[wpietri]

What makes it "time theft", whatever that means?

US employers have worked very hard to make many of their workers "exempt" [1] such that they don't have to pay for overtime and can make people work egregious hours without getting in legal trouble.

If that's not "time theft", then I don't see why an exempt worker who can do the work of two people shouldn't get paid for doing the work of two people. It would be different if they were hourly workers and they were double-billing for the same hour, of course. But I don't think that's what's happening here.

[1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/exempt-employee.asp

[gsk22]

You can still "double-bill" in an exempt position.

Most employment contracts I've seen stipulate an expected work week of 40 hours. If I sign 3 contracts like that, now I would need to work 120 hours to fulfill the obligation. And as long as someone collects the paychecks from all 3 jobs without fulfilling the contractual requirements of those jobs, well, that is sort of the definition of theft. Money gained without performing the work necessary to earn it.

[wpietri]

I don't think I've ever seen an employment contract for an exempt position that specifies the number of hours to work. So yes, if somebody is foolish enough to sign that, they might get in trouble. But again, I doubt that's the case here.