I’m working 2 full-time remote jobs — is this unethical?

by Alison Green on November 3, 2021

A reader writes:

The WSJ and other media outlets have been reporting on white-collar workers who work from home, working two full-time jobs at once. The thinking is, since you don’t have to be physically present in an office and can theoretically manage your own schedule, why not earn two incomes and fly under the radar?

I just started doing this a month ago. For background, I wasn’t happy at my old company, started job searching this summer, received two job offers relatively quickly, and accepted both. I now work remotely for two Silicon Valley-based companies (I live in a different western state). The companies are not competitors, suppliers, or customers of each other. Probably not the best idea to start two new jobs within a few weeks of each other, but that’s how the chips landed.

My former job was very similar to the new ones, and both new jobs have similar titles and job functions. At my old job I always received outstanding performance reviews despite being able to manage the position in a lot less than 40 hour/week. If it matters, the positions are director-level and bring in around $200k each.

A big part of this purported two-job strategy is to just “get by” and not be a superstar at any job. But I’m a very conscientious person, don’t accept mediocrity, and *intend* to do great work (albeit I’m only a month into this… we will see if that’s possible).

I’d love your perspective on this. Is this inherently unethical? I feel like the worst thing I’m doing is taking away a job from someone else, but there’s not exactly a shortage of jobs right now. I understand this is a likely fireable offense, but why? What’s your opinion of all this?

I wrote back: “I have so many questions. How will you handle it if both jobs need you for something time-sensitive at the same time? Are you not listed on both companies’ websites? What are you putting on your Linkedin?” The response:

So far I’ve been able to handle competing responsibilities. Regarding time-sensitive conflicts — both jobs are strategic, and in general I don’t have tactical, concrete work products with due dates, if that makes sense. I know what my goals are (corporate financial targets) and can plan activities well in advance. If there are crises going on with different companies’ customers at once, I treat it no differently than if I had time conflicts at one job — I prioritize and do what I can. This means working whatever hours are needed to take care of business, but so far am averaging ~50 hours/week.

My leadership is flexible and supportive, and stays off my back as long as I’m accomplishing my goals. I don’t have any direct reports, but have awesome teammates who dotted-line report to me and who I can rely on to accomplish day-to-day activities. I’m able to manage my own calendar and request new meeting times if there are conflicts. The hardest part is travel (both job postings stated about 25% travel each) but I communicate availability well in advance, and of course many people are open to Zoom meetings instead of face-to-face anymore.

Not saying this will always be the case, but I’m really just taking things as they come and hoping it continues to work out.

I’m not listed on either company’s website (only C-levels are listed at both), and I deleted my LinkedIn account (after finding both positions through that site!).

Well, I’m fascinated!

Truthfully, I’m skeptical that you can do really great work at two separate full-time jobs, at least not without burning out … which is no doubt why the strategy is supposed to be to just “get by” and not be a superstar at either job. But since you’re striving to do great work for both, I think it’s going to be a lot harder and maybe impossible. It depends on the job though; some jobs are so intense and/or rigorous that it would be impossible to do well under this plan, and others aren’t.

The part of your letter that worries me the most is this: “If there are crises going on with different companies’ customers at once, I treat it no differently than if I had time conflicts at one job — I prioritize and do what I can.” That’s a good strategy when you’re working for one company, but when your priorities are split between two, that prioritization is going to look very different. That could be a huge ethical issue — your company assumes they’re paying you for your full attention, and if they’re not getting it in times of crisis, that’s a big deal.

But for the sake of argument — and because it makes the question more interesting! — let’s say your jobs weren’t ones where you ever needed to field crises. What are the ethical ramifications then?

The biggest one is the deception. Your company thinks they’re getting your full focus for 40 hours a week, and they’re not. You’ve represented yourself as selling something different to them than what they’re actually getting. You don’t want them to find out, which indicates you know they wouldn’t be okay with the arrangement if they were aware of it. That’s a big deal.

On the other hand … there’s a societal shift going on right now where people are reconsidering what they owe to employers, and factoring in the reality that employers frequently haven’t upheld their own obligations to employees, and how the balance of power in employment can impact the obligations on each side. Two years ago, I never would have condoned what you’re doing. Hell, six months ago I wouldn’t have. But now … I still don’t condone it because of the deception, but I also can’t condemn it as strongly as I would have in the past.

The thing is, deception aside, if you’re meeting all your goals and getting good performance assessments and you’re not unavailable when you’re needed and you’re not violating any conflict of interest policy, is there any specific harm you’re causing? Certainly if I found out someone working for me were doing this, I’d have some serious concerns. But if they were an excellent employee with a track record of strong work (that part is crucial) and they didn’t have a pattern of being inaccessible, I’d also have to question my assumptions — and I might end up trying to have an honest conversation with you about how to make it work for both of us without any subterfuge.

I’m surprised to find myself there.

Read an update to this letter here. 

You may also like:
{ 1,481 comments }

{ 1,481 comments… read them below }

  1. Marie*

    I LOVE the answer to this letter because I really do feel like there’s been a shift in the last year and a half in employees’ thinking. I know darn well that I don’t do 8 hours of work a day… heck, most days I have 2, maybe 3 hours of actual hands to keyboard work. So why not take on another job? Why is that any more unethical than doing my laundry, or gardening, or cleaning out my garage, or doing cross-stitch? If we’re all part of a capitalist society, then why not take advantage of it?

    1. Eldritch Office Worker*

      I’m in grad school and I’ve definitely written a paper or two on work time. But while being actually logged in at work, and accessible, and able to be pulled back in at a moment’s notice – which it doesn’t feel like could work here.

      1. quill*

        I mean, it probably helps that your school papers / laundry can be set aside immediately in the case of an emergency and are not confidential. They’re also nothing like whatever work you’re doing at your job, so you aren’t going to potentially be following company policy X for company Y’s work.

        2. fueled by coffee*

          My part time college job used to let me work on my homework during slow periods and I still think of it as one of the best environments I’ve ever worked in. But I think the important piece is (1) I set aside my schoolwork when I had actual, you know, work work to do and (2) my supervisor knew about it (that said, I was hourly, so it would have been pretty shady for me to sneakily do other work at the office. The calculation is maybe different in a salaried position?)

          1. Clisby*

            I did that when I went back to college for a computer science degree while working nights on a newspaper copy desk. There were always periods during the evening when work got hectic, and periods when we were just sitting around waiting. My doing homework was no different from the person next to me reading Vogue magazine, or the person across the desk doing a crossword. There wasn’t any question of being sneaky about it; if we hadn’t brought something to occupy ourselves, we’d just be sitting there bored. It’s not like there was anything else we could be productively doing.

            Math homework was the best, because it almost always focused on a set of problems, and doing any one problem rarely took more than 10 minutes.

          2. The Original K.*

            There were certain work study jobs that were popular with students at my alma mater for exactly this reason – swiping IDs at building entrances comes immediately to mind. It was accepted and expected that students would do whatever (usually schoolwork) when they weren’t swiping IDs. If you were at the desk for 10 hours a week, you probably actually swiped IDs for like an hour out of those 10, and as long as you were at the desk you could do whatever you wanted. People looked at it as getting paid to study.

            2. Stephanie*

              I had one of these jobs in grad school. Was a desk worker at a student center in a basement. Was never super swamped because you had to know where it was and I did my fair share of coding down there.

        3. Lacey*

          Yes, I think that’s the big difference. I freelance on the side. My boss knows and supports this. When work is slow, sometimes I do the freelance work while I wait for my employer to provide more for me to do.
          But, the minute more work comes in, I set aside the freelance stuff and I never take so much freelance work that I can’t get it done without doing part of it during the work day.

          1. The Rules are Made Up*

            Is your freelance work in the same field as your full time work? I’m considering doing this too but I’m unsure if that would be okay if the two are similar, like probably same job title, but not at all competing.

            1. Lacey*

              It’s the same field, but totally different client bases. And my boss knows that both I and my coworker are doing these side businesses.

      2. AdequateAdmin*

        I wrote a ridiculous portion of my thesis while at work. It was in the beginning of 2020 when Covid was slowing everything down and if we had no customers and we’d already finished all our down time work…I always hopped to it the second I had a new task, but otherwise I’m not good at just sitting around doing nothing.

        1. No Longer Gig-less Data Analyst*

          I wrote about 1/3 of my first book on the clock when I ran out of work to do, which at that job was quite often. I was super overqualified and was able to finish all the tasks of my predecessor in about 20 hours a week. I did ask for more tasks/responsibility but they still didn’t come close to 40 hours per week.

      3. Snark*

        I think another important distinction between what you’re doing and what OP’s doing is that your academic work is not (at least I’m assuming) in the same field as your employment, or only tangentially so. There are serious ethical concerns that get raised in my mind if these two companies OP works for are even within hailing distance of the same field. You can’t un-know what you learn from one job when you pivot to the other one. That’s not a problem with two businesses that don’t overlap, but if they do? Confidential business information, customer data and information, proprietary technology or IP, strategy and planning are all things I’m pretty sure Job 1 doesn’t want to share with Job 2, let alone have one brain serving as a fat conduit between them.

          1. Eldritch Office Worker*

            Oh I misread no my education is incredibly directly related to my employment. But it doesn’t create a conflict.

            1. Indigo a la mode*

              Right, it makes total sense that your education would be in the field you want to work in…I don’t see how doing your thesis on the job would be *more* ethical if you worked in payroll and were studying history.

            2. Snark*

              That’s what I mean; there’s no inherent conflict there the way selling the same time to two different companies has.

        2. Indigo a la mode*

          Maybe I’m misunderstanding, but to me, that’s like saying your company can’t have two clients in X industry because your processes and knowledge will overlap. Experience that applies to other clients is almost always a good thing. (For context, I work in marketing for B2B tech and staffing companies, where it’s pretty much the same range of work no matter what employer or client I have.) Would you feel the same way about, say, a freelance writer who technically provides the same services to multiple ’employers?’

          Also, I doubt OP is spreading company IP and customer information around, especially since they want to keep their two jobs on the DL.

            1. Despachito*

              But is it really relevant in terms of confidentiality?

              I am a freelancer, and it is understood that I keep clients’ information confidential – if I don’t, I would be in trouble and it would influence my credibility and my further work – why would I risk it?

          2. Omnivalent*

            This is like one of those advice column letters where people argue that their cheating actually makes their marriage better, because they’re happier or they’re learning things from their affair partner that benefit their spouse.

            The OP isn’t a freelancer, who is understood to have other clients, and where the client can require a confidentiality agreement or decline the work if they are concerned about overlap. The OP is an employee. The employers don’t know that the OP is working for one another. Besides the dishonesty, the OP is potentially creating a lot of ethical headaches for their employers.

            1. Anne Elliot*

              100% this. I’m also pretty bothered by the increasing use of “employers have historically treated people badly so that means now employees can act badly” as a justification.

              1. Koalafied*

                Yeah, I’m not a huge fan of that logic either, because it indiscriminately punishes all employers for the crimes of some employers. And the cynic in me says it’s the companies trying to do right by their employees who are going to be harmed the most because they have demonstrated a willingness to restrain themselves from extreme exploitative behavior, while the bad actors will just find new ways to be just as exploitative and continue sucking.

                It’s very, “because Jaime and Chris wouldn’t stop talking during history lesson the entire class is losing their recess today,” except at least the rest of the class has some social leverage to punish Jaime and Chris in retribution for getting them all punished. The companies who act with integrity have no equivalent leverage to ostracize or shame the evil companies for causing this blowback.

                1. Zak*

                  All employers *are* somewhat responsible for the problem though – that’s how a tragedy of the commons happens

                3. Tina Belcher's Less Cool Sister*

                  Not only that, but it will only encourage even more employers to act poorly toward their employees because “that’s just how it is now”. I feel like societal norms and graces are already on the verge of breakdown and this isn’t helping.

              2. correcting a misunderstanding*

                I don’t think that’s the justification, though. The justification is that societally, we are rethinking what is acceptable between employer and employee, and one of those things could be whether or not it’s acceptable for an employer to do work for another job in their downtime. It’s backed up by the fact that employers have historically treated employees poorly, and we are now seeing the consequences of that, but it’s not justification for being dishonest. In fact, she says that the dishonesty is the main reason she’s not condoning it.

              3. AntsOnMyTable*

                I also can’t help but thinking how they are making *really* good money. If you find that you are getting paid 200k to do 25 hours of work the ethical thing is to tell your business and see if there is any other duties they would like you to take on. If they decide no, then maybe I could see finding a second job who is also aware you are only doing 25 hrs of work for a huge salary and don’t mind.

            3. Aitch Arr*

              I’d also bet money that the OP has signed an NDA or similar agreement with at least one of his two employers.

              S/he should also check their employee handbook about conflicts of interest, moonlighting, etc.

            4. Freya*

              This. Also, if OP falls over and gets injured during work hours, which employer’s WFH workers compensation insurance gets tapped?

          3. Sharon*

            Companies have policies to address conflicts of interest – but they have to know about them. At my company, you have to disclose all outside business activities so they can confirm there are no conflicts, but we are in a highly regulated industry.

            I imagine a freelancer would either be walled off from sensitive proprietary information or have to sign an NDA.

            1. Mahkara*

              That would be my thought. Also, it’s not uncommon to *not* allow freelancers/contractors/etc. on certain projects precisely because there are concerns about what they might inadvertantly diverge to other employers.

        3. Amaranth*

          I don’t think that is markedly different than if you went from Job 1 to Job 2, unless you’re pivoting in real time off proprietary data. In this case LW says the fields aren’t really intertwined, so my main concern as an employer would be the scheduling. If an employee says they can’t get something done for three weeks I’m going to assume they are honest about their workload – for my company.

      4. Stephanie*

        Yeah, this was me when I was in a part-time grad program. I did get my boss’ ok (company was paying for it) and knew I could drop the paper if needed.

        We did have a remote intern who was taking summer classes and not managing the workload at all. They basically fired her (her manager figured she got a full time offer from another coop and didn’t care too much about this one).

    2. JSPA*

      As a customer I’ve put up with a lot of crappy crappy service (and dropped balls) “because Covid.” Employers are doing the same. But patience is not infinite.

      Additionally, some job functions went away, leaving gaps in schedules; but new processes will eventually have to be added back, to cover equivalent needs. This isn’t the “new normal” yet; it’s a waystation on the path to that new normal.

      People who are committed to half-assing their jobs (and who don’t volunteer for tasks to make their hours count) will eventually be out on their asses. Even in this job market.

        1. Corey*

          lol right? That comment would have already been antiquated pre-covid. If I ever volunteered to do more work “to make my hours count”, my supervisor demand that I take a vacation.

          Though I recognize my privilege of not working in an industry whose customers begin sentences with “As a customer…”.

          1. Myllamapeggyhill*

            Nah is about the kindest thing I can say to someone who puts COVID in scare quotes. Not sure if they know how they sound but I imagine them also saying things like “my dad’s a lawyer!” “I spend a lot of money here!” and “don’t you know who I am?!” I sure do. ;)

            1. JSPA*

              Those are quote quotes. For the popular use of “because” with a noun. Not scare quotes. I’m high risk. I take covid thoroughly seriously. I have cut businesses a lot of slack, if they’ve always been solid in the past, when things went pear-shaped during the last 18-plus months. I’m sure this lands badly with people who are getting as much done in 4 hours at home, as they did in 8 hours at the office, and with no higher an error rate, either individually nor due to process breakdowns. (Dear organized, competent people working for companies who have completely solved the shift to WFH–I’m not talking about you.)

              But there are also people who are delusional about what a great job they are doing, not realizing how much goodwill has been based on how freaking hard this has been. Errors that would have been firing errors have become formal warnings, formal warnings have become gentle reminders, and gentle reminders have fallen by the wayside, due to lack of bandwidth.

              1. Chris too*

                There’s also the fact that lots of us *weren’t* working from home and “aaah I don’t wanna DIE,” was taking up a lot of the room in our brains that would have otherwise been used to catch mistakes. I have a non-remote job that takes a lot of attention to detail, and my supervisor and I are usually excellent at not making mistakes, but last year we made more errors in the one year than we had made in the past 15 all together.

              2. MBK*

                This happened in schools, too. My kid spent half her junior and all of her senior years of high school working to certain modified COVID expectations – late work accepted with no penalty as long as it was in by the end of term, retake tests as many times as you want until you’re happy with the grade, lots of necessary slack in terms of remote attendance and attention – and frankly, it hasn’t left her super well prepared for what college expects of her.

                I don’t blame the school for this. They did a mostly great job with the transition to remote learning, especially given what I’ve heard from friends with kids in other districts, and the accommodations they made were 100% necessary for the students, teachers, and administrators to be able to get through it at all. But a certain amount of self-management and rigor went right out the window.

                1. Nichole*

                  For what it’s worth, I teach at the college level, I adopted a policy of no penalties for late work during the pandemic, and after seeing some other people in higher ed explain why they think policies like this are so important, I’ve decided that I plan on keeping that policy permanently. So… your kid may be more prepared for college than you think.

          2. Koalafied*

            I think the truth is in the middle. I don’t think failure to volunteer for tasks in one’s idle time is going to land anyone’s arse on the street in the vast majority of companies, by any stretch of the imagination. At most it may negatively affect their chances of promotion or the size of their raise, if their output is correspondingly lower than peer they’re being compared to.

            My assumption is that anyone who’s only working 3 hours a day and knitting/gardening on the clock the rest of the day, is either in an “engaged to wait” type of role where the employer is fine with the arrangement, or their managers are thinking it takes them 8 hours to do work they can really do in 3. If it’s the latter, most likely they’ll continue getting away with it until if/when they get a more competent manager who knows how long things should take and gives them new, more challenging goals.

            The only way this leads to a firing is if:
            – Manager wises up or new management comes in and sees what’s going on, AND
            – Establishes new goals or puts the employee on a PIP, AND
            – The employee either flat out refuses to increase their output or just doesn’t, AND
            – The manager feels confident that they can easily replace the employee with someone who *will* output at a higher level, AND
            – The manager has the backing/authority needed to let the employee go.

            People have been getting away with slacking off on the job since jobs were first invented. Most of them don’t get fired, they just get grumbled about by coworkers who nonetheless accept their existence as a fact of life.

          3. JSPA*

            I’m not talking about, “my shirt is the wrong color.”

            The cost to my insurance agent of fixing one person’s repeated screw-ups, over the course of 4 months, would have hired a decent temp for several months. (They dug old policy information out of their files that had the wrong insurance company, not just the wrong policy number and wrong phone number and wrong renewal date, though those were also wrong.) One of my banks put the wrong contact information and typoed the email address on one of my accounts, and was sending my financial information to a stranger. Then there was the medical testing service that repeatedly billed the same medical insurance (not mine, not my name, not in any way related to me). At some point, that’s lawsuit territory. In the case of the insurance, the problem person was also sending extremely informal, typo ridden, incomprehensible emails, and slurring on the phone. My blood donation was destroyed, instead of used, because of a screw-up.

            It’s been a really hard nearly-two-years. I have continued to work with the companies in question, where in past times, I’d have long ago changed insurance agents. And I caught the flaw at the bank early enough (and flagged to them that it might be a systemic back-door problem) that I wasn’t out money. As for the medical insurance billing…NextDoor around me is slammed with complaints about that particular site, so likely I will go elsewhere in the future. And my medium-high-risk self will not be donating blood just to see it wasted, until they get the support that they need, to pull their act together.

