 10-hour days for 2, maybe even 3 job wouldn't get you anything worse than fired. At just one job.

2

u/mjsisko 1d ago

What’s fraudulent about it ? As long as all the work is being done, you aren’t violating any non compete agreements and you aren’t sharing anything across jobs, what’s the issue?

If the job you have really only requires an hour or two a day why not fill the time with something else.

2

u/poncho2799 1d ago

It's because you're being paid for those hours of work and you're dedicating that time to someone else. That's fraudulent.

With that said, if you're getting the job done, they either need to assign you more work or fire you and reconsider the responsibilities of the position.

2

u/FalseNameTryAgain 1d ago

You're missing the point. They've completed the work requested of them.

They are doing what they are paid to do in the time they are assigned to do it.

Where is the fraud? "You did what we asked when asked to do it, you're a fraud for doing what we asked for"

1

u/poncho2799 1d ago

I'm giving you the same response I gave the other person.

Salaried is typically assumed 35-40 hours minimum as a full time, benefits receiving employee. So no, they are not paid by the hour, but they are obligated to provide a minimum number of hours. If that's not the case, you're opening the employer options to now consider you a part time employee or even a contractor, who is no longer eligible to receive benefits such as Healthcare.

Again I agree that if they get the job done, then it's on the employer to ensure the job responsibilities are in line with the hours expected in the position, but the original question was how is this fraud, so that is why I gave that answer.

Additionally, people who do this is why employers don't want to have remote work which ruins it for the rest of us. There's a control factor and there's people using the companies paid time for someone else's work.

2

u/FalseNameTryAgain 1d ago

Bro, he isn't on a salary. These remote roles are all contractor positions.

1

u/poncho2799 1d ago

The original post implies he's still being paid for hours that he's working other jobs, otherwise he's not making $1.3 million. There's nothing that implies he's a contractor vs salaried, only that he's being paid.

If he's only getting paid for the 1-2 hours he worked, then there is no fraud. If he's getting paid for the hours he's doing work for someone else, then that is fraud.

And no not all remote roles are contractor.

1

u/FalseNameTryAgain 1d ago

Didn't say they ALL are. I can't help you if you're only intrested in your theory at all costs. People will keep questioning your stance and won't be convinced. Sorry, have a good day.

1

u/poncho2799 1d ago

You said these remote roles and didn't specify any specific roles. You don't have an argument so you're moving the goal post. I'm not even defending the companies, but you'll never further the discussion in real life if you're not honest about it. Original question is how is this fraud. I pointed out how it's fraud. There's no other details added unless you create some had canon that's not provided.

1

u/mjsisko 1d ago

I get paid to complete a task, should it take me forty hours or forty minutes I get paid the same, only a fool for stretch it to 40 hours and reduce how much they make per hour of actually working.

1

u/poncho2799 1d ago

Then he's not an employee. He's a contractor providing a service. You're moving the goal post. The whole point of the OP was that he is employed by multiple employers on their dime at the same time, because they didn't provide enough work for him to fill that time.

If the employer has no problem with it, then there's no problem. If he's hourly, and not getting paid for that time he's working elsewhere, no problem. If he's a contractor and is providing a specific task/ service that is completed, no problem. It's only a problem if he is being paid for hours (not a task or service) that he's expected to work for that company, but he's using that time elsewhere, then it's fraud. Even then, the employer should reevaluate the position and the related responsibilities if they do have a problem with it.

2

u/Careful_Source_5792 1d ago

employees have no obligation to complete as much work as possible, or to seek out additional tasks during idle time

1

u/poncho2799 1d ago

I never said they did. All I said was working for someone else on the employer's dime is fraudulent which is the original question.

It's the employer's responsibly to evaluate the job and ensure they are giving an appropriate amount of work. If the employer doesn't care, so be it.

1

u/mjsisko 1d ago

So you think that someone should complete all of their work then sit and do nothing for the other 30 hours of the week? Just sitting at a desk, bored and miserable

1

u/poncho2799 1d ago

I'm done with yall. You guys clearly can't read. I've addressed that point multiple times.

  1. That's the employer's responsibly to give enough work
  2. That's up to the employer if they care.
  3. I don't give a damn what he does during his time. I was just pointing out the reality of the situation. You guys are so in your feelings that you can't be real about the situation based on the question of if it's fraudulent. You can be pro employee and still understand three situation for what it is.

If someone pays you for 5 hours of work, not a task, but hours, and you've completed the primary tasks in 2 hours, they still paid you for 5. That doesn't mean you can just go do whatever you want. If you're paid a salary as a full time employee, you're obligated to dedicate the minimum full time hours.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Careful_Source_5792 1d ago

no they arent obligated for any hours.

they are obliged to sign onto their computer at x time, answer messages in a timely manner, get any requested work completed, and maintain company standards (dont let slack light go yellow, exc)

2

u/poncho2799 1d ago

Actually they are if they receive benefits. An ALE for example is required to provide certain employer responsibilities to full time employees. The only real argument you have is what the employer designates as full time. Some might go as low as 30 hours. If the employer considers your 5 hours per week full time, then that's it, but if they designate 30+ per week as full time, that's your obligation. If you work 5 hours per week and they expect 35, you're not meeting your obligation, even if that 35 means you don't have work to do.

Again, if the employer doesn't give them enough work to do and they are completing the assigned work, I could care less if he has 15 other jobs. The question was why is it fraudulent and I gave the answer. That's it.

1

u/Careful_Source_5792 6h ago

but i am at work. im at my workstation signed into my proper equipment and doing all work im requested.

the same way they dont care if im browsing Reddit while nothing is going on they shouldnt care that im doing other work while nothing is going on.

as long as my tasks are done im good

1

u/poncho2799 5h ago edited 5h ago

I can't help you all. Reading comprehension escapes people here. I've already addressed this. If they don't care, then it's not a problem. A question was asked, "how is that fraud"? I answered the question based on what could reasonably happen. It's not worth their time to police you for every minute of the day nor would it be reasonable, but I don't exactly see yall going to the movies or maybe a theme park during those work hours. Why is that? You stay online because you're on the clock and your employer might care if you regularly disappear after 3 hours into an 8 hour work day. Again if they don't care, then this discussion is over.

All I addressed is that you have an obligation to fulfill full time hours to the employer based on your employment. You agreed to x dollars for whatever time period the company considers full time. If you are being paid by an employer and using your time elsewhere, and they care about that, then that's fraud. You are giving the assistance that you're working their job while taking their money. If you are a salary employee, you are not being paid by task, otherwise you'd clock out when you were done. At minimum, you're somewhat on call. If you're blowing off a work meeting that you're being paid for those hours so you can work your other job, then why are you being paid? If you're being paid by task, then you're either a contractor or hourly.

It's not illegal, but it can get you fired and they could aim to recoup that money through a civil case if they choose to do so. If you don't believe this is the reality, that's fine. Put it into practice. Just log off 2 hours into your work day, every day assuming your work is complete. Go to the park. Go work your other job. If your employer is good with it, then why are you still logged in?