[telchior]

I think you're making an unwarranted leap here. The management never complained about or monitored hours worked; the requirements of the job were simply completing tasks. Which she did, as I said, at or above expectations (the company she continued consulting for is still trying to rehire her at "full time", but they really just mean adding more responsibilities and tasks).

Sure, there are lots of jobs where "time theft" is a useful concept, but there are a lot of others where it isn't. I'd go so far as saying that thinking in those terms can be another sign of incompetent management.

[gsk22]

Are you really claiming that all 3 companies would have approved the situation if they knew?

Of course not, which is why overemployed people hide this information from their employers.

[telchior]

That's a bit different than claiming time theft, isn't it? That's more of a suspicion that someone couldn't possibly be doing a good job if their attention is split.

The two full-time companies objected strenuously to her leaving and made various offers to keep her around. Would they have suddenly decided that they were deluded and that she was actually a horrible employee if they knew the truth? Possibly, but that doesn't mean they're in the right.

The real problem here is that a large portion of managers actually have no idea what constitutes a good employee or good job done. So they try to figure it out through second order observations like how many hours are worked, how convincingly the employee acts like they're good at doing their job, or how they report on their progress in meetings; and they get upset when they find out information that makes it seem like the employee should be doing a worse job.

I'm being a bit harsh, since I'm not immune to the same thoughts and uncertainties; I have an employee of my own who has two other part-time jobs and at times I've questioned whether that's OK. When I really examine the work he's doing, though, the answer is always the same: he's doing a good job, and the rest of his time is none of my damn business.

[gsk22]

> That's a bit different than claiming time theft, isn't it? That's more of a suspicion that someone couldn't possibly be doing a good job if their attention is split.

The reason employers would not approve isn't because the employee's attention is split, but because the employee would not be meeting the conditions of employment!

40 hours is the commonly accepted definition of "full time" in the US, and this is often written into employment contracts as well. Additionally, employers generally have expected working hours where the employee is available for meetings, mentoring, pair programming, etc.

So, how can you fulfill the expectations of multiple "full time" jobs while only putting in the time for one?

[telchior]

If the expectation is just hours worked, then you can't fulfill 2 (or more) full time jobs. But I'm not sure where that applies, outside of something mind-numbing like a call center.

Realistically, it's a technical field and there are a lot of very, very poor candidates out there who will fill the seat for 40 hours but completely fail on performance. And I think that's why nobody was judging performance based on hours of butt in seat.

[ipaddr]

Many employers would not approve of the friends you keep or the ladies you date. None of their business.

[deely3]

Counterpoint: friends and ladies relations not defined in signed contract. Working hours - yes.