            The customer isn’t always right. I’d never say everyone has to fill every hour of their day. But there are a lot of processes breaking down, and a lot of people who apparently believe that they’re doing an adequate job, while in fact, they are doing no such thing. It’s not tenable.

            1. Koalafied*

              I’m right there with you in seeing serious customer service issues that I’ve been patient with but do find myself getting increasingly frustrated by.

              Where I differ is that, just based on the entirety of my professional experience, I’m far more inclined to attribute those errors to employers skimping on hiring and piling too much work on each staff member, than on staff members slacking off.

              There are slackers in every job, but everywhere I’ve had any kind of insight into the situation, the number of people with unrealistic demands placed on them far exceeds the number who are getting away with actually slacking off. It can be hard to tell from the outside which is going on – did that CSR make an error because they’re rushing through their work to free up more time for video game playing, or did they make an error because over the past 10 years their employer let 2 out of 4 members of their team quit without bothering to backfill their roles and just expecting the two remaining staff to absorb the extra work? Are they reluctant to spend extra time researching your problem because they find it boring and don’t care, or are they reluctant to spend extra time researching your problem because they currently have three other messes that were dumped in their lap this morning with a “pls fix by yesterday” instruction?

              My anger in those situations is generally directed at the company structure that is permitting this to happen moreso than the individual who I generally assume is doing the best they can – either period, or the best they can given the psychological reality of what happens to a person’s motivation and productivity when they’re in soul-crushing, hopeless situations for extended/indefinite lengths of time.

              1. JSPA*

                The insurance person was borderline flakey and careless before, too, but would pull it together as needed.

                I do think they are down a person– specifically, the person who carried more than her weight and fixed other people’s screw- ups. But with much less commuting, and no major natural disasters in the local area, they’re also fielding fewer- than- normal claims. And the other person left three years ago.

                Everything about the situation feels like happy hour is starting with breakfast, while they’re all WFH, with a side order of “nobody can tell.” It’s a small agency, in a quiet suburb of a fairly quiet small city. They may not have a process for addressing the problem, so long as nobody passes out naked in public. But ignoring the problem isn’t a winning strategy. I did explicitly ask them to get her the support she needed whatever that might be. But I also explained that I was unwilling to work with her as my primary contact, without someone on backup to make sure the information was correct.

                To be clear, this isn’t a problem caused BY people doing WFH. It’s a specific person with specific issues. And every other case also has specific circumstances. I’m sympathetic to the people as individuals (and given how hiring is, I’m sympathetic if they can’t find another person).

                The fact remains that these are mistakes going well beyond the “shrug it off” line. I’m fine with 5% of my grocery order being food I can’t eat (it goes to neighbors or the food bank). Sending my insurance money to the wrong insurer, Telling me to calm down because the renewal date isn’t for months when it has already passed, telling me there’s no way to pay directly (when there is), Getting the total amount wrong and the address wrong, and my temporary mailing address wrong when it’s in the fricking email they’re responding to?

                That’s a different level.

                1. Jean*

                  I’m so confused as to why you haven’t switched agencies. It’s almost like you’re acting superior about it, and you’ve clearly been ruminating on it. Just go to another provider if you’re so unsatisfied, jeez

              2. anon for this*

                another situation is “has the employer changed the expectations”. my job recently did this and we are getting slammed by angry customer over this. people aren’t happy about the change, and I can’t blame them. If I gambled and won the lotto I’d leak the information and retire.

          4. Tequila & Oxford Commas*

            You…are never a customer? The “as a customer” was a helpful distinction given that we’re normally talking about ourselves as employees in the context of this site.

            1. Corey*

              > You…are never a customer?

              Struggling to identify even the most mangled interpretation of anything I said that would make you think this.

          5. JSPA*

            I was being mocked for specifying that what followed was my experience as a customer, rather than as an employer or employee.

            Contractors aside, most of us experience many more workplaces as customers then we do, as employees.

            Unless I’m reading the tone wrong, you were giving a thumbs up to the mockery. You also are casting shade on people who a) have customers and whose customers refer to themselves as “customers.” Which is perplexing- -most businesses have customers, of one sort or another.

            I’m assuming you’re not a tree; you procure food, clothing, housing, possibly even insurance, right? You are a customer, then?

            And people who use what you help to produce, whether it be goods, information, code- – they’re not customers of your company? Sure, they may be “clients” or “students” or “citizens” or “the public,” if you work for an NGO, university, government, research facility. But, same concept, broadly. In this context, that being, “the people who suffer if your performance is actually crap, even if nobody says anything.”

            1. Corey*

              Literally zero people have said they are not a customer lol. This is an incredibly weird reaction to criticism of your already weird comment.

              1. RebelwithMouseyHair*

                I don’t see what’s weird about starting a sentence with “As a customer” when you want to specify that you’re talking about customer experience rather than employer/employee experience, on a work-related website.

              2. MBK*

                I read it more as “I’ve noticed a decline in the level of service and attention to detail in businesses I interact with as a customer” as opposed to “I’ve noticed this among my coworkers and other businesses I collaborate with.” It’s a reasonable distinction in a conversation like this one.

                In any case, JSPA is making a lot of valid points about the nature of employee/customer expectations, how those expectations have changed over the past 20 months, and the fact that *some* of those changes are not sustainable. Knocking them for word choice and phrasing seems to me like an exercise in willfully missing or attempting to ignore the point.

                1. Corey*

                  That is wholly different from spending multiple paragraphs explaining to exactly zero people who are confused that we are all customers. You absolutely do not need to defend it!

      2. Hannah*

        So I’m going to be honest and say I’ve been working two jobs since 2014. Job 1 is my “40 hours a week” and Job 2 is a set of tasks that I’m given each Sunday with a deadline of finishing by Friday.

        It works really well! I am a superstar in Job 1 and I jump to volunteer whenever I’m needed. I’m also very well known for my dang near instant email responses. I’m always the first one to not only propose a new idea but offer to take on all the work to build it.

        But they still can’t keep up with me. So I took on Job 2 and, if it’s a slow week, I do it in my downtime. If it’s a wild week, I may have to actually do a couple hours of that in the evening.

        Some situations just work! You have to be really good and you have to have an excellent match (like my Job 2 that never needs me immediately). But I don’t think that I’m a bad person for filling my hours myself after I’ve contributed everything I can to Job 1.

        1. OhNo*

          Is job #2 a full-time position, though? I’ve also worked multiple jobs at once, but always with the understanding that one or more of them was intended to be part-time, so there was no expectation of full availability for it. I was expected to work a certain number of hours, or complete a certain set of tasks, but there wasn’t the expectation (real or implied) that I was “on the clock” for those jobs from 9-5 every day.

          1. Hannah*

            This is true – job 2 is part time. I certainly agree with the idea that the LW will likely burn out quickly on two full time jobs!

        2. Seeking Second Childhood*

          I think you have a very different situation. You are given specific tasks to complete and you do them in less time than your boss expects. That is not OP.
          OP is director-level, and directors are given down time to strategize, research new business opportunities, and make plans to expand their companies income stream. It sounds like this person is working both jobs without increasing the amount of time on the jobs, which means both companies are being shortchanged.
          You’re fine. But I find myself thoroughly and completely disgusted with OP.

        3. Science KK*

          I wish this thing had DMs so I could pick your brain about Job #2. I could really use one but my 40 hour job gets CRAZY sometimes, and other times (like now) I’m spinning in my chair looking for things to do.

        5. MBK*

          The potential difference can be summed up in two questions:

          1) Does Job 1 know about Job 2?
          2) If not, would they be OK with it if they found out?

      3. Nanani*

        Nope.
        Covid is real and really did -and IS- affecting people’s productivity.

        You’re right that this isn’t the new normal, but you are way off in this bizzaro world about volunteering for tasks.
        1) Pay people
        2) Acknowledge reality please

      4. Rosacolleti*

        I agree! The long term effect of this double dipping behaviour and even widespread WFH will have a highly detrimental effect on personal career development and businesses to innovate. When business doesn’t innovate, jobs will go, or get less interesting at the very least.
        My business has never outsourced anything in our 20 years, instead employing locals. Now we cannot find new employees willing to work physically in the office (we are in a very low covid country) so if we are going to have a remote team which we know will affect the business negatively, we will do it with new staff from offshore at a third of the price. It breaks my heart.

        1. TardyTardis*

          And yet a lot of businesses have been outsourcing to cheaper countries for a couple of decades and firing anyone who wants to be paid a decent wager. Not so many broken hearts with them.

          Think Disney, who hired H1Bs for a fraction of the salary of an American citizen, and had those very citizens train their replacements. This was on 60 Minutes, so accepting that report as accurate.

          Yes, there are good companies out there who don’t want to screw their employees, but the bad ones have been getting away with so much for so long…

    3. anonymous73*

      It’s not always about the number of hours you spend working. It’s about being available when needed. You can stop in the middle of doing laundry or cleaning your garage if an issue pops up. You may not be able to do that if you’re working on an urgent issue for company #2.

      1. Falling Diphthong*

        This strikes me to the (pre-all-daycare-and-school-closing) discussions of watching kids while doing something else. You can usually do laundry, empty the dishwasher, or watch a football game while keeping an ear out for a suspicious sudden silence. That doesn’t work with work that demands your focus and engagement.

        1. BPT*

          This is a good point. I think most people on this site have agreed before that it’s not ok to work from home without childcare if you have a child small enough to need supervision. The rationale behind that is that childcare is also a fulltime job, and you can’t do both at once. So are we changing that view now? Is it ok to not let your work know you don’t have childcare and spend a good portion of your day on that? (After we’re passed COVID and regular childcare is back to where it was, of course.) My sense is no – you still need childcare. So why are these two jobs different?

          1. TechWriter*

            I think the thing that makes childcare different is that it’s CONSTANT. Even if your kid is playing calmly by themself for twenty minutes, you cannot predict when that twenty minutes will start or end, or if it will happen at all. And even if it’s happening, you will ALWAYS have that extra ear tuned to when the happy sounds turn to either silence (someone’s getting in trouble) or wailing.

            The extra ear was true for me, even when I was working in our home office with the door shut with my spouse providing direct child supervision.

            At least with the two jobs, you could work exclusively on one for a set period of time until a given task is complete, then context switch to the other. You’re not splitting your attention, you can give 100% of it to the task/job at hand.

            1. BPT*

              This is probably very job dependent, but there are definitely times when OP (especially since their job is more strategic rather than like data entry or something) could be on the phone with one boss and their other boss calls with a fire drill. Or two major items need to be done in the same day/timeframe. I would be surprised in many jobs if you can simply work on one project with no interruptions or impromptu meetings. With a job, it’s not that you can’t be doing anything else (like commenting on As A Manager lol), but that you have to be able to drop things right away if something time sensitive with your job comes up. Can you do that with two full-time salaried jobs? I think that OP is very lucky they haven’t encountered this yet, but I would be shocked if they never do in this situation. I mean I’m sure there are jobs where this might be possible, but I think it’s a huge risk.

            2. Cold Fish*

              But is working on a report for Company A and getting an urgent call from Company B any different than working on a report for Company A and getting interrupted because your kid finished their math worksheet?

              1. RebelwithMouseyHair*

                You can probably tell your kid, “OK, Mummy’s really busy so go out to play for a bit and I’ll check your work when I’ve finished this”, while it’ll be harder to fob your manager off when they have an emergency.

            3. Yorick*

              Well, right. Each full time job expects you to be “constantly” (not actually constantly but you know) available to do work for them, unless you have specific hours for each that don’t overlap.

      2. Snark*

        Exactly. For the last three months, my life was ruled by coordinating a high-level meeting with 50 attendees and the required presence of five levels of leadership above me, executed entirely on Teams. I was pretty much booked solid. That meeting happened two weeks ago. Since then, it’s been deathly slow and I’ve maybe been doing 4-5 hours of actual, on task, focused work per day. Now? Sure, I could, I dunno, consult.

        But part of the reason my role exists is so if someone needs to work 40+ straight hours a week to get a meeting executed or field work done or a 100-page environmental assessment banged out, they have me and I can do that. If anything like that comes down and I’m working my side hustle, it’s gonna get ugly.

      3. DANGER: Gumption Ahead*

        I feel like if the LW wants to fill some extra time, it might make more sense to freelance on the side rather than take a whole other job. You can actually put freelance/consulting on your resume at the same time as a FT position. Having 2 simultaneous FT positions means you can only keep one and need to leave off any accomplishments from the other. Seems like a waste

        1. Falling Diphthong*

          I think the key is that the “on the side” thing is something that can take a backseat when the primary job really needs your full time and attention. Freelance where you set the schedule; writing a novel (including one that gets published for actual money); household chores or hobbies; watching the entire Netflix catalogue.

    4. houseplant champion*

      Exactly!

      I work 2-4 hours a day at my 8-hour-a-day remote job. My company repeteadly tells me they’re thrilled with my work. I fill the extra time with things that make me happy – reading, playing music, making art – and household stuff like laundry and dishes.

      I have no desire to work a second job; what I like about mine is how chill it is, but I feel no guilt about not “working” 40 hours per week. I’m available during those 40hrs and my job takes priority over my other tasks… I hit my targets, my work is good, so what?

      1. Falling Diphthong*

        And to Alison’s point–if next week turned into a hell week and you had to be working 8-10 hours a day to get through the crisis, all of the things you’ve listed are things that can go on hold and be done less or not at all that week.

      2. Tuesday*

        When you say, “I’m available during those 40hrs and my job takes priority over my other tasks” I take that to mean you’re doing everything at work that needs to be done that day? To me, that’s what makes a difference. If there’s stuff the OP is pushing off or letting slide in order to work the other job, that seems more unethical. But if the work is getting done like it would if the other job wasn’t happening, I’m not seeing an issue.
        Also, I want your job please.

      3. TechWriter*

        I am feeling a lot better about my…. work ethic, I guess, reading this thread. I did a solid hour before lunch and felt accomplished, then felt guilty that such a paltry amount of work made me feel accomplished. Nice to hear others operate in a similar way.

      4. LittleMarshmallow*

        I find a lot of the comments about only doing 2-4 hr of work in an 8 hr day and basically “playing or chore-ing” the rest of the time with glowing reviews interesting but a touch suspicious because I’ve seen so many lazy or cowardly managers over the years that just give good reviews to all their employees regardless of actual performance. I’m in a situation like that now. My workplace has one employee who probably does an hour or two of “work” daily. She has a job but isn’t actually qualified to do it so there are 2 of us that are doing all of her tasks (and our own and consequently working 50-60 hr weeks consistently). Management is aware that this is going on and continues to give her “good reviews” because they don’t have time to make sure she’s getting her stuff done and are too scared to actually deal with a PIP and the tears that accompany it. This isn’t the first time I’ve seen similar situations so my cynical side thinks that some these “rockstars” might not be as popular with their coworkers (or even managers) as they think. But more power to them I suppose for learning to game the system.

        1. Iain C*

          Long before Covid, I was complimented for being twice as productive as the person who had my job before. (They left for their own reasons).

          It was during the months after a new WoW expansion, and I was hard in my home office..

          But I was creating code, not making widgets, so productivity can vary a lot between people. When I was on, I was ON.

          1. RebelwithMouseyHair*

            The stats showed that I was doing twice as much as my colleague in fewer working hours.
            My boss did nothing to reward me: no pay rise, no bonus, nothing.
            So I cut back on my output, only producing what was expected of me.
            A good manager would have realised my greater worth and given me a pay rise, and maybe let me work to my own schedule instead of making me come in on systematically slow days. They’d have got even more work out of me had they let me work when there was work to be done instead of making me work set hours. But they wanted butts in seats more than they wanted productivity. I don’t understand, but then I’m not a person who ever wishes to have control/power over other people, and butts in seats is purely a power play.

        2. Spero*

          I do have many days where I spend most of my day not working per se, but I’m always *available to work* and unpredictably have days where I do spend every minute of the 8 hours working hard. A big part of my role is troubleshooting/escalation of issues, so if there’s a happy day of no issues in my company I’m superfluous. My non-trouble shooting tasks are kept very minimal so that when there IS trouble I have lots of time to spend on it. It really just depends on the nature of someone’s job.

    5. M2*

      This stuff actually makes me really upset because someone is covering for you only working 2-3 hours a day. My spouse has a large team and he has to work insane hours basically because his team are pulling crap like this and HR won’t let him fire them/ put them on PIPs. They also all get paid well above market rate for their roles.

      When you are taking advantage another person is probably burning out/ having health issues because they have to do your work for you. But hey who cares about others if you only have to work 2-3 hours a day!

      1. Software Dev*

        Eh that isn’t always the case though. My job is one where we all have separate, discrete tasks, so if I don’t do a full eight hours of work on my ticket, it doesn’t impact anyone else. eventually my manager would ask me about it if it never got done, but at least with programming, the numbers of hours worked is far less correlated with how quickly a task gets done than how awake/aware I am during those hours.

        1. JSPA*

          Software is a rare case. One has to budget the time for people who plug away at a job by rote, and get it done reasonably cleanly. And for those who are determined to write it as lean as possible, and won’t turn it in until it’s pared down. And for those who don’t spot their own bugs efficiently. If you’re insightful, tidy, not obsessive, and generally good at “work smarter, not harder,” I completely understand how you have free hours most days.

          Plenty of people don’t have jobs that are both completely defined (make this outcome happen, and then you’re done) yet open to a really wide range of solutions. Coding’s special that way.

        2. Yorick*

          But if you would finish that ticket more quickly and take on a new one, someone like M2’s spouse wouldn’t have to work late to do more than their share of tickets.

          1. Anna*

            But why is M2’s spouse working late to do more than their fair share of tickets? They should just do their assigned work, as Software Dev is doing. Clearly the company doesn’t have an issue with that, since they’re not pulling Software Dev up on it. If M2’s spouse is working extra hours, then either they’re martyring themselves unnecessarily by doing extra work or not keeping up with their own work.

      2. Starbuck*

        Well, not necessarily right? If OP’s been given a workplan and goal, and accomplishing everything on it, then we can’t just assume that someone else is doing crunch.

        The real blame for if that were to happen, as always, is actually on management for not hiring for a level beyond the bare minimum of staffing needs (and so, so often less than that, as we see in letter here) and not individual workers doing what’s best for themselves.

        1. Yorick*

          If people are expected to work 8 hours and they’re only working 2-4, it’s not on management if things aren’t getting done. They didn’t hire the bare minimum of staffing needs! They’re just only getting half an employee for some of the employees they hired!

          1. iliketoknit*

            Well, it is, to the extent that management is expected to manage, part of which is ensuring that employees do the work that’s required and deciding who needs to do what. If a manager is happy with the amount of work that Employee A produces in 4 hours and doesn’t require more, it’s not on Employee A to work more. If Employee B in the same company is working 10 hours a day instead of 8, it’s on management to figure out what Employee B needs, which might be to have some of their tasks given to A, or might be to get trained on new tech that will let them do their work faster, or whatever. Not all jobs have enough work to fill up every hour, or employees all doing the same tasks. (So say that A and B work in automative repair, and A does accounting while B actually fixes cars. There might not be more than 4 hours of work for A to do in a day, while B might work the entire time – or vice versa, who knows. But A having 4 hours of work and B being swamped isn’t on A – A can’t take over some of B’s car-fixing duties. So it would be on management to hire more mechanics if B is getting swamped.) There’s no issue with Employee A getting their work done in 4 hours if no one is requiring them to do more. The issue would be if their boss tried to give them more work and they refused, but that’s not what anyone has described.

