Overemployed Working Remotely? Get Ready To Return To Office | The Real Reason Companies Hate WFH

TOC: Introduction: 00:00 Reasons why companies want employees back : 00:22 Overemployment : 01:52 Changing Work Dynamics: 04:08 Overemployment Ethics: 05:27 Where is the line: 05:35 Conclusion: 07:33

CEOs: Overemployment in unethical! CEO's linkedin profile: CEO Board Member in 3 other companies Runs own business Also running for local office

I was just straight up with my manager and told him I was getting into OE. He said as long as my 2nd job doesn't impact my productivity he doesn't care. Shortly afterwards I was promoted.

I feel like 37% is way too high. I'd imagine some people have contracts on the side but I doubt that many are doing a second full time W2

Short term over-employment is useful as a defense against misrepresented jobs. Once you find out which one is the best, dump the other after a month or two.

It's about control

Great ideas

As long as it's done in a way that's not a war on rural America. All I ask is that the company acknowledge that I live 150 miles from a major city and won't relocate.

if companies don't like WFH, who is it that enforced a return to office, is it the workers themselves or their managers ? Likely it is the latter, not the former. Who predominantly does the work that is required to make the things that do the things that make the company work, likely, the former, not the latter. So whichever way you cut it, its all about control or a sense of control. What is making it all worse are workers that work out they don't need to do much work at all and WFH can make that even more easy to (un)achieve leaving those that live by the work ethic to pick up the slack. I've not found many jobs in my time I could do more than one of them as the one is already enough. Devops and SRE is already demanding enough, if a job doesn't utilise me enough, I would need to question myself as to why that is and potentially move on to something that does.

lack of work was the main reason for me

I still think WFH is here to stay. I know plenty of executives that would never want to revert. In addition, the newer generation will be expecting this type of work relationship.

I think you enter an agreement with the company when you accept a salary position. If the agreement said when you get the day's assigned work done, you are done for the day then you have the legal right to get another job. Otherwise, you do not have that right. I think suggesting the abuses by CEO as justification for overemployment is just a red herring. The two topics have nothing to do with each other. The employment contracts between a salaried employee looks nothing like that of a CEO. Maybe they should, but the don't.

I have worked with people who are "over employed". In mostly all cases we had to pick up the slak from them because they weren't doing their job as they should have. The argument for the CEO isn't really a good one. Yes, in most cases the CEO doesn't deserve that kind of money, but please don't work on 2-3-4 places at once if you can't do your job correctly. You ***** your colleges not the company.

Overemployment takes jobs from others seeking work.