          2. RebelwithMouseyHair*

            My output was literally double that of my colleague, yet she worked longer hours. I never got any acknowledgement of my greater output, no pay rise no bonus, no perks, so I decided to just do the bare minimum instead, and spent the rest of my time working on a volunteer project instead.

        2. marvin the paranoid android*

          My issue with the OP’s situation is that they’re being paid $200k a year by each employer to do a job that’s meant to be creative and strategic–they’re given the luxury of few day-to-day responsibilities with the expectation that they’re using that free time to dream up exciting ideas. They’re also given a lot of autonomy, with the expectation that because they’re a senior-level employee, they’ll have the employer’s interests at heart.

          That’s the theory, but I’m guessing that a lot of people in the OP’s position would just spend a good part of that work day goofing off, taking long lunches or hitting the golf course rather than working a second job. I don’t actually see what the OP is doing as hugely different from that. My issue is just with the massive pile of advantages and benefit of the doubt being heaped on a few people at the top of the ladder at the expense of those at the bottom.

      3. Why did I go to library school?*

        I mean, that’s not always the case — and when it is, it’s not always something the worker can do anything about. I had a job once where I would regularly have days where I’d either have to slow my work pace down to a crawl to make it fill my day or spend half the time twiddling my thumbs. I constantly asked for more tasks, but I was never given any… because the majority of the work was being held up by my grand-boss (there were projects that hadn’t been touched in over a year because she insisted on reviewing them first, but then somehow would never get around to it). It was an utterly miserable experience.

        If I’d been able to work from home, I totally would have been doing other stuff during that time. Possibly including picking up more paid work.

        1. Marie*

          This is absolutely the case in my position. I am part of a larger team and we all manage different workstreams for a particular HR software. I am supporting a division of the company I work for with regards to their needs from the HR software. Sometimes, this means I’m really busy (like over the summer when we were rolling out some new processes). Right now, as in the past few weeks, it’s been slower, so I caught up on smaller stuff, let everyone know that I had time to help out with anything (and am reminding them every day), and I’m still in a pretty slow period. It’ll pick back up next week or the week after, but for now, time to dust the baseboards.

          I find the idea that every job “should” be 8 solid hours a day to be very antiquated, especially in light of all of the studies that have come out in the past decade or so showing that most people do 2-4 hours of actual productive work a day.

      4. Loredena Frisealach*

        That’s not always the scenario though! I’ve had plenty of times where I simply have no work to do, I’m not skipping out on anything just because I only worked a few hours today. I’m a consultant, either I have billable work or I don’t – but even when I worked in industry as a developer who also did support, there was a lot of down time. It really depends on the job!

      5. turquoisecow*

        Nah, some jobs just don’t have a lot of work. I’m part time currently and working on a project that for most of the other people working on it is a “when I can get to it” thing, so I don’t have a lot of actual work to do, since I’m waiting on a lot of other busier people to do their stuff. And their stuff is not my stuff, so their busyness is unrelated to me.

        But even when I worked full time, the job just didn’t have enough work to keep me busy 8 hours a day, most of the time. Sure there were times where important projects meant I was working through lunch and staying late, but 99% of the time I was done on time and so were my coworkers doing the same job. I was not and am not slacking while someone else works on my job, that’s not the way my job works.

      6. The Rules are Made Up*

        That’s not true for everyone’s job. If I work a solid 2 or 3 hours a day during slow periods there’s nobody that’s “covering” for me. That implies that there’s work to do that I’m just not doing, which is not the case. What people are talking about is jobs where sometimes there are not 8 hours worth of tasks to do in a day. Nobody is slacking. Nobody is covering. There just isn’t that much to do so they do other things until there’s something else for them to do. Your spouse’s problem is an entirely different, pretty unrelated, issue.

      7. LittleMarshmallow*

        I have the same sentiment about it being upsetting. I do blame management for not dealing with it also but if people worked ethically management wouldn’t have to step in either. The people on my site (largely not an able to do work from home site… for some reason they won’t let me set up my reactor in my garage), that pushed to work from home because they thought their jobs could be done remotely were mostly wrong. And after nearly a year of engineers covering admin tasks because the admins decided they could do their jobs from home (and their management not questioning it), we finally had to escalate the issue to admin management to explain all of the things their team used to do physically on-site that the engineering staff was now doing. Luckily in this situation the admin manager did work with us to get an on-site staff member and that has helped significantly, but the denial seems to be pretty strong with some of the avid wfh people. I’m sorry but you can not cover front desk/ receptionist duties from home no matter how badly you want to be able to spend the time for physical tasks on laundry instead of laminating things or receiving packages.

      8. Tami*

        There should be a baseline of what amount of time a task takes. For example as a manager with excellent experience in the task if that task takes you an hour to accomplish knowing a new hire may take 2 to accomplish this and should be at your level in for example 6 months allows proper delegation of tasks. Someone new may have 4 tasks a day to start and bu month 6 have 8 tasks. As we move toward this more common remote work it is imperative that as managers we are aware of the amount of time a task should take and give enough to keep staff busy.

        I know when I come to the office on a weekend I can accomplish about 40 percent more than on a day when everyone is in the office as I have no interruption. When people are working from home uninterrupted they likely will accomplish tasks much faster than in an office setting with multiple distractions.

    6. Hills to Die On*

      It’s also not just the Capitalist Machine OP would be taking from. He’d be taking time away from real people needing real things to do their jobs. And even if he checks the boxes on deliverables, he is still shorting his coworkers on time, awareness, context, added help, a resource for knowledge, etc. because he just isn’t putting in the same amount of time as everyone else.

      1. ...*

        Also taking away job opportunities from someone else. We see ALL THE TIME on this site people struggling for months or years to find a better paying job and a way out of their current toxic environment. It’s hard enough finding one salary. I empathize with necessity, but “why not?” is not a necessity and it kind of stings to hear people say that when I could really use at least one job that offers a living wage.

        1. Ruth*

          To me, this is an argument in favor of universal basic income. The OP here ‘earned’ these two jobs over other candidates. No matter what situation those other candidates are in, I believe they deserve to eat and pay rent and have access to reliable transportation. Any time I notice a “why them and not me?” feeling in myself or someone else, it can still almost always be traced back to a systemic failure, in my opinion.

        2. RS*

          This! The comment of feeling guilty for taking a job someone else could fill but there’s no lack of jobs right now… there absolutely are a limited number of remote director positions paying 200,000.

        3. After 33 years ...*

          This is where I would end up. I have declined opportunities to consult or do extra work on the side, passing those to younger colleagues or students who needed both income and experience, and could do the work. When I was younger, senior people did the same favours for me … paying it forward.
          I’m not in the OPs Tech field, so things are very different. The only person at my university making $200 k US annually would be our President, and I hope they6 aren’t trying to do a second job.

    7. LinuxSystemsGuy*

      I’m actually doing something similar to OP, though with significant differences. I’m a full time 40 hrs a week team lead/junior manager for a research non-profit, and a part time (16ish hours a week) 1099 contractor for a telecom. I have to say, it’s mostly not that hard?

      My situation is a bit different (both my employers know what I’m doing for one), but overall I haven’t had any significant issues maintaining work quality or juggling responsibilities. I think a critical piece is that my part time job knows they are a second priority. If they have an emergency, I’ll help, even during business hours, but not at the expense of my full time job. That helps a lot with prioritizing serious problems.

      1. OhNo*

        The consent is key. If both companies know what is happening, and they’re cool with it, and everyone involved knows who has priority when and all parties have agreed to the arrangement… no problem! Go for it!

        It’s just when someone is being duplicitous about it, and deliberately so, because they know one or more of their jobs would not allow it, that it becomes an ethical problem. Even if it causes no problems for anyone, and the employee can get away with it indefinitely, they’re still deliberately lying about it in a way that many would consider a bad breach of ethics.

        1. Cassie*

          This. I used to be involved w/ a ballet studio (teaching in the evenings, running rehearsals on the weekend) while working a 8-5 office job. My boss knew about my ballet stuff, and of course the ballet people knew I had a “day” job. If I had to do something ballet related during the day (say tech rehearsal that starts earlier in the afternoon), I’d take vacation time off.

          If I routinely disappears for a couple of hours during the day to go to the ballet studio, I’m sure I’d get a talking to by my boss.

    8. Still Queer, Still Here*

      Exactly. I recently transitioned out of secondary ed into a non-teaching, higher-ed position. When the transition began, a 2nd part-time position that would be really great for me personally and professionally fell into my lap. So I work both. However: 1 is very clearly a primary gig, and the other is a secondary one. There is never any conflict because they’re in really different fields. If anything, I would say I’m learning and developing great skills in both that benefit my positions and increase my value to both employers.

      I think what makes it different though, is probably that while neither employer knows exactly how much I’m working, they are both aware that I have a 2nd job. Primary, salaried position is in an office, exempt, 40 hours a week. I’m pretty strict with my boundaries, so while I am exempt, there’s not much after-hours commitment, and when there is, the culture encourages taking comp time. Secondary, part-time job is hourly and mostly done virtually. I do about 7-8 hours of in-person work/week, on a predictable weekend day. Technically, on paper, I work 60 hours/week. But in reality, it’s closer to 50. I have lulls at my primary job predictably enough that I can use that time for the secondary job. It’s mainly solitary work, so meetings during the day rarely conflict, and if they do, they’re aware I have a full-time job, so it’s easy to reschedule. Neither job pays great; these are both jobs that lend themselves well to the millennial/Gen Z tradition of working side-gigs to make ends meet. With both jobs, I earn less than $70k/year. And I support 2 adults in a major city. We still basically live paycheck to paycheck and are not without financial stress. Pretty different from the OP making 400k/year doing this.

      I will say I don’t want to continue doing this indefinitely. One of the main reasons I did it is because my spouse has had difficulty getting full-time work, and the second job pays more than what they were making at a bad and physically exhausting part-time job. So taking it allowed them to take time off to rest and job search so that they can get a full-time position they’re better suited for. They’ve got some good interviews lined up, so we’re hopeful!

      Personally, I think I would feel really unethical if I were doing what OP is doing and would live in a constant state of anxiety about being found out. I think if you can manage it, though, more power to you! Do it! Punch capitalism in the face!

    9. Keyboard Jockey*

      I feel like a ton of this depends on what the job is. I’m a programmer, so I spend a lot of time thinking about problems *while* I’m gardening or doing the laundry, even if my butt isn’t sat at my desk cranking out code. (I could relate to the recent letter asking if billing for a dream were reasonable, ha.) If I were working two full-time jobs, I’d be shorting my employers that “down” time where my brain is consumed with the problem to be solved, even if it’s invisible to everyone else. And I’d be worse at my hands-on-keyboard tasks as a result.

      1. Sweet Christmas*

        Yeah, it’s this part. I work in a tech job around the salary of OP’s and I can’t imagine working another full-time job – not that I wouldn’t technically have the hours in the day to do it, but there’s so much context-switching and thought necessary for my one job that I can’t imagine dedicating that to two.

    10. Anon for this*

      I write when things are slow at work. I think it evens out in the long run, as there are definitely days when I put in extra hours, and I’m always available to be pulled into a project at a moment’s notice. However, I don’t think I have the organizational skills to juggle two full-time jobs! Good luck to the OP—I hope this doesn’t blow up in their face.

    11. The Starsong Princess*

      I think I could have two jobs and do them both well. I’d have to work about 60 hours per week but there are times in the past when I worked that much. These days, I am simply too lazy and more concerned with the retirement benefits my company offers to risk my current job. But if I was younger and had $100,000 in student loans? Two $80,000 jobs would let me pay that off. But if could keep the balls in the air for three years, that’s the student loan paid off and a down payment on a house. For a millennial, that’s an incredible leg up and I might find that attractive enough to give it a whirl.

    12. efficient worker*

      “Your company thinks they’re getting your full focus for 40 hours a week, and they’re not.”

      This line from Alison really throws your comment into sharp relief. That’s what companies think, but is it justified? If you’re a salaried worker, you owe them your work, not your time. Your company hired you to deliver results; if you deliver those results, they got what they paid for. If they want my hours, give me an hourly schedule with the overtime commitments that entails. This has been hammered out a thousand times in the history of this column: salaried workers aren’t compensated for working *more* than 40 hours, but they are punished for working *less* than 40 hours, no matter the results they’re delivering – it’s inherently shitty and imbalanced, and it’s propped up so many other toxic things about the modern workplace.

      1. TiredEmployee*

        No, if you’re salaried the company is paying for your time. It’s even called “full TIME”. If they were paying for just your work they’d pay you as a contractor per-project.

        1. allathian*

          Yes, but they’re still expecting you as the employee to be willing to work more hours, with no OT pay, if necessary. Turnabout’s fair play, if they get the results the employer needs in less time…

          1. Sweet Christmas*

            But many knowledge worker jobs that pay at this level aren’t just about “results.” My job has some widgets I output but they’re also paying me for my expertise and thought leadership. I could spend 20 hours a week just banging things out but that doesn’t consider the mentorship and leadership that I provide on the team/in the org to earn the salary they’re paying me.

    13. kimpossible*

      An honest question – I’m assuming you are working from home. What would you do with that spare time if you were fully in the office?

    14. Super Duper Anonymous*

      I work at a remote company, and hired someone for a job working under me knowing full well he was planning to keep his other full-time job in a wildly different industry (finance vs. entertainment). No one else at my company knows; they think he gave up the world’s most stable job to roll the dice on his dream. I honestly don’t care – he has maybe four hours of “real” work at his other job every week, and his work for me is incredibly high quality. He’s one of those people who has incredible bursts of productivity followed by a lot of down time, in a way that evens out to still be more productive than most people.

      So why SHOULD I care? If I cared, we never could have hired him – the benefits at his finance job are a million times better than my company could have offered, and while we offered him the top of our salary band, it’s still $10K less than he makes at his other job. We would have lost out on the most talented candidate who applied. He delivers all his work before the deadline and is an incredibly fast learner. I think if my boss knew he’d make me give my employee an ultimatum, so I’m happy to keep the secret – but I hope this becomes less remarkable in the future.

    15. in the service industry*

      I feel like there are some comments here that are suggesting that what LW is doing is somehow sticking it to ~the capitalist system- and I just can’t help but disagree. The LW is in director level positions at two different silicon valley companies. They are ostensibly part of management and have direct reports, and I am skeptical about whether someone could actually be a responsive manager or director if they are secretly working for two companies. I am also wondering how the LW would respond if they found out one of their direct reports was working another job at the same time. I
      am guessing that they would scrutinize the person’s performance and have questions about how their employee might juggle competing priorities in the future. If LW is a director who manages other people, I would hope that they wouldn’t have a double standard.

      Anyways, I just don’t consider someone who is working at the director level at two separate Silicon Valley companies to be part of a movement of workers challenging the status quo of how employers treat their employees. I cannot say whether or not they are doing something inherently “wrong”, but I also don’t think they are an underdog sticking it to capitalism either.

      A lot of people work multiple full time jobs and do not have the luxury of doing it from home at the same time. Just this morning, my coworker who does food prep sped out the door after finishing a 7 hour shift so that she wouldn’t miss the bus to her job at another restaurant There are many reasons people are leaving the service industry in droves, and one of them is that we are tired of the conditions that force people to work multiple back to back jobs just to make rent and not starve. If anyone is sticking it to capitalism,, it’s not the director level worker who’s decided to work two remote jobs at the same time so they can make 200k.

      2. Sweet Christmas*

        This. I don’t have a problem with people working two jobs – I grew up working class, and that was just a way of life. I knew lots of adults who worked two jobs. Sometimes, the two jobs were in the same field.

        But I also work at the director level at a Silicon Valley company and working two of these jobs is very, very different. I’m skeptical that they’re not connected or competing at least on some level, but even if they’re not…they’re definitely not sticking to the man, but I’m also not convinced that they are giving what director-level roles are supposed to give. I’m generally a mind-my-own-business type of person but I do get irritated when folks at those levels are clearly phoning it in and doing the bare minimum – the whole point of being at that level is that you’re kind of not supposed to.

      1. Eldritch Office Worker*

        This is sort of the part I’m getting hung up on too. They’re assuming you’re working 40 hours a week and you’re working 25? That seems way beyond the “oh none of us are really productive for a full 40 hours” hand waving that you sometimes hear.

          1. Yoyoyo*

            This was my thought exactly. I work my ass off with 13 direct reports and a lot of liability on my shoulders at a nonprofit for 75k. I was floored to find out that most people don’t actually put in a full 8 hours of work each day, and then that this person is able to pull this off?! How do I get in on this?

            1. Qwerty*

              Work in tech. I recently started a new job, over $200k base salary as an individual contributor, with unlimited PTO and the company line is “impact, not hours.” Sounds like that’s the sector where OP is too. Honestly I have to pinch myself too!

                1. Pants*

                  Hi OP! I figured tech too. I recently joined what I guess would qualify as a tech job, though my position is supporting internal and mandatory projects (yay job security!) and not the tech itself. I’m not nearly as high on the ladder as you are, but my experience here is that the company is well run, the communication within the entire company is stellar, and the department I’m in is stocked full of great people. That combination has yielded me a lot of free time as well because things just…work.

                  That said, I’m curious about your age. While I could theoretically pick up at least another half-time job with my free time, I don’t know that I’d have the energy to do so. I worked 3 jobs at once (one full time, two part time) while I was doing my last semester of college and for a year afterward, so I know I did have the energy at one point. Now, I think I’d crumble pretty quickly. If you’re comfortable saying, I’m curious. However, it’s not necessary knowledge — I’m still impressed by your ability to do both!!

              2. hayling*

                I’m in tech, I don’t get quite 200k but I am a senior manager with 2 direct reports. I’m in meetings all day long, no way I could do this.

              3. Sweet Christmas*

                I mean, I work in the same field with the same conditions, and yes the line is impact not hours, but it also doesn’t mean that you only have to put in 2-3 hours a day to do your job. That situation is pretty rare, and I’d be interested to see where the OP is after they are no longer new.

            2. Anon for this*

              I had a similar job to this (20 direct reports, TONS of liability) at a nonprofit and I was paid, max, $35K a year. Often less because I was hourly and they wouldn’t pay me for a chunk of my job duties but counted it against my 40 hours (ex: all those hours I was expected to put in at home scrambling to find coverage or help someone with a last minute emergency or doing paperwork to handle a class, those were all unpaid. They stole THOUSANDS from me in unpaid wages.)

            3. jiggle mouse*

              I don’t put in a full 8 for part of the year because the other parts of the year I am working much more than that. I can’t even out the cyclical nature of my work more than I have, and if I take on more work during quiet times I’ll have to drop it when my primary workload picks up. Luckily I have data that shows I’d be working the full 8 each day if I could balance the workload, not that my employer is worried, but it helps me be less anxious when I’m less busy.

          4. bluephone*

            That right there pushed me all the way into “Oh I do not like this person at all” with no turning back.

          5. JustAnotherComment*

            This was also what bothered me. OP is correct that there’s no shortage of jobs…. But there is a shortage of *good* jobs, and now OP is taking a high earning position that could be a real game changer for someone else. If they want extra cash and to fill their day with other things they’re better off picking up a skill they can freelance at.

            1. Anonymeece*

              This is where I fall. Most of the “no shortage of jobs” I see are part-time jobs or jobs that don’t pay well. It reminds me a lot of when I graduated college shortly after 2008, and my dad was constantly getting on me for not having a full-time job yet, because there were plenty of jobs out there according to the news!

              Sure, but none of them paid enough to actually live off of and pay off my student loans.

              On the one hand, I feel like I’m inherently being unfair. On the other… if I were applying for jobs and couldn’t find one, while OP is making $400K doing something inherently unethical… I’d be pissed.

              1. JustAnotherComment*

                Yup, and honestly the fact that it’s a senior level position makes it that much more egregious for me, especially right now when we are having conversations about lifting up marginalized employees who have historically never had the same chances to be in high earning senior positions… even if OP is from a marginalized community, they’re taking two seats at the table.
                Maybe I’m extra sensitive because I am job hunting for a senior position as a marginalized person and have come in second place more than once in the interview process… but if I found out that the person who got the job ahead of me was also working another senior job?!
                I don’t know what I’d do, but if I’m being honest I’d be tempted to release my inner petty and anonymously let their employers know.

                1. Anonymeece*

                  Oh, I didn’t even think of that, but you’re absolutely right, that is a very real concern!

                  I realize it’s not necessarily a zero sum game, but to me, it kind of feels like OP is taking two brownies and so someone else is getting none, when there was meant to be one brownie for each person. And if OP is taking that brownie from someone who has historically been denied brownies (okay, this metaphor is getting away from me here), then that’s especially egregious.

                2. Nanani*

                  OP actually is someone who is historically locked out of brownies, as a woman in tech.

                  I don’t think that changes the issue for me – hypothetical straw colleagues who MIGHT have the other job don’t change the balance.

                  But if it does for you, well, factor the whole thing in not just the money.

        2. cactus lady*

          This is such an interesting argument to me because I’ve worked at so many places where they pay you for 40 hours but expect you to work 50-60. To me, it’s that logic being turned back on the employer kind of in the same way that candidates are now ghosting potential employers. It wasn’t a problem when the company did it, but it IS a problem when the worker does it.

          2. Laney Boggs*

            Well, employees get prosecuted for wage theft but employers almost never do – maybe they get fined.

            The US has spent decades gutting “the little guy” in exchange for building up corporations.

            1. Starbuck*

              Totally. Wage theft is the most rampant, widespread, and least prosecuted form of theft in the US. I’m left with basically no sympathy for employers at this point.

              1. So they all rolled over and one fell out*

                Employee is caught stealing = fired and possible criminal prosecution
                Employer is caught stealing wages = ordered to pay back the wages. No worse than if they had paid them in the first place, and that’s IF they get caught

                1. Persephone Mongoose*

                  Maybe this varies by state, but my understanding is that there are hefty penalties in addition to the full back wages. Otherwise, yes, there is no real consequence to wage theft.

          3. Salsa Verde*

            Right – the salary is “based on” 40 hours a week or whatever, but it’s understood that you will work however long it takes to get the work done. It seems like that always ends up being MORE hours, never fewer hours, because if it is fewer, the organization will find something else for you to do during the remaining hours.

            So yes, I agree with cactus lady that this is that logic being mirrored back at employers.
            If this is having a detrimental impact on other employees, that is a problem, but if it’s not, I don’t really think it’s a huge problem.

          4. LizM*

            Yeah, this is where I’m struggling a little. It seems like for salaried employees, the hours always end up favoring the employer. They get to demand you work 40 hours a week, but if they give you more work, you may need to work 50-60, and their costs don’t go up.

            If the understanding is really “You need to do XYZ tasks, and meet ABC expectations, and we’ll give you $200k a year,” I’m not 100% sure it’s unethical.

            If the understanding is “You need to work 40 hours a week and generally be available from 9-5, and we’ll give you $200k a year,” then this does feel dishonest.

            I really think it comes down to what the employer is paying for. Are they paying for your time, your output, or something in between?

        3. Blisskrieg*

          To me, maybe their current responsibilities are “doable” but for $200K, I’d expect my employee to be on the lookout for needs in terms of calibrating strategy and responsibilities, and projects the position should be taking on. If you have a side gig, that might be the part that is falling by the wayside. Additionally, OP isn’t overworked, but very possibly other people in the company are. I would frankly be livid if I were working 50-60 hours per week, and someone else was able to wrap up their obligations with enough bandwidth to take on a second full time job. Not saying that part is OPs responsibility, but if I were the company I would not like the optics.

          1. Sloanicota*

            Yep, I’d fire OP if I realized I was paying $200K for this. I think for that kind of money I could get someone whose priority is the job I’m hiring for.

          2. Just a Thought*

            OP is Director level – Director level at our company are expected to be developing the company so it can thrive. That means creative down time goes to thinking, scheming, etc. A 2nd full time job would knock that very valuable of the role out.

            We would be opposed at this level – and might very well entertain it at other levels where “getting the job done” is more quantifiable. But I don’t see that as the only part of a Director level role.

            1. Blisskrieg*

              ^ Exactly. That is exactly what I was trying to convey. My perception as an employer would be that I am missing out of development opportunities that come into play at that level.

            2. Cassie*

              At my university (and probably at most universities), professors have to disclose outside activities. Tenured faculty aren’t hourly employees, but there’s expectation that their first obligation is to the university and any other activities does not create a conflict of commitment and especially not a conflict of interest.

              There’s a time limit (1 day a week?) that the faculty can spend on outside activities (some types of activities require pre-approval, others just get reported after the fact) – but it is all reported on an annual basis. That’s the key point, I think, because everything is supposed to be disclosed. (In reality, there are some cases where profs don’t report they have a W-2 job elsewhere – sometimes they get caught, sometimes they don’t).

            3. Sweet Christmas*

              Exactly this. I’m director-level at my tech company, too, and it’s about more than just delivering whatever is asked specifically of you. It’s a leadership role – you’re supposed to be going above what the baseline requirements are. I’m not saying you should be working 70 hour weeks, but putting in 2-3 hours and calling it a day is not really director-level work, and like I said up thread, I’d be curious to see what tune the OP is singing once they are more settled into their job and the expectations inevitably go up.

          3. Tess*

            Right. I’d be surprised if deep work, strategic thinking, and problem-solving were happening, in both jobs and in addition to the more routine/less demanding work, at a level that the employer expects for that position and salary. Suppose one accepts the premise that employers have shortchanged employees for years and therefore turnabout is fair play. (I don’t–I am sympathetic to this perspective but it is not that simple.) Still, someone doing this may also be shortchanging coworkers who have to deal with challenges or problems that might have been avoided or minimized if someone at director-level was giving full focus to helping the company run as well as possible. Also, if discovered, it can have a long-term negative impact on others. What if OP’s managers found out they were doing this and then decided, not unreasonably, that they now needed to monitor everyone’s work more closely and add more otherwise-pointless layers of accountability? I would be livid if a coworker’s actions resulted in less freedom/independence/trust for all.

            1. JustAnotherComment*

              Yes! I’m all for people taking back power as employees, but if your actions are more likely to negatively affect your colleagues than they are to make any sort of impact then you need to re-evaluate your methods.

        4. fueled by coffee*

          Yeah, my immediate concern is not so much about the ethics of this as it is about what happens when the employer hires someone else in a similar role who is able to complete nearly double the work in the same timeframe.

          OP might be performing well given the company’s current expectations for their output, but what happens when they realize their other, single-job-at-a-time employees are able to be so much more productive, just by virtue of having more time?

          For example, OP says both jobs require 25% travel. How much leverage does OP really have to schedule these as zoom meetings instead of traveling, and to dictate when they can and can’t travel during the work week? And if I were OP’s boss, and my other employees were generally doing their expected travel while OP continually gives me a hassle about scheduling issues, how would I feel when it comes down to making promotion or layoff decisions down the line? Or when asked to be a reference for OP’s next job search? (To be clear, I am absolutely of the opinion that employers should be aware that their employees have other obligations that might occasionally interfere with travel plans, and that Zoom is perfectly acceptable for most mid-pandemic long distance meetings. But it sounds like OP took two jobs that require 25% travel when they can’t actually meet that expectation!)

          1. Dev*

            As a software developer, I can say that devs have vastly different speeds of output.

            It’s entirely possible one dev can get done in 25 hours what takes most 40.

            So maybe OP is just really fast and good.

            1. Dev*

              Wait, I’m confused again about OP’s role. I was thinking they were something like a dev and just director LEVEL but now I’m not sure.

              1. TechWorker*

                Yeah I’m not sure either. I feel like there are director level roles in my org where you could probably get away with doing less than a full working week but absolutely no way that’s not going to affect your impact longer term. I just don’t believe you can do a good job in both places and think it’s pretty dishonest to think you can.

        5. Allison*

          Yeah, this is where I’m hung up as well. It’s one thing if you manage to give each job 40 hours per week, or even 35, but 25 is not full-time. This is not going to work out long-term.

      2. Uncle Bob*

        I’m not sure that you are correct. Salaried positions don’t come with an expectation of working set hours or exactly 40 hours (nor is there overtime). If you can get all your work done in 30 hours – that’s totally legal.

        1. Eldritch Office Worker*

          Legal, true, but often not the expectation for jobs at this level and I’m skeptical OP can cram a full time director level job into 25 hours a week long term.

          1. Awkward Interviewee*

            I agree that most director level jobs aren’t 25 hours a week. I suspect that one reason OP is pulling this off is that they’re only been doing it for a month. Every professional job I’ve had has had a slower ramping up period when I’m getting acclimated. I suspect OP is eventually going to either be underperforming in both jobs (and the employers will be able to tell) or they’re going to need to work more like 70 hours a week. Especially with travel – how is scheduling not going to bite them in the you know where eventually?

            1. JennG*

              I was thinking this too. All the strategic jobs I’ve had had periods where you had to jump in and push something through. But it might be a question of radically different fields.

            2. Iris Eyes*

              That actually might recommend the practice. By the time it ramps up to that point they will have a good idea of the actual working conditions and cooperate culture and it will be much easier to choose between the two positions.

              Also making 2 full time salaries it would absolutely make sense to outsource just about everything that wasn’t those positions. Paying someone else to do all the cooking, cleaning, errand running etc which cuts out a lot of work that you would otherwise be doing and not be getting paid for. Which is a luxury most people working 70+ hours a week don’t have.

              1. Smithy*

                This was my thinking on the best genuine way to approach this – both from an ethical standpoint and a personal one.

                I have a director role with no direct reports, and due to a variety of reasons – COVID/remote onboarding plus starting just a few months before a notoriously quiet period in my industry – my true hours for the first 4-6 months really took a while to truly ramp up. Personally though, the maintenance of the two calendars would have been very difficult for me….but if it was in a situation where I told myself I was starting both jobs right before that typical quiet period and I’d make a decision after 3 months, I could see surviving that. My personal calendar skills are not strong enough to do it much longer, but it also doesn’t seem impossible.

              2. LinuxSystemsGuy*

                And really, we had that guy a week or so ago that was annoyed by the fact that his employees were fleeing over 100 hour work weeks. Given that WFH eliminates commutes, 70 hours a week when you can afford housekeeping, gardening, and regularly eating out isn’t that unreasonable. Sure you’re working 12 + hours a day, but weekends and holidays are yours, and most of your other needs are paid for. I don’t think I’d want to do it forever, but for a few years to build a nice nest egg isn’t awful.

              3. DocVonMittens*

                I did this a few years ago for two years. I worked 70+ hour weeks doing two full time jobs and paid for a housekeeper, ordered in food, etc.

                I like my job better than chores so I outsourced house stuff to make time for work.

            3. OP*

              My worries exactly… but in my experience, on-boarding and learning has required longer hours. Once I’m in the flow, it becomes less time-consuming.

              1. The Starsong Princess*

                And really, if you start thinking one of the jobs is on to you or it gets to be too much, you can just quit one and lean into the other. The trick is not to get caught or even don’t get caught by both companies.

            4. Elenna*

              This. I don’t think what OP is doing is necessarily unethical if they really can do excellent work for both companies (and I’ve certainly had jobs where I can do good work and be praised and work significantly less than 40 hours/week), but I think OP should wait and see how the workload will be after the initial ramping-up period before doing it.

            5. Sweet Christmas*

              This was my thought as well. They’re only succeeding because it’s early days and no one is expecting much yet.

          2. Starbuck*

            It’s funny how often the expectation for salaried workers re: flexibility is ‘we can ask you to work over 40 hrs with no penalty, but don’t you dare try to work less than 40.’ And by funny, I mean bullshit of course.

            1. Sweet Christmas*

              I don’t know what kind of salaried roles you’ve had before, but that’s not been the experience in mine. Instead, the agreement is that sometimes you will indeed work fewer hours, and sometimes you’ll work more, but it’ll even out to somewhere around 40.

        2. Rusty Shackelford*

          That may be in true in theory, but in practice, full-time salaried jobs expect you to be *available* 40 hours a week. I’m sure there are jobs where you could say, on Thursday afternoon, “I finished everything I needed to do this week so I’ll see you Monday.” But I think this would not be okay with the majority of employers.

          1. Tyche*

            Exactly. I’m salaried and the expectation is I will work 40 hours a week. If I can’t, I need to make it up or take PTO. If my job needs more than 40 hours from me, I’m expected to do that too, particularly if it’s irregular. I know my employer would re-evaluate if I consistently had more than 40 hours, but still, the expectation from my employer is pretty clear. Companies that let salaried employees work whatever hours it takes to complete the job seem like a dream (or a nightmare if it’s a lot of extra hours).

          2. Sue*

            This is the situation that has companies and bosses micromanaging and installing tracking programs. It creates doubt/ distrust in people’s minds about what their remote employees are up to and punishes those who are honest and straightforward in their dealings.
            I could never condone this, I am repelled by actions that make others distrustful. It just feels like a small act that eats away at our societal norms and ethics and we have way way too much of that happening in our ever more contentious world. It becomes, “what can I get away with” rather than, “what is the right thing to do”. Ugh.

            1. Cold Fish*

              The distrust it creates is a good point.
              I can’t help but think this will also contribute/perpetuate the wage stagnation of the last 30 years.

                2. Cold Fish*

                  1. The OP is taking two high-level jobs. In theory, one of those jobs could have gone to someone moving up in the world. That would result in a position that is now empty and someone else can move up to that position. And so forth. At each point in the line is an opportunity to move up & negotiate a better salary. Theoretically. If that actually happens in real life is debatable.
                  2. I have seen many articles in the last 10 years about how many baby boomers aren’t retiring and it is causing a loss of high level jobs/skills for Gen X and Millennials to move into. This results in those generations earning less. (I’m quite interested on how/if COVID has changed that in any way given that baby boomers are at higher risk combined with a little less tech savvy for WFH set ups.)
                  I do believe that the #1 cause of wage stagnation has to do with the incredible wage gap between the top paid/CEO and lowest paid/bottom rung workers. I have yet to hear one valid reason why a CEO should be making 150+% more than their AVERAGE worker that doesn’t boil down to greed.

              2. Jax*

                I can see these stories being the basis for “butts in a chair” return-to-the-office pushes, particularly for lower-level staff, because they are always the focus of employer distrust. A read an article with a line about the inequalities in WFH that was so good I wrote it down:

                “…creating a new caste system where elites have anywhere jobs and non-elites are shackled to the office full-time…”

              3. Software Engineer*

                The wage stagnation will continue regardless of stories like this. The whole system is designed to funnel capital from the workers into the hands of the owners.

            2. Starbuck*

              What about the large act of rampant, unprosecuted and unaddressed wage theft in this country? More money is stolen from workers this way than any other form of theft. That should be the starting point in this discussion, not behaviors like OP’s.

              1. Nanani*

                Right? A handful of comments have said this is wage theft and they must have a different definition of it than any I’ve heard.

                1. Hey Nonnie*

                  I think the correct term is timecard fraud, even if there isn’t an actual timecard with a punch clock.

            3. Hey Nonnie*

              Unfortunately employers have largely been operating under “what can I get away with” for far longer than workers have, and there’s no winning against that as an employee with significantly less power in this dynamic. I don’t think anyone can act surprised when the end result is employees going “if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em.”

            4. efficient worker*

              in the battle of “what can I get away with” I assure you corporations have the upper hand, not individual workers. wages haven’t been stagnating for 40+ years because the *workers* are trying to cheat the system out of what’s fair.

          3. GiantPanda*

            Maybe if you said on Thursday afternoon
            “I finished everything I needed to do this week and plan to take it easy tomorrow. If you need me, please call/text/mail, I’ll call back. If nothing comes up I’ll see you Monday.”

            Probably still not okay with many employers but a lot easier to accept.

          4. jiggle mouse*

            I worked for a dot com back in the day that let employees take off when all critical work was done for the day. Not technically salaried, but we did get paid for the full time. I was also able to do some side work on the company dime (contract work populating a database), under the radar.
            I was definitely not the only person doing this, and quelle surprise, instead of getting my fancy title and stock options, the company went broke and folded.

          5. DocVonMittens*

            I work in tech (like OP) and this would absolutely be ok at every company I’ve worked for. If the work is done, so long as I promptly answer Slack DMs, etc no one cares if you take random days off.

            It’s probably very industry (and company) dependent, but 4 day work weeks are not uncommon in my industry.

            1. TechWorker*

              Lol where are these jobs?

              I work in tech too and I don’t do loads of overtime but also the work is NEVER done – there is absolutely always something to be improved, fixed, documented.

              Like yeah, if there’s been a big push and you did some late nights so you take off at 3pm on Friday – great. But that’s not common. All my work was quick so I’m buggering off at midday Thursday? Yeah that’s not gonna fly.

        3. Murphy*

          Not necessarily true. I was salaried at my last job but if I worked 39.75 hours I had to charge 15 minutes to PTO.

          1. River Otter*

            Businesses can set that expectation, but that is separate from DOL definitions of exempt vs non-exempt.

            1. Murphy*

              The point stands that just because you’re salaried doesn’t mean there isn’t an expectation of working 40 hours a week.

              1. River Otter*

                The point also stands that just because you’re salaried doesn’t mean there *is* an expectation of working 40 hours a week

              2. Hey Nonnie*

                If they were nickel and diming you over 15 minutes, I gotta wonder what they did for you when you worked 45 hours in a given week?

                1. River Otter*

                  Depends! I have worked for companies that gave you:
                  1. Bupkis
                  2. Paid you at whatever your regular rate would be-ie, no overtime premium
                  3. Bupkis for 41-47 hours, but paid your regular rate for 48+, including the first 7 over 40
                  4. Bupkis for 41-48 hours, but paid your regular rate for 49+, not including the first 8 over 40

          2. Midwest Manager*

            Salaried is different from exempt. Salaried Exempt jobs generally report leave in half-day increments and do the typical hand-wave of exact hours. Salaried non-exempt functions more like hourly, where hours are tracked and overtime is due for anything over 40 per week.

            Smaller companies (especially) tend to conflate the two and treat non-exempt employees as exempt “because salaried!”, which is incorrect. You comment suggests this may have been the case.

            1. River Otter*

              No, I am salaried exempt, and I also have to fill out a time sheet with minimum 40 hours. It’s common in some industries.

              1. Jean Pargetter Hardcastle*

                Same here. I am salaried exempt. PTO is charged in quarter-hour increments, and your time sheet must equal 80 for the pay period. (And if you work over 80 for the pay period and are exempt, you have to falsify the time sheet so your hours equal 80!)

                1. Starbuck*

                  Wild! In my state (WA) it’s illegal to charge PTO for less than 1-hour increments, and partial days need to be from the request of the employee.

                2. who me?*

                  This is part of the imbalance that’s being discussed. Why can the employer get free hours (falsifying timesheets when worked > 80) when the employee can’t (use PTO when worked < 80)?

            2. Been there, done that*

              This is true. We have Salaried Exempt and Salaried Non-exempt classifications. The expectation for both is that the employee works between 35-40 hours each week minimum. The difference being when Exempt staff works over the 40, which is very frequent especially during certain times of the year, they are not paid OT. But with this, the exempt employees have more flexiblity with their time and don’t need to use leave for every doctor’s appointment or school function they want to attend during the day, etc.

          3. Starbuck*

            Interesting, in my state that would not be legal! Or at least it would mean you’d lose exempt status and be entitled to overtime pay.

            1. River Otter*

              I guarantee you, it is legal in your state. Lots of industries use what I call the “billable hours model,” with defense being the largest. IANAL, so I don’t know the details, but it’s definitely legal.

              1. Starbuck*

                I checked, it really is illegal in my state. Looks like we are also implementing the some of the highest minimum-salary-threshold rules in the country since the federal government failed to step up on that.

                WAC 296-128-532
                Deductions for salaried, exempt employees.
                (6) What deductions may be made from leave banks?
                b) Deductions may be made from bona fide leave banks in partial or full day increments. However, partial day deductions may be made only on the express or implied request of the employee for time off from work. Leave bank deductions may not be made for less than one hour.

                2. River Otter*

                  Ah, so you were referring to charging PTO for less than hr, not to filling in time sheet that is short of 40 with PTO.

                  Regardless, charging PTO for less than one hour is legal in WA state. How do I know this? I looked up the labor charging guidelines for my company at the Redmond, WA location. They quite explicitly say that PTO is to be charged in 0.5 hour increments. I guarantee that my employer is not breaking any state laws in any state.

                  Again, IANAL. Maybe a WA state employment lawyer can weigh in on how companies are able to get exceptions to the statute.

                3. Starbuck*

                  Hmm, the law seems pretty clear on not charging leave in increments of less than an hour for workers who meet the salaried & exempt test – and you might be surprised how often companies break these kinds of laws, because they don’t designate anyone on staff to be responsible for knowing them and keeping track of updates. Or they know but figure they’re unlikely to be caught or penalized.

        4. Foxy Hedgehog*

          Well, sure salaried positions come with an expectation of working set hours or exactly 40 hours (or more). Not all of them, of course, but mine certainly does.

          LW’s probably doesn’t, although I’m curious about that.

            1. knitcrazybooknut*

              Which is what salaried is supposed to be! Unfortunately, companies have interpreted this to mean, “we can work you as many hours as we want,” instead of, “get the job done and we don’t care if it’s 20 hours of work time.”

              1. Spencer Hastings*

                The question then becomes: what is “the job”? If I’m completing everything assigned to me in only 20 hours, I’m likely to be assigned additional projects or training for the other 20.

                1. Starbuck*

                  That’s up to the company. If they’ve determined that the amount of work the position needs to get done is X, Y, Z tasks, and you can get that done in 20 hours…. I just can’t fathom why you’d intentionally bring that up or try to get more work unless they outright asked you to. Most people work for money, not necessarily to give the maximum benefit to their employers. The national trend here is that productivity has risen but wages haven’t kept up, not to mention all the wage theft by employers… kudos to any worker out there doing a slow up.

                2. Former Gifted Kid*

                  I think this so much depends on the type of job and what its responsibilities are. I am a salaried fill time employee. My job is to manage a program. Sometimes I work more than 40 hrs a week. Most of the time less. As long as everything is getting done to make sure the program keeps running, it doesn’t really matter the number of hours I work. There are not additional projects really to assign me. I sometimes help out with other programs, but that’s more when they need an extra hand, not just because I have extra time.

                3. Green*

                  At the director level, you’re supposed to be self directed. In many/most companies, you don’t get assignments, and the job is never done. You are supposed to continue to find opportunities for improvement and development of the company, not accomplish discrete tasks.

              2. Quickbeam*

                Yes, I am retiring from a salaried job…..they couldn’t care less if it took me 80 hours a week to get the job done. As I told all our new hires: “No one will send you home after you worked too many hours. There is no magic line”.

                1. TechWriter*

                  Whereas in my salaried job, my boss trusts us to manage our schedules, but frequently encourages us not to work past our core hours. There are lots of different job structures out there!

          2. Katt*

            There’s usually the expectation I find but I think a lot of people have weeks where they are less productive. For example, this whole week I’ve felt like I’m pulling teeth as my head is not in the game. Still getting stuff done, just a slower pace. (Might be a little sick; crazy colds going around my social circle right now.)

            The thing is, if the OP is already only dedicating like 25 hours a week to each job, I don’t think they can afford weeks of being less productive. Usually if you have days or weeks where you don’t get as much done, you tell yourself “I’ll do better next week” and enjoy your weekend and come back on Monday feeling less burnt out. If the OP tries to do that, eventually they’re going to burn out themselves as they might get stuck in a cycle of endlessly trying to catch up by working more and more hours.

      3. Anonym*

        It’s also explicitly forbidden by a lot of companies, though terms may vary. I would be violating the terms of my employment if I didn’t disclose (for review and approval) any other sources of income I have. This is in the finance industry, FWIW.

        For OP’s sake I hope this isn’t her situation, and she’s just operating in a “if you can hack it” gray zone.

        1. OP*

          It’s not explicitly forbidden to have other employment/income sources at either company as long as there are no conflicts of interest. Obviously I’m interpreting that a specific way.

          1. Omnivalent*

            And that’s how you know this is unethical, OP – you’re interpreting in a specific way (that allows you to have two jobs on the down low) rather than in a way your employers might interpret it if you were transparent with them.

          2. M2*

            My job makes us write if we have other employment and if we want to consult/ etc we must get the ok. If you lie about it you will be fired and I don’t know what else. They send the form out quarterly I believe.

            A colleague of mine worked at pottery barn during the Holidays to get the discount for their home which was fine but another wanted to consult with similar clients and that was nixed. They ended up doing it anyway and let’s just say word got out and they were fired. One of the people they worked for also had their work for us rescinded since they knowingly used this employee to have a certain edge. Can’t say what I do but word got out in the network and they could not get what they needed at any similar caliber place because the client and employee were deemed unethical.

            Did you read all your handbooks/ check the policies of both companies?

            1. Regular Reader*

              +1 to this. Most work contracts I’ve had specifically stated that if you were contracted to work 35 hrs per week or more then you needed to inform the employer if you were working elsewhere. Equally staff above a certain grade were not given stated contracted hours but were expected to work the hours which were required to fulfil their role, and that can be interpreted both ways.

          3. hbc*

            You don’t see any conflict of interest when you have to delay meeting with an important client at Company A because you’re dealing with something more important at Company B?

            You may not get caught for having two jobs (because they don’t know why you’re shirking), but there is zero chance it’s not going to be noticed that you’re dumping all your work on dotted line reports and not able to show up when it’s crunch time.

          4. bluephone*

            I mean, the fact that you deleted your linkedin, made sure neither company posts staff photos online, are keeping completely mum about it, etc means that you know, deep down, that it’s not okay and could justifiably backfire on you. Which, fine, maybe that’s the choice you’re living with. You wanted to know if doing this was “okay” but it’s not like you’re going to quit one of the jobs if the entire readership said no, it wasn’t okay. So just accept the fact that you’re a jerk and put aside enough savings for when both jobs find out, fire you, and blacklist you.

        2. Hey Nonnie*

          I am amused when I see how this plays out when finance companies hire contractors. I was hired, as a contractor, by a finance company, and a month in they suddenly surprise me with a 15-page legal form that was “mandatory” for me to sign to work there. (So what have we been doing this entire last month?)

          Said form decreed, in part, that I was “not allowed” to have any sort of “side business.” Except… I did. I was a contractor. I was THEIR contractor. They had literally hired my “side business.” (I had other clients before, after, and around them; and I also ran a production company at the time, which had nothing to do with them or their field of business, so I wasn’t going to give them any say over whether or how I ran it.)

          So they told me I had to sign, I told them I was a contractor and not an employee, they insisted I sign anyway, I told them I couldn’t, they said I HAD TO, I started listing all the clauses I explicitly could not agree to because they were untrue, and… eventually the legal team just faded away quietly and I finished out my contract without having signed a thing.

          This was years ago and still makes me laugh.

        3. Katt*

          Government is like this too. You have to disclose any outside employment or financial interests. Part-time job at McDonald’s? Yep. Own an apartment building for income on the side? Yep. Want to volunteer for a political party during an election campaign? Gotta disclose. Depending on what you’re working on there could be conflicts of interest and they want to get ahead of that. If you’re working on regulations regarding automotive companies it might not be the greatest idea to buy $100k worth of stock in a specific company, for example. It can seem kind of invasive at times but I think the idea is that being beholden to the taxpayers, the government wants to make sure there’s no funny business going on behind the scenes.

      4. Harper*

        I don’t know, at a Director level (or even lower level management), you’ve reached a level in your career that your performance isn’t really measured by hours worked, but by output. I’m a department manager, and my boss doesn’t care (or even know) how many hours I work, as long as I’m not absent enough to have a negative impact, and as long as I’m meeting all my goals.

        1. LizardOfOdds*

          Came here to say this. I think this is especially true if you have a lot of experience in a specialized line of work. Not trying to toot my own horn here, but I’ve been doing my type of job for over 20 years and because I’ve “seen it all” at this point, I can make quick decisions and solve problems faster than my company expects. I can do my current job in <30 hours a week, and I've often considered consulting or freelancing on the side as an extra source of income – but my company's employment contract expressly forbids moonlighting, and I'm choosing to honor that because I want to behave ethically but also because it's kind of nice to get paid well for less effort. I see it as a sort of reward for busting my butt for the last couple of decades.

          Also, I never would have said the above even a year or two ago, so I'm in the same boat as Alison when it comes to the mindset shift. This pandemic has helped me get clear on my own values and what I'm willing to give to an employer in exchange for a given amount of money. In the past, I would have just found other things to do and kept pushing myself to grow and climb the ladder. Now… I'm good where I'm at making this amount of money for this amount of time commitment.

      5. Nanani*

        ….how? Wage theft, as I understand it, is when employers don’t pay correctly, like unpaid overtime.
        Employees cannot commit wage theft?

      6. efficient worker*

        It ain’t wage theft if you’re a salaried worker – that’s the point. Wages are paid for hours worked. Salaries are paid for results delivered. If that was true when salaried workers were expected to work 60 hours without overtime to deliver those results, it’s equally true when salaried workers deliver results in 25 hours.

      1. Elizabeth*

        Oh good point – I’d be very concerned if I saw two jobs over the exact same period, especially at that level. It’s not equivalent to say, a full-time receptionist position while working a full-time food service job or artisan shop owner position.

      2. JSPA*

        You pick one, I assume? And realistically, OP will likely have to let one job go after 3 or 6 or 9 months. At which point, they can go more public with the other.

        1. Falling Diphthong*

          I would definitely be worried about someone at the burned company then putting some pieces together.

          Maybe they won’t! Maybe no one ever knows. Barney Stinson could pull this off, what with being a fictional character and all.

          But it’s not a risk I’d feel comfortable taking with my future work prospects.

          1. Eldritch Office Worker*

            I’m super curious – how open are you about this in your personal life? How do you respond when people ask where you work?

              1. Emily*

                OP: This is why I think this is going to come back to bite you at some point. You never know who knows who. You may have deleted your LinkedIn, but if your family and friends know, I don’t think you should be shocked if one or both of your jobs finds out. Heck, other employees from each of your jobs could know each other. Even if neither of your jobs expressly forbids this, because you are not being up front about it tells me you know they likely wouldn’t be thrilled. Also, if I was one of your co-workers who was rescheduling Zoom meetings and doing other things to help you out, I wouldn’t be too happy if I found out it was because of conflicts with your other job. It’s one thing to be flexible with a co-worker because they have something they need to get done for a shared job, but I would not be at all inclined to be flexible if I knew it was because my co-worker was doing work for their other job, and it is definitely something I would report if I found out.

              2. Sleeping Late Every Day*

                I live in a pretty large city, but it’s like a very tiny town when it comes to overlapping work and personal contacts. I’d say half the people I know are less than six degrees of separation from each other. There are no secrets for very long under those circumstances.

                1. Tau*

                  Yeah, this is also where my mind went. I live in a major metropolis with a big tech sector. And yet, it seems like everyone knows everyone. OP, what will you do if an employee from company 1 applies to company 2 and you need to interview them? What if, after quitting, you send in your CV having decided company 1 is the one most aligned with what you want to do and someone in the hiring committee says “that’s strange, I worked with them at company 2 during this time?” There are so many ways this could blow up in your face even years after the fact.

                2. Sweet Christmas*

                  @Tau – especially in tech. It’s a pretty insular field particularly once you get to that level.

          2. Hills to Die On*

            But what happens when people see your resume and think ‘Company A? But OP worked at Company B with me at that time’? How would you address a LinkedIn profile?

            1. Starbuck*

              Simple solution, don’t bother with LinkedIn. Maybe techies use it? But very very few people in my professional network do.

              1. Emily*

                Starbuck: OP said they deleted their LinkedIn, but that doesn’t address the other issue Hills To Die On brought up, which I think is very valid. This is going to get figured out at some point. If OP is truly able to be stellar at both jobs without pushing work off on anyone else (and that is a big if), then maybe this won’t harm OP’s reputation/career too badly, but I think that is a pretty big gamble to take.

              2. Sweet Christmas*

                OP works in tech. It’s pretty ubiquitous in our field. I’d find it a little odd if someone didn’t have a LinkedIn. Not a dealbreaker, of course, just odd.

      3. Bye Academia*

        Yeah, and how small is the industry? Even if the OP eventually picks Company A and only puts that one on their resume, what if someone from or familiar with Company B recognizes the OP and starts asking questions about their time there?

        The longer this goes on the harder it’s going to be to avoid ramifications down the road, too.

      4. Dax*

        Pick the more impressive company/title, then list the key achievements from both roles under it. Not that it’s ethical and I’m not sure I’d have the guts for it, but it’s one way to do it.

      5. IDK*

        That’s one of my questions? If OP ever decides to move on or is let go for this, how will OP explain it?

      1. Sola Lingua Bona Lingua Mortua Est*

        I’m torn on the ethics in regard to employee/employers, but it’s hard to imagine this lasting without the double-dipping employee taking advantage of their peers. That’s what shifts the balance to unethical to me.

        1. Rusty Shackelford*

          Good point. “Sticking it to The Man” is one thing, taking advantage of your peers and those working below you is another.

          1. Sola Lingua Bona Lingua Mortua Est*

            “Sticking it to the Man” falls flat for me, but this is sauce for the gander being sauce for the goose when the prevailing business attitude is of salaried “You’re paid for 40 hours/week no matter how much more time your work takes.”

            1. hbc*

              At $200K a year in both positions, OP *is* the man. He’s literally relying on those other dotted-line people to coast, nevermind all the extra work of juggling his schedule that’s left to the peons, and people staying late to wait on an answer because he’s in mysterious meetings.

                1. Sola Lingua Bona Lingua Mortua Est*

                  You don’t have to be a man to be the man. It’s almost as if we didn’t need a sexist phrase for the person in charge/control.

                2. Avril Ludgateau*

                  “The Man” is a euphemism for “The Establishment” or “The Powers that Be”, irrespective of gender.

                  Yes, it’s sexist. It’s older slang.

          2. Katt*

            Well, it sounds like they have no direct reports at either job, unless I missed something. So at least that’s not going on. I wouldn’t be very happy if my manager was unreachable half the time!

            But I do wonder – how much work are their coworkers doing, and how will this reflect on them later? Sure, maybe neither job *needs* 40 hours of work a week, but I know a big component of my job for example is thinking and brainstorming, researching, etc. Sometimes I’m not straight up outputting work because I’m trying to mull over a problem or I’ve just spent 3 hours staring at spreadsheets and my brain needs a break. I have many random documents of notes and plans. Presumably that isn’t happening when the OP works two jobs, and it may soon become obvious if their peers start outputting more/better work and ideas than OP does.

            Also they said somewhere else that the training period is usually busier and then once they get into the flow of things it’s easier, but that hasn’t exactly been my experience. Usually in the first month or so you don’t have much to do and there are low expectations, and as time goes on they put more work onto your plate.

            1. Yorick*

              In the letter, OP specifically says they can make this work because there are people who “dotted-line report” to them and so they can lean on those people. That’s not ok.

        2. AndersonDarling*

          I was at a company where the CFO was also CFO of another company. He got away with it by hiring middle managers to handle everything. All he did was sign off on an occasional document.
          But, the company hired the middle managers so there wasn’t any deceit in that part. The only part that could be considered unethical was that the CFO didn’t do anything. But it seems like companies have those positions that sit around and don’t really do anything. And it’s not the fault of the employee, it’s the fault of the company for paying six figures for a role that doesn’t contribute.
          I don’t know how, but the rouse was discovered and he was canned.

          1. Chris*

            C-suite level people have been doing this for decades. I worked at a grant-making foundation that was split into four different entities, presumably with different priorities. But the same two people were CEO and president of each one, and they received four salaries that were incredibly generous, with special perks for each as well. All of the work was done by managers and they just signed the forms and went to meetings. All totally legal and reported to IRS accordingly. Did they actually deserve those salaries? I would argue no. If you can pull it off, more power to you.

          2. AVP*

            My husband has a job like this, but on purpose. His work is desperately needed for 3-4 months per year, but they’d rather have a full-time person they know well than rely on contractors who might not be available. And contractors are so much more expensive that he’s probably pretty equivalent budget-wise. So he sits around waiting for the occasional project n the off-months and knows that he needs to knuckle down during busy seasons.

            He wrote, sold, and marketed an entire book during this time that his boss doesn’t know about. But she obviously knows about his downtime so I don’t think she’d mind, exactly? It just seems like rubbing salt in a wound to actually bring it up.

        3. Alice*

          Yes, if I were one of the people who OP says she can rely on to accomplish day-to-day activities, I would be pissed off when I found out. And I suspect they eventually will.

          1. Lord Peter Wimsey*

            That’s one thought I had on this — if you’re only doing your job part-time, someone else is likely making up those hours/ doing what you’re supposed to be doing for the other 15 hours. If I were that somebody else–propping up someone who is making $200K for 25 hours of work–I’d be plenty irritated.

            1. Despachito*

              I’d be pissed off too, Mr. Bredon, if I was burdened with LW’s slack, but nothing in their letter indicates that this is the case.

              Personally, I’d be happy if this becomes more of a practice. I am a freelancer, and one of the perks of this is that I can manage my time however I find appropriate, which means that I never had to worry about taking a kid to the doctor or anything else I needed to be arranged. I basically chose it to be able to be almost a full-time mom, and I think it worked. If someone chooses to do a second job instead… why not?

              To be able to manage your own time helps create better work-life balance, and if the job does not require the full 40 hours of your work, I see no point in spending the remaining time with your butt in your seat, twiddling your thumbs (of course, under the table, so that nobody could see you are actually doing nothing). As long as your outputs are OK … why not?

              The only problem I see here is an actual conflict of time – what will OP say if both their superiors schedule a meeting to the same hour (unlikely but not entirely impossible)? And a potential conflict of interest, but this can easily be a moot point if the two employers are not direct competitors?

              I hope this becomes so normal over time that it will not be necessary to keep mum about it. Good luck, OP!

              1. Remote Worker and Dog Lover*

                The difference with your example, though, is that you’re freelancing vs the OP here has two full time positions. If I am hiring a freelancer, I know they’re probably working for other companies. If I am hiring a full time person, there are different expectations!

                1. Despachito*

                  Yes, you are right in a way.

                  My work has a clearly defined output, let’s say, a finished teapot, and as long as I deliver this, no one cares what I am doing with the rest of my time. And if I don’t feel like taking another work, I can say “no”, and nobody will hold this against me.

                  When I was employed, I was working on my teapot on the company premises, with the difference that anyone from the company could come anytime during the working hours and ask me to do a saucer for her. I could not refuse, and if I was working on a teapot for a different manager who wanted it ASAP, I had to ask the one with the saucer to discuss the priorities with that other manager.

                  I got paid even if we were out of clay and I could not make any teapots at the moment, while at present, I only get paid for the finished teapot.

                  However, when we were out of clay (which was pretty often for about three years before we were laid off), we had the choice to sit on the company premises doing nothing, or to do work on our own projects, let’s say, to write a book of fiction. While it very likely was something we should not be doing at work , I do not think it was wrong ethically – we were not stealing the company time (as there was no work for us at the moment), and should a delivery of clay arrive, we were able to immediately put aside the book and start making a new teapot.

                  But you are spot on that the dynamics of employed vs freelancer IS different. For me, the dealbreaker would be “am I able to do what is needed and when it is needed in both jobs”?

              2. Yorick*

                But OP literally says this. “…awesome teammates who dotted-line report to me and who I can rely on to accomplish day-to-day activities.” This sounds like OP cannot get really all their work done for these jobs without delegating some of it to teammates who are not as senior and therefore are going to have a hard time refusing extra tasks. That might be ok if it were necessary because there’s just so much work or OP wanted to give those people stretch projects or whatever. But OP is planning to do this so she can work another full-time job at the same time. This is just not ok.

              3. Sweet Christmas*

                Because freelancing is different from working for an employer. You trade in some of the flexibility and independence that you have as a freelancer for the benefits of being employed by someone else.

          2. OP*

            My meaning here was relying on others for the things they do in the course of their job, like data they crunch and provide so that I can make decisions based on that. Not pawning my work off on them.

            1. Cold Fish*

              Just because you aren’t “pawning off” your own work doesn’t mean what you are doing isn’t effecting them/their job.
              I would say 20-30% of my own job is organizing files/entering data in a specific way so that other departments have access/can understand. Some of which is incredibly stupid in my opinion but I do it because it is expected as part of my job. At a director level, where I assume you are setting/expected to set the standards, those decisions are only multiplied and lop-sided since those effected probably have less authority to push back.

              1. Coaster owner*

                Yeah, I just have a pretty hard time believing this isn’t impacting OP’s direct reports. That potential impact bothers me, not the collecting two salaries from two companies.

                On the other hand, I guess it could also be impacting them positively! A more hands-off manager can be for the better. If I have a manager I don’t particularly like, I’d rather than person be distant and pay me less attention rather than more.

                2. Emily*

                  OP: You may not have direct reports, but you have teammates who are most likely impacted by the work you do or don’t do. You also say in your letter that some of your teammates do “dotted line” report to you, so even if they are not your direct reports, there is almost certainly a power imbalance there that is in your favor.

            2. Salsa Verde*

              Yes, I believe I have a job like this. It does not take 40 hours per week, pretty much ever. And my work is independent enough that no one else would be required to (or even could) pick up any extra work for me.

              I have worked jobs where that is not possible, and so I can see where some commenters are doubting that the OP is really able to do this without negatively impacting other employees, but I can definitely imagine this working without a negative impact to OPs employees or peers.

              1. OP*

                My biggest concern is how this will negatively affect my peers on down. I am very very vigilant about this, have already asked for direct feedback from peers and those “lower on the food chain”, and regularly ask people how I can help them or how I can do my job better. I don’t ask anyone for favors or for any work that’s outside their normal scope. I know people are going to look at this skeptically and I get that…and I understand people might tell me one thing and think something else … but point taken and I will continue to monitor this.

                1. Yorick*

                  Junior employees are not going to be able to tell you that you’re dumping too much on them or not accessible enough or what have you. You have to personally make sure that you’re as available for them as you need to be, and I just don’t think you can do that for two jobs at the same time.

                2. Sue*

                  I guess it’s good that you’re concerned how your actions affect others but what about how it affects you. Do you think your family and friends respect you doing this? I would be appalled if I knew of this. If it’s ok, then disclose it to your employer(s) and let them decide, with full knowledge, that they are ok with it. If you fail to disclose, it’s because you know it’s wrong. There is a huge benefit to living an ethical life. Your reputation is so much more valuable than any amount of money. And this whole argument that employers are bad so employees are entitled to be bad is sad and destructive. Where does that end, something is always handy for a rationalization. Be better.

                3. miro*

                  In addition to what Yorick and Sue said, keep in mind that the people you’re asking don’t have the context that you’re not only working this job–which might seem obvious, or irrelevant, but I have definitely been in situations where I was fine with doing the amount of work I was doing for someone, getting the amount of support I was getting, etc because I was thinking of it in the context of that higher-up person’s schedule and priorities (as I understood them). If it turned out that that person had another job that was setting their schedule and priorities, it would change my assessment of the situation (in a negative way).

                  In general, I think people can have a difficult time knowing what the possibilities are for addressing something’s absence, if that makes sense. So in this case, people might not think of asking you for more of your time, attention, etc (even if they find it lacking) because they don’t realize that you’re devoting it to anything besides the job they work with you at.

                  Even if you don’t care what other people think of you, keep in mind that it could hurt you as well. Your bosses will probably assume that you’re doing your best and, if your best isn’t proving good enough, might jump right to pushing you out rather than asking you to spend more time and energy on projects (because again, they have no reason to think that there’s much more time in your week you could reasonably be spending).

            3. JSPA*

              And considering how many C-suite types were doing coke in the bathroom in the 80’s, or disappearing for weeks, or engaging in insider trading at the expense of their company, ‘merely’ giving solid (and sober) half-time attention to a job isn’t the worst thing that’s ever been done, by a long shot.

              Of course, a lot of those other things were illegal, and those guys (and they were pretty much all guys) ran a lot of companies into the ground, and destroyed a lot of the economy, while gussying up their own golden parachutes.

              So “much better than that” is a pretty low bar.

          4. Elle*

            This exactly. I was discussing the two-job WFH thing at lunch the other day and my grandboss said, “Oh, I could definitely manage that,” — it has really made me look at her poorly. Definitely made me put her in the category of “middle managers who are overpaid and have a cushy role without much work.” It makes me respect her less, and makes my morale lower about my own workload (which isn’t that bad, but still full time).

          5. Captain dddd-cccc-ddWdd (ENTP)*

            So would I – this ruse only works because the dotted-line people aren’t also doing it, and fails the “what would it be like of everyone did that” test. Not to mention a Director ought to have fiduciary duty to the company and put its interests first in their dealings. I got the sense they’re fulfilling the ‘concrete’ duties of the role, e.g. presentation X for customer Y has to be made by a certain date – but less so the ‘abstract’ deliverables of contributing to the company’s strategy. (I wonder if it is their first time working at this level.)

        4. Estrella the Starfish*

          And I think I’d be more on board with this if it was a lower level employee whose work was likely undervalued. In this case OP is being paid £200k at each job so it’s unlikely this is undervaluing OP’s contribution (not impossible but highly unlikely). Then OP refers to relying on the the lower level employees to get things done for them as part of why this could work, which to me implies shifting the burden to them so that some of the hours OP would have worked will fall to them. So you end up with a senior person drawing two high, full time salaries while working part time at each job while lower level draw their lower salaries for working their full time hours and some of OP’s.

        5. Cold Fish*

          I think this is where I fall too. The work the double dipper won’t be able to handle (because I sincerely doubt they will be able to keep this up long term) will then fall on the co-workers at each job. OP may be a high producer and able to get more out the door than the average worker but if their co-workers are just standard producers, having to cover for OP (while OP is doing other job) may put them underwater. That is inherently unfair to them on multiple levels.

          It’s not so much a stick it to the man or employers have been screwing with employees and this is just consequences. Although, I don’t like either of those reasons. But I get the sense that OP knows this is wrong and is just hoping to get permission to do it. If it is not unethical, OP should have no problem telling both companies about her situation/plans to work both jobs.

        7. BlueDijon*

          And based on what OP is saying, these peers sound like they are not at a director level as well but are dotted line reports, so (imho) this is doubly unethical.

        8. Me (I think)*

          The LW already said they have dotted-line reports that they are handing off a lot of the day-to-day stuff.

          I do see this as straight-up unethical, even in the current climate. I am selling my employer 40+ hours a week as a senior level person but only giving them 25. And then there is the travel – 25% of both jobs is travel, which is one full week a month. The LW says they communicate their availability well in advance – what does that even mean? If my boss is sending me to work with a client, he does not want to hear that I am not available that week. Even if I tell him in advance.

          Unethical and untenable.

        9. Black Horse Dancing*

          If people support this, I never want to hear any complaints about someone committing timecard fraud or wage theft from those commentors because that is exactly what OP is doing. Heck, low level fast food clerks get fired for taking home expired burgers and this OP has two hugely profitable jobs and is wondering about the ethics? Yes, this is unethical. This is not Harry and Sally need to work two full times jobs each to make the rent. This is gleefully exploiting both companies. Honestly , for all people state ‘WFH is just as productive!’, this will be what spoils this. (OP, you’re the reason people can’t have nice things.)

          1. Texas*

            Ah yes, because companies would never exploit their workers and only do it because they know people OP take two jobs…

            1. Black Horse Dancing*

              Nope, companies exploit their workers all the time. But they don’t pay those workers 200K.

              1. Texas*

                I’m talking about you blaming OP for companies treating their employees poorly, which is ridiculous.

                1. JSPA*

                  That’s not what it says; it says that we, the commentariat, should not object to rank-and-file timecard fraud, if we don’t object to the equivalent, in mid- and upper management.

                  I’d say that when a job is mostly about showing up / holding down the fort / making sure the process continues without delays, then showing up matters (at any level). When a job is 100% about completing a task by a certain date and time, then hours should not matter (at any level).

                  It’s not about the status: the vehicle needs to leave at a certain time, the driver and crew and maintenance need to be there dependably, whether that vehicle is a school bus, a garbage truck, Air Force One or a spaceship.

            2. Starbuck*

              Right? How about all those letters over the years where people write in saying ‘X number of people on my team quit/were fired, the company has refused to fill the positions and instead put the work on me.’ Employers do that ALL THE TIME. You might as well be properly compensated for doing two jobs, like OP is!

          2. Starbuck*

            If you’re salaried, you’re not necessarily filling out a timecard? You don’t make a “wage” or hourly rate so the concept of time theft may not even really be relevant for what OP is doing.

            If they are meeting the company’s expectations for the work required and they employer is satisfied with their work, honestly who are we to say that’s wrong? All I see is speculation about potential or hypothetical impacts to other workers, but there’s nothing actually concrete about harm.

            Your anger is so misplaced here. Wage theft by employers is the most rampant form of theft in the country, THAT is the reason why we don’t have nice things.

            1. Black Horse Dancing*

              If nothing wrong with it, have OP tell both companies they are working the other job.

              1. Starbuck*

                I just don’t agree that there’s an ethical obligation to tell your employer how you spend every hour of your day if you’re not filling out a time card, especially if you’ve got the flexibility of a salaried position and WFH.

              2. ElizabethJane*

                Why though. I have one full time job that I’m compensated well for (not $200K well, but well enough). I also write and publish independently on Kindle. I write during standard working hours. I meet all my deadlines, I’m available when I need to be (though I have deliberately scheduled meetings around writing events). My employer has no idea I write novels.

                1. Tea and Cake*

                  This is super interesting from the perspective that half of your employers know you have two jobs. (You.) But your point of completing work to the quality bar for Company as well as You (as Writer Employer), I’m hard pressed to come up with a retort that what you’re doing is unethical and you should disclose to Company about writing in the similar vein that others are commenting that LW should disclose to both employers.

                  There has been a lot of conversation that freelancing/contracting inherently allows/promotes this set up of multiple employers because of transparency and expectations that freelancers/contractors have more than one employer/source of income. I expect most freelancers don’t disclose information about other contracts they have ongoing, and I am not sure why LW’s situation is different. They have stated there’s not an exclusivity requirement by either employer, so I don’t understand why full disclosure is such a full throated response here.

                  I also just have logistics questions. Strategy for dealing with SS, Medicare, 401k contributions, to name a few, but I get that this isn’t the place for that.

                2. Sweet Christmas*

                  Writing novels (essentially freelancing) is not the same thing, though. You write and publish independently, so you can always choose to write less during busy periods at work, and you can always set aside your writing to attend to something that needs attending to at work. Managing your time between two employers is very different.

          3. Parakeet*

            Whatever you think of the ethics, this is not wage theft. Wage theft is employers denying employees pay or benefits that they’re owed.

          4. Minding my own Busyness*

            I think that is one of the things that bothers me about this. And that’s the work from home component. First of all, anyone who wasn’t working from home would not likely be able to pull this off and the fact that people are empowered to do it because they work from home doesn’t sit very well with me. There are a lot of people who have advocated very heavily with their employers to remain working from home and if companies find out this is happening, I can’t wait to see how quickly they yank everyone back into the office. Which also begs the question, how WOULD the employers feel about this arrangement? You might not perceive a conflict of interest but they certainly might. If it is ethically correct then why not let everyone in on it and let them decide for themselves? If they give their blessing, then by all means keep going. But I suspect even if they both agreed to the “arrangement” (which I still find unlikely), you would suddenly find your workload increased substantially if not doubled by both employers.

        10. Anon for this*

          Yeah, what broke me and started me job hunting (ironically coworker who broke me has since left but the fact that this was considered okay broke me) was a coworker who just wasn’t available during the day to take emergencies that came in. He worked 40 hours, yes, that was clear, but the random disappearing at odd hours (in his case it wasn’t for another job, it was for educational opportunities) while we were supposed to be available really bugged me. Because that meant I had to do EVERYTHING that came in during the day that was an emergency.

      2. Colette*

        I think for me the issue is the lying. If it were truly OK, the OP would be able to tell both employers she has two jobs. If she did that, there’d be no issue.

        But she’s not doing that, because she knows it’s not OK.

        And if she’ll lie about that, what else would she lie about?

        (Interestingly, I see parallels to the guy who booked off every Saturday he’d have to work because he’d figured out how to predict them in advance. )

        1. Ace in the Hole*

          Not necessarily… lying isn’t always a sign that you are doing something unethical. It could instead be a sign that the entity you are lying to is unethical.

          There’s a power dynamic between an employer and employee, which employers historically use to exploit workers. Is it unethical to lie to protect oneself from being exploited? I don’t think it is. And I do think it’s exploitative to play dog in the manger with an employee’s time – if you are paying someone to accomplish X, and they do, you got what you paid for. If it took them half as long as expected… so what? They should still get paid as agreed and be free to use their remaining time however they like. The fact that many employers DO make exploitative demands on salaried employees’ time using their livelihood as leverage makes it morally okay for an employee to lie about how their time is spent, in my opinion.

          I think the argument is quite different for hourly employees, where the employer is paying directly for their time.

          1. KHB*

            “They should still get paid as agreed and be free to use their remaining time however they like.”

            If “whatever you like” means watching cat videos or playing solitaire or writing poetry – things that you can easily set aside if something comes up at work – then sure. But the thing about a second full time job is that it’s not just a diversion to fill in the gaps – it’s an ongoing, active claim on your time.

            1. Ace in the Hole*

              Obviously the type of work matters a lot here. But assuming that the employer finds the quality, speed, and quantity of work satisfactory… why should they get to dictate how the employee spends their remaining time?

              The practical question is separate from the ethical one. I don’t think there are many full time jobs that someone could accomplish in a satisfactory way while working a second full-time job. But that would be equally true if someone was working two full-time jobs during separate hours (i.e. a day shift and a night shift) – they would almost certainly be too tired, distracted, and burned out to do adequate work at either job.

              I doubt many people would say getting a second shift job is unethical…. just that it’s unwise. In fact, I think most people would vigorously defend an employee’s moral right to work a second job (or go to school, or run a business, or do caregiving, etc) outside of scheduled work hours even if it did impact their performance on the job. If a manager wrote in about whether they should fire an employee upon discovering she had a second night shift job, I expect the advice would boil down to “decide based on her work performance, not this new background information. If you wouldn’t have fired her before, why would you do it now?”

              The issue is that many people no longer have a clear delineation between work and non-work hours. They can’t get a second job after their regular business hours when there are no regular hours to begin with. Should they lose the moral right to spend their non-working time on things that might affect their job performance?

              1. Colette*

                I disagree that there are no regular business hours. In my organization – and those of most people I know – you can count on someone being available between, say 10 and 3.

                If the OP had a second job that agreed she could work 4 – midnight, that would be a different story.

          2. Colette*

            I don’t think it’s exploitive to expect that someone you’re paying is working for you and not someone else, no. Even if you’re paying them a salary, you are paying them to be available to work – and the OP isn’t, because she’s working elsewhere.

            1. Colette*

              To add to that, I don’t think it’s unethical to lie to someone who isn’t entitled to the truth. If the barista serving you coffee asks for the code to your alarm system, it’s OK to lie. If your friend asks how much money you make, it’s OK to lie. If your boss asks what you did on Saturday (assuming you weren’t scheduled to work Saturday), it’s OK to lie.

              If your boss asks you what you were doing on Saturday if you were scheduled to work, it’s not, because your boss is entitled to know the answer to that question.

              1. LizM*

                But, I don’t get why you need to lie in those situations? Why not just say you don’t feel comfortable sharing that info?

                The only time I think it’s ethical to lie is if it’s unsafe to tell the truth.

                So if your boss asks what you did on Saturday, and you know there may be professional consequences if you tell them to mind their own business, then maybe a lie would be ethical. But in my experience, 95% of the time, it’s easier to just not answer the question than to make up an answer.

          3. Falling Diphthong*

            I think for most of us, if we were told “I might lie to you… but it’s BECAUSE we’re part of an unethical system!” then we would nope right out of dealing with that person. Even if we agreed, in the abstract, re capitalism or whatever–it’s not an appealing trait in someone who’s actions might impact you, and one that rightly should bring your guard way up.

            Lying about whether you have two full time jobs really isn’t in there ethically with lying about whether you saw any Jews hiding from the security sweeps.

        2. kittymommy*

          This! There’s a reason why the LW sent the question in to see if it’s okay, because deep down they probably realize it’s not. It’s dishonest. It may be dishonest by omission, but that doesn’t excuse it.

        3. JB*

          People who make lying the center of their ethics are fascinating to me.

          I write and publish romance books in my spare time and make money from them. If my day job (in an unrelated industry) ever found out, there’s a very good chance they would fire me. At the very least it would put me in an awkward and vulnerable position, since they would also necessarily find out that I’m queer, which is not something I want to be known about me at work.

          If they were to ever ask, I would lie about it. I already lie by making up vacation plans etc. when most of my PTO is actually used for writing. (Note I always make sure there’s no hardship to my boss or coworkers for me taking particular days off – I’m not lying to avoid my PTO being changed or anything, just to handle casual conversations about what I did on my ‘vacation’).

          From your perspective, am I doing a bad thing? Am I being unethical?

          1. Stephen!*

            Why do you think you’d get fired?

            I do think there’s a huge difference between concealing facets of your identity from potentially hostile people and working two jobs at a time and hiding it.

          2. Despachito*

            No, I think you are not.

            You are not doing any harm to anybody, you are lying to lie low and avoid any potential repercussions in a matter which is by no means related to your work.

            Your coworkers are not entitled to know every detail of your private life.

            I think you are fine :-)

          3. Cold Fish*

            I don’t have problem with lying per se. There are things that is not in the business scope of work, like your purpose for taking PTO. But, like Foxy Hedgehog comments below, the problem is if you are telling work you are working 40 hours a week but actually spending 15 of those hours writing instead.

          4. Colette*

            No, if you’re using your non-work time (including vacation), that’s not an issue – your employer is not entitled to know what you’re doing after work, on weekends, or while you’re on vacation.

            But they are entitled to know you’re working another job during the time they’re paying you.

            1. Colette*

              But if you claimed to be working from home and actually went to a writers’ convention, that would be an issue.

              1. ElizabethJane*

                What if I claim to be working from home and rather than taking a 15 minute break to scroll FB and make myself a coffee I actually sit down a jot a few lines in my novel? Because I do that daily.

                1. Colette*

                  The details matter. Is it 15 minutes once a day? 15 minutes an hour? 15 minutes-that-turn-into-an-hour? If work comes in during that time, do you notice and deal with it?

          5. Software Dev*

            Yeah if my boss straight up asked me if I was looking for another job and I was, i would lie. Lying is not an intrinsic wrong.

          6. fueled by coffee*

            The difference here, though, is that you are using PTO and your off-hours to write your romance novels. You are not fully disclosing what you do with your time off work, but this is akin to someone working, say, a 9-5 job and a second evenings/weekends job, but not telling people at the 9-5 about the second job.

            What OP is doing, though, is simultaneously “working” at two different jobs during the same hours, and only putting in 25 hours at each rather than the full 40 the employer is expecting, not because they are unproductive at work, but because their time is occupied with work for a secret second job.

          7. Falling Diphthong*

            I like that, as a writer, you’re probably good at coming up with elaborate tales of your mythical vacations.

      3. Foxy Hedgehog*

        For me the ethical question boils down to this–

        A hypothetical situation: one of your higher-ups says “Out of curiosity, how many hours did you spend working for us last week?” What do you say? Do you lie and say 40 hours or more? Or tell the truth and say 25? If the plan is to lie, I would lean toward considering this unethical. If the plan is to tell the truth, then I wouldn’t. But that’s a feeling, and your mileage may vary.

        I guess I would be interested to know if there is anything in either offer letter/contract that forbids this.

        1. OP*

          Nothing is ever stated about number of hours you work. It’s expected and understood that you work the hours needed to do your job. No such thing as a 40-hr (or whatever arbitrary number) work week. If one person needs 25 hours and another needs 60 to accomplish their goals/do the same job, both will be paid the same.

          1. ecnaseener*

            Does that mean if this hypothetical situation arises, you’ll tell the truth? You kinda dodged Foxy’s question.

            1. Clancy*

              Just have a clear get out plan for when this all comes out and you lose both jobs, your reputation is trashed, and you can’t get hired in your area/field again. Because sooner or later it will. All it takes is for someone who works at one of your employers to move to the other one, notice you work there, ask a confused question or two and then tell everyone what’s going on and boom, you’re fired. Or any of the dozens of scenarios I can imagine where this comes out with very little effort.

              Start figuring out how to bombproof your reputation against that inevitability while you have the luxury of being able to, or your career is gonna be toast.

              1. Foxy Hedgehog*

                All right, if that’s the answer (and the implication that they would be fine with it if you told them), then I don’t see a problem with it. You give them 25 hours of work, they’re presumably okay with that, and so it’s generally none of their business what you do with the other 143 hours in your week as long as it doesn’t directly affect them in some way.

          2. miro*

            Since you mention there being multiple people doing the same job it might be helpful to look at and talk with others in your same or closely equivalent positions. What kind of hours are those people working? (maybe look at the median, since you might have outliers at each end but that’s not necessarily great to model yourself after, especially as someone new) How much are they accomplishing? How flexible are their schedules (as in, how often are they cancelling/moving meetings or trips?
            Obviously there will be some differences as a result of you being much newer to the position, but it can still help you get an idea of expectations. If you find that all the other people doing your kind of work are spending 60h/wk on it while you’re spending 25, that’s worth digging into–maybe you’re just that much more amazing and efficient than everyone else, but maybe you’re not (and really, if you are actually that much better, then you’re probably the kind of superstar who could get away with this even if it does come to light).

      4. Viki*

        Ethically, I am against it because it’s one of the things that is a lie by omission. I shouldn’t have to ask if someone is working a second full time job while I expect them to be working the full time job I am paying them for.

        Legally, no clue.

        Ethically, if I found out my employee was doing this, would fire them for ethics

        1. KHB*

          This is exactly why many employers have “conflict of interest” policies that explicitly require you to get prior permission for this sort of thing. You don’t get to play dumb after the fact and say “But I was getting all my work done, so I didn’t realize it would be a problem.” The employer is telling you in advance that they consider it a problem (or at least a potential problem that they want to talk with you about before you go ahead and do it).

        2. Mike*

          I think it’s interesting you say “fire them for ethics” as they can just fire them anytime they like for any reason (outside of protected classes) or no reason. I just get the feeling that all the ethical burden is one-sided.

          1. KHB*

            Something being legal (or not-illegal) doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s ethical, though – especially when it comes to employment law in the US, where very little is actually illegal.

            It may be legal for an employer to fire an employee for no reason, but how many employers actually do that? Certainly not any of the good ones.

          2. Don*

            Yeah this is why I just can’t be bothered to give an f over the ethics of this beyond as an abstract. There’s unquestionably a lot of people in here who would be aghast at the idea that an employee doesn’t owe an employer 2 weeks notice on resignation. But employers, on average, don’t tell folks they’re gonna be hitting the bricks in two weeks. If you’re lucky they let you collect your stuff from your desk/locker yourself rather than come back to get it in a few days. Jobs that offer severance are rare and severance without considerations like non-competes/non-disparagment/etc are effectively non-existant, but your compensation during that two week’s notice you handed over doesn’t come with any extra considerations.

            A person commanding a 200k salary (or two) is clearly at a whole different power level from 95+% of the population but there’s still a power imbalance. I don’t see any reason to get het up on behalf of either “side” here. Letthemfight.gif, as it were.

          3. Viki*

            For my company, we have a code of conduct and an ethics policy/contract that has yearly trained and requires signature by the employee.

            By my company’s internal policies this is a breach of our company ethics and, therefore a fireable offense for ethics, which would be on their file in HR and would reflect in any reference check etc.

            1. Mike*

              But you didn’t write the policy, they did. And you notice the ethical burden is all one-way. If they breach your ethical guidelines your only option is to walk; your reference for them is highly unlikely to be checked.

      5. Iris Eyes*

        It kinda reminds me of some of the ethics of polyamory. There’s definitely some differences but I wonder if that would be a good paradigm to explore for best practices and navigating the ethics.

        1. Analytical Tree Hugger*

          Agreed, that could be a useful framework.

          My uninformed understanding is that, in ethical non-monagamy, everyone involved knows that it’s not monogamous. So, if OP told both companies what was going on and they were okay with it, then great.

          OP is intentionally lying by omission, knows that this is wrong, and is still doing it. So, they know it’s unethical and wrong.

          1. Mike*

            I think this is where the analogy breaks down. It seems it’s ok for someone on 30K/yr to have 2 jobs and in fact it’s promoted as a way to pay your rent and feed your family. But suddenly it’s ethically dubious if it’s 100K or 200K?

            1. Librarian*

              First, I think it’s repulsive that people need 2 FT jobs just to pay rent and feed their family. However, the thing with that is those people are not working both FT jobs at the same time. THey leave their retail job and go bartend. That’s why this is different, she is working 2 FT jobs in a span of 50 hours a week.

        2. Not the same thing*

          Polyamory requires everyone involved to be aware of what’s happening. This is more akin to someone having a secret second family.

          1. Omnivalent*

            Right. And justifying it because the heteronormative nuclear family structure has historically been sexist and oppressive, therefore it’s okay for me, specifically, to cheat or have a second family my spouse doesn’t know about.

        3. Avril Ludgateau*

          One of the cornerstones of polyamory/ethical non-monogamy is that all partners are adequately informed and give consent to the arrangement(s).

      6. Midwest Manager*

        I’m in the “this is unethical” camp because of the employer expectations of director-level employees. OP’s excuse of “there are plenty of jobs right now” is a rationalization of something they inherently know they should not be doing. The secrecy behind the act also points to the social contract that is assumed with full-time work.

        OP’s situation is different from one where a person might have a full-time director level job, and have a full-time side-gig as a bartender, musician, or sound technician at the theatre. Side jobs like that are expected to be completed during the non-traditional workday of 8-4/9-5, no matter how many hours outside of that you’re working. Two traditional workday schedules running concurrently screams poor judgement to me. Counting on coworkers who semi-report to you to pick up the slack while you’re pulling double salaries does not seem like someone who conducts themselves in an ethical manner. And for someone in a strategic financial role… red flags everywhere.

        1. Despachito*

          OP’s excuse of “there are plenty of jobs right now” – OP used it in a context that they are not taking the job from anyone, not to excuse they can afford it because of the favorable market.

          1. Cold Fish*

            But they can’t know for sure they aren’t taking the job from someone else. Perhaps because they took the job another person isn’t being given the chance to move up in the world. There could be an entire ripple effect of promotions that are no more because OP decided to “scam” the system.

            1. Nanani*

              Eh, “they’re taking our jobs” is not a good argument for anything ever.

              OP might not be 100% ethical (I can’t make up my mind tbh) but they aren’t scamming anyone.

              your strawman can get a job too.

          2. Goody*

            And while it may be an “employee market” right now, that does NOT mean that there’s a glut of director- level positions available and not enough qualified candidates. So OP may in fact be taking a job away from someone else who is qualified and forcing that other person to work in a positionf for which they’re overqualified and for less than they’re worth.

            1. Despachito*

              I personally do not believe in “taking the job from someone else”.

              Again – I am a freelancer, and with years experience I think I got pretty efficient, meaning that I am probably able to do, say, about twice as much work as an average peer.

              Does it mean that if I take two times the amount of work of an average peer, I am “taking their job from them”? I absolutely do not think so. Anyone can do the same if they are able to.

          3. Minding my own Busyness*

            Yeah, and there may be plenty of jobs right now, but trust me, there are NOT plenty of $200K jobs right now.

        2. Katt*

          Sounds like they don’t exactly have direct reports, but… Can I just say I would be displeased if I was trying to get ahold of my coworker and they weren’t around randomly? Say I work 8-5 (8 hours with an hour break) 5 days a week. That’s 40 hours. OP is working 8-7 (10 hours with an hour break) 5 days a week for 50 hours. Or maybe they are working 7-6, or some variation thereof. But unbeknownst to me I only have access to them for 25 hours a week. What if my job is the one where they are working from 2-7 PM? Or 1-6 PM? I actually technically only have 15 or 20 hours a week in which I have access to ask them things or get assistance on something, which I have no idea about. I have coworkers who work different shift arrangements but we all know in advance that they’ll only be around until 1 or 2 PM.

          To be fair, perhaps the OP in this scenario is switching back and forth between the two jobs during the day as needed. Maybe two computers, waiting for emails and messages on each computer to respond to as they come in.

          That’s to say nothing of the fact that they might confuse things between two jobs, i.e. policies, names of people, tasks. Or someone from the first company may leave to join the second company and see that OP is also a director there. Totally innocently, they may mention to someone the fact that OP is also a director of a division at the first company, or say something else not realizing the secret that the OP is trying to keep. (“Oh yeah, I worked with OP on x task at Company A last year; they can vouch for my abilities!” “Wait, OP has been working for us for the past two years. How does that work?”) What if someone at Company A uses OP as a reference at a new company, and the person doing the reference check worked with OP at Company B during the timeframe of the reference, but has since moved on to Company C?

          I know the OP says that the two companies are not competitors and that they don’t work with each other, but someone at a high enough level as to easily get director jobs isn’t exactly forgettable, in my opinion… If they have a unique name, as well. Also, what if one company ends up partnering with the other in some fashion? Perhaps not all my scenarios are plausible. This seems a bit like a house of cards to me…

        3. Anon for this*

          My boss isn’t even working two jobs, it’s just that their schedule is booked solid with meetings, all day, every day. It’s amazing the number of things that come up that aren’t… urgent, per se, but they need five minutes of boss’s time to resolve, and typically come with at least one person who is becoming increasingly irate that I cannot do the (again, simple, it just needs boss’s okay to proceed!) basic thing they want and starts yelling at me for putting obstacles in the way of getting the basic thing done for them.

          Maybe OP doesn’t see any problem dealing with minor things like this during a specific, set amount of time every few days, but OP’s direct reports are the ones who are going to shoulder any abuse when they’re available and OP is not.

          1. Tea and Cake*

            This seems a likely situation regardless of being employed at two companies. For example a situation will likely arise where coworkers at Company A are awaiting feedback and there’s something else within Company A taking/prioritizing LW’s time. The (unfortunate) result is coworkers will have to wait and possibly still not have context as to the other work/priority.

      7. Bill*

        The part that really rubs me the wrong way is that this person is likely able to manage this by having his coworkers and those who dotted line report to him pick up the slack and other tasks. It’s likely they have a heavier workload because of them taking advantage of this situation. This person can assign tasks to them, thus making room for the other job. So, while this person is raking in two high salaries, others are working 60 hours a week because this person can dictate workload as a director level employee.

      8. pandq*

        A manager perhaps can get away with this for however long, depending on their manager’s expectations. But it grates at me as being unethical unless it’s disclosed and okayed by both employers. My first thought is because a lower level worker would not be likely to have the same “privilege”. So, yeah, it’s about privilege for me. And taking advantage of one’s privilege, even if acknowledged, when NOT advocating for others to have the same, is unethical. This is just my first reaction to the situation.

      9. Anonym*

        I think if OP can truly deliver good performance for both organizations and isn’t actively deceiving them, it *could* maybe be justified. But good performance, especially at a strategic level, is pretty nebulous and hard to pin down. And does a company have a reasonable expectation that an employee delivers the best of what they can do in a 40 hour week? Not sure. This would probably actually be easier to justify if the jobs were more in the “deliver 40 widgets a week” realm! Then you know whether or not you’re delivering on what your employer is paying you for.

        Deception is probably a matter of individual conscience and ethics, not to mention the friction of having to hide or withhold information from many people for a long stretch of time. That’s hard on most folks, I would bet.

        I couldn’t live with the tension of it personally, and while I don’t feel like companies deserve the same level of loyalty, respect or good treatment as an actual human, living in a state of deception (however justified by personal beliefs about the legitimacy of a corporation’s claim to my labor) doesn’t jive with the person I want to be. But if it works for OP, and doesn’t place her in violation of either company’s terms of employment and she can perform at a level her managers are happy with… seems ok?

      10. Omnivalent*

        You answered this question yourself: “You’ve represented yourself as selling something different to them than what they’re actually getting.” I don’t see that becomes any less unethical just because some employers have historically been crappy.

        One huge ethical issue is that the OP has no way of knowing for sure that there no conflicts between the two companies or the work that they do. For all the OP knows, Company A just got a majority interest in a competitor of Company B, or Company B is working on a confidential project that will add a Company A-style product to its lineup. If OP had been transparent, then the companies could screen for this and make decisions accordingly.

      11. DashDash*

        For me the unethical part is actually taking a possible job from someone else. A lot of places are hiring, sure, but I don’t think it’s a lot of $200k/year positions (though maybe that’s just my assumption). That amount of money would change my life drastically. If OP really does need that much income, ok cool, but the reality is someone else is NOT getting that salary/benefits/title.

          1. Mike*

            You can make 2 jobs available by becoming unemployed. The analogy I’m going with is that if a single company decided to combine 2 directorial jobs into one but (and this is the unlikely bit) give the one person both salaries would that be unethical? After all you’re putting someone out of work.

            1. Tea and Cake*

              In this analogy I’m not sure the salary matters in terms of ethics. And this isn’t an unheard of situation! Companies do combine roles and reduce headcount to accommodate the new direction for the role/structure for the company. This analogy highlights the employer for restructuring, and doesn’t seem to play into the employees ethics.

            2. Sweet Christmas*

              That’s not a good analogy. In one case, one person is occupying one job. In the other, one person is occupying two separate jobs. Combining two roles into one still means one role, which only one person could occupy. It’s not like if they don’t hire OP they would hire two people instead.

              I don’t find this a super persuasive argument, but still, the argument is that this person is taking more than they need, not just that they are occupying a spot at all.

      12. Curious*

        In addition to the fascinating ethical issues of doing this without overt misrepresentation … I think that, to the extent this becomes “a Thing,” employers are going to explicitly start to pin employees down on this by asking for an explicit representation from each employee as to whether they have any other employment.

      13. A tired director*

        I have to agree with a few earlier commenters who (to paraphrase) indicated that it’s the nature of the job which would cross the line between ethical/unethical. Strategy is not coding. I feel this is inherently unethical due to the nature of OP’s work.

    4. Firm Believer*

      As it should. This should not be endorsed. Someone did this to me this year and did terrible work, didn’t even check her email. This is the type of behavior that will eventually put an end to all this remote flexibility.

          1. Anon for this*

            This. It’s possible to be not slacking in terms of quantity of work done, but enraging coworkers in terms of lack of engagement and availability at short notice.

    5. Dust Bunny*

      Same.

      For the record: My employer treats us very well. “Well, they’re just out to squeeze as much work as they can and pay us as little as possible,” wouldn’t work as justification. I mean, yes, wage costs are a concern–we’re a nonprofit–but we also have good benefits and PTO and are encouraged to use them, we’re treated well, disciplinary problems are handled, etc. No bees here.

      1. I'd Rather Be Eating Dumplings*

        I also think that’s an ethicially interesting justification because while it can describe problems with a power imbalance between employers/employees on a macro level, it may not apply to a given company.

        So there’s the question of how your behaviour is justifiable in a broader capitialist system and also the question of how your behaviour sits in relation to the smaller orgs that you operate within. I know I’d feel way more uncomfortable with this if I knew that OP was working for small orgs that were trying to find their feet, or nonprofits that were squeezed for resources. I’d feel less uncomfortable if they were behemouth organizations with lots of political clout.

    6. Enginerd*

      Same. Our company has an explicit policy and a form you fill out for a second job, even if it was just delivering pizzas or driving Uber at night (both are a NO! because of perception that means the company isn’t paying you enough and they don’t want those optics). But, finding out an employee was working a second “similar” job would be immediate ethics violation and dismissal!

      1. Sophia Brooks*

        Wait, what? You can’t work a similar job OR a dissimilar job? That seems odd. Until Covid, I alway had a second job. Usually my second job was theatre, so it would be easily explainable by this criteria , but if my job told me I couldn’t be a cashier at a grocery store on the weekend without any conflict of interest, that seems wrong.

    7. mreasy*

      I mean, if you got fired at one company you’d still have the other $200k job so…gosh this risk seems kinda okay to me.

    9. Name (Required)*

      My only comment is that the OP needs to make sure they are having enough withheld for taxes or plan for a bill to come due at tax time. Their tax rate at each is probably not going to be high enough for the combined tax rate.

      On the other hand, they’re going to overpay on FICA since the two jobs will not coordinate that, but they will get it back when they file their taxes.

    1. ecnaseener*

      That’s my big question for OP! I guess you’ll just have to pick the more impressive one and leave the other one off.

        1. General von Klinkerhoffen*

          And which one gets dropped depends on what position you’re applying for, I guess.

          1. The Original K.*

            Yes – if you’re tailoring your resume to each job to apply for, you’re going to be omitting stuff anyway.

      2. Dana Lynne*

        If he’s making 400K a year total he won’t need a resume any more if he can pull this off for a few years!

        1. Sola Lingua Bona Lingua Mortua Est*

          Conversely, depending on how things fall apart if they do, a résumé might not be enough to overcome the reputational fallout for a few years.

        2. Falling Diphthong*

          I would bet he’ll find a way to spend the enhanced salary. It’s what humans usually do.

          Even if he banks one salary, he’d have to that for a long time to accumulate enough to retire on.

          1. OP*

            She/her pronouns, and yeah, as a woman in tech who has gone through her fair share of sexual harassment and discrimination and wage gaps, part of me feels like it’s my turn to stick it to them.

            2. Falling Diphthong*

              I’ll note that you’re mixing a lot of people into them–because some thems underpaid you in the past, you should be able to stick it to some completely separate new thems who seem to be paying you well while offering good work-life balance and flexibility. In a way that might lead the new thems to fire you while lightly flambeing your professional reputation. (Or not! You might get away with it. But it seems a lot to stick it to… people who offered you a good wage and working conditions.)

              2. A Genuine Scientician*

                Exactly.

                “Other people have mistreated me, so now I get to mistreat others — not those who mistreated me, mind you, just other people who are in some way similar.”

                That’s not how this works.

                It’s the same way how I don’t think employers being bad about ghosting applicants means that it’s appropriate for applicants to ghost employers. If you’ve been ghosted by *this particular* employer/manager before, maybe, but just one in general?

            3. Wednesday*

              I was fine with your plan before, and am even more fine with it after learning these details! Go you!

            4. Starbuck*

              Honestly kudos to you. I can’t count the number of letters I’ve read here from people who’ve been assigned the work of 2-3 positions because their employer couldn’t be bothered to re-hire when people left. Happens all the time. If you can do two jobs well enough to satisfy the work expectations they want from you, go for it.

            5. Colette*

              And when they discover what you’re doing, what happens the next time they consider promoting a woman to your job?

              1. L*

                Yikes. Hopefully they don’t hold the actions of one woman against all women, and if they do, then they even more deserve this.

                1. Colette*

                  It’s not necessarily a conscious choice they make, though. They’ll think “should we hire/promote Jane? I don’t know, she reminds me of OP, and she wasn’t great. Let’s go with Bob.”

                2. Falling Diphthong*

                  If you’re in either the majority or the group with power, you can do a bad job and it’s just “Yeah, Fergus was a terrible llama groomer.” But if you’re in a minority, then “We tried having an Irish llama groomer, and it didn’t work–wouldn’t take that risk again” is a shorthand many people use. (To be clear, I view this as “Why -isms are unfair” not “Why you must be a model minority.”)

                  Past letters: One of two Sri Lankans and the other one is screwing up. One of two people with the same unusual last name (cousins) and people don’t guess there are two of you.

              2. Sweet Christmas*

                I don’t agree with this person’s actions, but it’s not her responsibility to be a model or representative of all women tech workers. If the employer decides to generalize her behavior to other women’s, that’s a failing on their part.

    2. Spencer Hastings*

      This was my question as well. Especially at a level as senior as the LW describes, it seems like it would be important to be making community connections and building up a reputation. Someone might refer a potential client to “LW, who does such great work at Teapots, Inc.”, only for it to turn out that the person already knows LW from Llama Co., or whatever.

    3. Admin 4 life*

      My thought too! Or background checks for a future job. Would you just list the one you held the longest and hope they have no way to find out about the other one?

      I’ve filled out previous employment checks and I have no idea how in-depth those verifications actually go.

  4. King Friday XIII*

    If you set your own hours, I’m not sure I see this as much different than when I worked a retail job and a food service job in college. The food service job SAID I couldn’t have another job, sure, but I was making minimum wage, and yes, sometimes I lied and said I had classes when I had shifts at the retail job.

    Now if you’re supposed to be available at both jobs, that does get more complicated. Good luck figuring it out in the long term, OP, and be careful you don’t burn out!

    1. Rusty Shackelford*

      That’s pretty different. Your food service and retail jobs couldn’t overlap. No one sat waiting for their dinner because you were ringing up someone’s purchase at your other job.

      1. Charlotte Lucas*

        Yeah. My first thought was how impossible this would be at the lowest level of most organizations. It just feels icky to me that someone making that much money can do both jobs but people making the least amount usually don’t have that option.

        And if I made that much money & had that much free time in my job, I wouldn’t *want* a second job. I’d use the time to read or pursue a hobby or do something… Fun & interesting.

    2. Escapee from Corporate Management*

      As I noted below, there is a huge difference between an entry-level job and a director-level job. Directors at many companies are expected to not simply execute orders from above, but to initiate activities that benefit the company.

      1. Estrella the Starfish*

        I think it’s the lack of overlap that’s key rather than seniority. If you have two senior positions but the hours you are expected to be available don’t overlap, you’re doing nothing wrong.

        1. Yessica Haircut*

          Yes, this is like how an executive director of one nonprofit may serve on the board of another nonprofit, or how someone working in a research role might also teach a course in their specialty at a university unaffiliated with their employer. Even at a high level, people stack jobs with the approval of their primary employer, as long as it doesn’t interfere with their main job.

          1. Sweet Christmas*

            Board service and teaching a class are different, though – they’re both understood to be things people don’t do full time (when we’re talking about adjuncting…and yes, I know many adjuncts cobble together classes to be full time…that’s not what I mean here). Two full-time jobs at the director level in tech are both expecting you to be generally available and on 9ish to 5ish M-F.

    3. Esmeralda*

      When I was in grad school, I had a fellowship that said I could not work as the fellowship was providing enough money for me to give all my attention to my degree.

      In the humanities, so while it was a nice fellowship, it was not enough to cover car insurance, airfare to visit my family once a year, pizza, or clothing.

      So yes, I worked about 25 hours a week. (I worked 35 hrs/week as an undergrad, so it felt like freedom!!)

      1. houseplant champion*

        That’s what mine said too and yet they paid me, post tax, $817 a month. Student fees ran 2k. My rent was $400. So, yeah, I worked!

        Meanwhile I saw assistantships for science graduate students paying 4k monthly. Make it make sense.

        1. Brooklyn*

          We’ve abandoned education funding at universities in favor of research funding, so the only departments with money are the ones getting research grants. This is also why the quality of teaching is so poor – you’re hired for the papers you write, not the students you teach.

          I get it. I went to grad school for mathematics, on a grant, making the union-required 57% of living wage in my city. There was a base pay for all grad students. In our department you made that money by teaching, and if you had a sponsor, you could avoid teaching that semester. The CS students I took some classes with got that base pay just for being students, and on top of that either got paid from a grant or teaching. It didn’t help that our department never advocated for us, so we were a “service” department, which meant that we were expected to teach 2 years of math to every science student, but not get any money from them for it.

  5. WindmillArms*

    I’ve never done this, but I was in a job for years where I had between five and ten hours of work to do a week. The other 30-35 hours, I was just killing time. I strongly considered getting a remote job I could do during my downtime to stave off the boredom.

    This was several years ago, so remote jobs weren’t common in my field yet, and the job I did have was in-person. If it had gone remote, and in this climate of remote options? I’d give two-jobs-at-once a try. It’s unethical, but so is capitalism.

  6. Purple Cat*

    Wow.
    I’m not sure I have more words than that.
    There are several things that really frustrate me about this scenario:
    – companies that are throwing $200k at an employee and that person doesn’t need to work full-time to meet objectives
    – people who are struggling in lower-income positions are the ones that would need the flexibility to work 2 jobs, but they’re micro-managed and worked to the bone and aren’t given that flexibility
    – the greed of this writer in thinking it’s ethical to “get by” for $400k/yr

    3. Student Affairs Sally*

      To be fair, the first two points are more on the corporations/capitalism generally, not on OP.

      I also think OP was referring to “getting by” at work (i.e. being good at their job but not EXCELLENT), not “getting by” financially.

      Would it be more ethical if the salaries at these positions were $40K rather than $200K?

        1. Black Horse Dancing*

          If someone was working fast food and could barely pay rent and electric, I have far more sympathy. One job making 200K a year and you take on another just because? No. Most people will NEVER earn 200K a year. Big difference between people scraping by and the wealthy.

          1. Spencer Hastings*

            I agree. *Obviously* things are different for people who have to work multiple low-paying jobs to survive.

            Reminds me of that meme (I think it’s a dril tweet?) that goes something like “the wise man shook his head and said ‘well, actually, there’s no difference between good and bad things’”.

          2. Oakenfield*

            How does OP not taking the second job create an income opportunity for lower paid people? It doesn’t. It doesn’t affect them in any way.

            1. Krosan*

              In the sense that, generally, lower-paid people most likely wouldn’t be considered for a job that pays $200k, I suppose you’re right. But in a more direct sense OP is taking two jobs that each could support someone. If they contented themself with just one of those jobs, the other would presumably go to someone else. Maybe someone who currently makes a similar amount, but even then someone would most likely be hired to fill that role.

              There’s no DIRECT harm being done, but ultimately there’s a limited number of positions that pay this well and a far larger number of people who need to get by.

              1. Starbuck*

                The idea that people should accept lower pay so that employers can create more jobs is bullcrap though. It’s the exact same argument people use against increasing the minimum wage.

            2. The Dogman*

              Simple.

              Another person gets OPs job #2.

              That person leaves their job.

              That job is filled by someone.

              That person leaves their job.

              That job too is filled by someone else.

              That someone elses previous job is now open, and is filled by yet another someone…

              This can result in a poor relatively unskilled worker getting access to a job they couldn’t have as a someone else was doing it.

              I hope that helps clear it up! :)

              1. Ingemma*

                I mean… this assumes that there is a stagnant number of jobs, and the OP is taking two of a finite resource. People have been pointing out all up & down these comments that companies often eliminate positions and put that work on someone else’s plate – which could happen at any layer of the situation you’ve laid out.

                And related – senior people doing their jobs well often create growth for companies which can in fact… increase the number of high value jobs. I’m not implying that the OP is likely to do that – because none of us have enough info from these comments. Your assuming things behave in a way that they don’t in real life, and I could just as easily suggest the opposite is true!

                But I just want to point out that not only are jobs not a finite resource, but you’re making a lot of assumptions that are very simplistic and there are some things that either haven’t occurred to you or that you’re ignoring to make your point!

      2. DarnTheMan*

        I think your question goes back to point #2 “people who are struggling in lower-income positions are the ones that would need the flexibility to work 2 jobs, but they’re micro-managed and worked to the bone and aren’t given that flexibility.” My old job paid severely under market rate (I was making about $5 above minimum wage after taxes) but even though core hours were 9-5, it became expected that staff were working 8 or 8:30 to 5:30 for the same wage. Meanwhile our senior leadership was making close to $150k-$200k (after taxes) per year and yet the boss who worked out of the office seemed to spend most of his day reading the paper or playing solitaire.

        2. Daisy-dog*

          It depends on the role. I worked in 2 roles at a company that both paid around $35k. The first was micromanaged heavily to the point where I was questioned *immediately* when I selected the wrong code to restart my computer for updates. The second role did not have status codes to input and I was able to keep my own schedule. I was able to exceed my goals for the position in about half the workday and slowly implemented other tasks into my day. (I also exceeded my goals in my first position, but would have been caught if I was off task.)

      3. Eldritch Office Worker*

        Yeah I think so. Less responsibility, less potential for issues “rolling downhill”. Less investment from the company. If you’re underpaid and the company only expect 40k of work from you – hell yeah give them 40k of work. If you’re well compensated to do high level executive work…I mean there’s a reason jobs pay that much and the fact you’re often doing 50-60 hours a week is part of that.

        The biggest thing for me is how a 200k executive doing this could negatively impact the person down the chain who *is* making 40k and only working one job.

      4. This Old House*

        Also, the LW wasn’t saying that they were planning to “get by” in both jobs and pull in $400K. They were saying that in reporting about this, “getting by” seems to be the general strategy but LW plans to not “get by” but excel in both jobs.

        1. OP*

          Yup, i meant get by on the job, not financially. Yes, I realize how amazingly fortunate I am to make this. And also threw in the salary to see how that affected the response. If I was making $30k/year total, doing the same type of work and the same thing… would that change anything?

          1. Black Horse Dancing*

            If you were struggling, yes, I have far more empathy for a low level street thief stealing food to live than a highly paid CEO, stealing to feather his nest.

            1. Eldritch Office Worker*

              Right. It’s not sticking it to the man once you get to the level where you are the man. (woman)

          2. sacados*

            For me, the way the salary info changes things is to make me think — why?!? If it were a question of 30K vs working two jobs and getting 60K, that would have a huge impact on quality of life. Whereas $200K feels like plenty of money already that an extra $200K just wouldn’t be … worth it?
            You say you live in a different state from Silicon Valley, so I assume you don’t live in the Bay Area — I’ve heard the horror stories about COL around there so I could maybe see how you’d feel like you “needed” $400K to live the way you wanted to, haha.
            But I know that other areas (Portland, Seattle) are also getting super expensive; and I realize that people have different expenses, obligations, etc to the point where maybe $400k vs 200K does make a significant impact. Or hell, maybe you just are trying to save up as much as possible for retirement, which is also totally valid.
            As someone who makes $130K in LA, I already feel like I have way more money that I need or know what to do with. So if I imagine a scenario where someone says “You can make 200K, or work two jobs and make 400K,” I’d mostly just think *why on earth would I put myself through THAT?* and happily take the 200K.
            (Granted, I’m single/no kids and something like buying a home in Socal is not even in the cards at this point. So taken that way, I suppose I could see how squirrelling away a solid $250K/year for a couple of years would have an appeal.)

            Anyway, just sharing my opinion about the way the salary amount might change how I’d think about this question.

            1. David*

              I do live in Silicon Valley and while it’s true the cost of living is absurdly high compared to most other places, it’s not so high that a person with a $200k income would necessarily struggle to survive – at least, not a single person, though if I had to speculate, I’d guess that $200k could support a family as well. Personally, my own expenses probably add up to something like $45-50k per year, and there are definitely a lot of areas where I could cut back spending if I needed to – living in a less expensive apartment, buying cheaper groceries, scaling back charitable donations, etc. So I share your feeling of $200k seeming like plenty of money. Maybe some people are in a situation in which that amount of income is just enough to get by, but if so, that situation is disconnected enough from my experience that I can’t think of it.

            2. Sweet Christmas*

              Yeah, I make about $200K in the PNW and this doesn’t seem worth it to me either. I mean, yes the extra $200K even for just one year could have a huge impact, even be moderately life-changing. (Housing is expensive here!). But the prospect of working two director-level positions makes it totally not worth it IMO. I’m not judging anyone who doesn’t mind doing the bare minimum, but I personally would have a lot of anxiety about not being able to work up to my best.

              But yeah, if I was making $30K? I’d totally try this. I did try this when I was making $30K.

          3. Oakenfield*

            Yes, people wouldn’t be so jealous of you. OP, you do you. As long as you’re working to a good standard, I see absolutely nothing wrong with what you’re doing. But I’ve been a wage slave most of my own life and unlike others, don’t condone the system by keeping other people down. You go OP! Make that money and don’t look back.

          4. The Dogman*

            Yes, because then you would need the extra cash.

            As it is you don’t.

            And that is I think why you will get little sympathy here.

            In one sense fair enough you do it if you can get away with it, but in a more ethics focused sense it is pretty immoral, since you are effectively taking another workers job (which knocks on down the jobs chain to end up denying a poor person a job in an amorphous sense) and you can’t do an excellent job at both jobs even if you truely intend to do that.

            I would ask why you want to do this?

            You are getting $200k for effectively 20 hours unsupervised work per week… I would just do a lot more walking and hobbies with the spare cash and just work one job. Why work both anyway?

          5. hbc*

            Of course! Frankly, it’s because the people at the top are working 25 hours a week for their six figure salaries that the people working 40+ hours for a quarter of the money need to squeeze whatever they can get out of it.

            Plus, just from a practical perspective, people making $30K usually have more clear metrics for the difference between excelling, meeting expectations, and failing. When you’re being paid for something more nebulous, you’re essentially being relied on for a lot of your thoughts being dedicated to the job.

      5. Purely Allegorical*

        I do think in some way OP’s job being 200K and not 40K makes it unethical. If she’s in a strategic role, they’re paying her the big bucks to be putting more time into the planning, the thinking, the financial outreach, and to managing/coaching those underneath her. I know she said she has no direct reports, but she has dotted line reports and presumably has a lot of other people who need to interface with her.

        I just do not think it is possible for her to do right by the people she’s supposed to be supporting if half of her time is elsewhere. They are paying her to be completely focused on higher-level goals that affect the company as a whole.

        Not that 40K roles don’t involve strategy, but when you get to Director-level and Big Planning, you need to be totally focused. (And I would say the same thing if it were a 40K role that did involve this level of planning.)

        1. TechWorker*

          +1

          Is it possible to do enough that people don’t realise you’re not pulling your weight? Maybe. But if you hire someone for $200k you expect them to both manage their own time and also contribute at a high level. Just because you can get away with it doesn’t make it ok.

          1. Tau*

            And, like…

            This is the sort of level where it can become very hard for your direct boss (CEO?) to judge whether the output they’re getting is reasonable because they’re unfamiliar with exactly what you do and how long it should take. So they hire not just for someone competent, but for someone where their CV/references/interview indicates the integrity to give their best even without direct oversight, and assume that (beyond a certain level) whatever they produce is fine for the position.

            So what would happen in OP’s situation isn’t that the work falls on angry coworkers. It’s that in exec meetings, someone thinks “I was hoping we’d have gotten more of X done by now… but I guess that wasn’t a reasonable expectation, OP will have been doing all they can. It looks like we’ll have to delay Y project to next quarter.” Or similar. And if it ever comes out, OP’s reputation will be trashed beyond repair because it’s clear that they cannot be trusted to work in this sort of setup.

            (To some extent this can be true for software development in general. I’ve had some major dips in productivity due to WFH, which is a poor setup for me. As far as I can tell, nobody noticed. Because I’m trusted, so if I don’t get much done in a week my boss assumes “OK, this task must have been more complicated than expected”. And a lot of what we’re assessed on is less the direct coding output and more things like – how active are you in architectural discussions, what sort of solutions do you present, do you spearhead proposals and actively push them forward, etc., which if you’re a competent person who’s just not working all the hours they should be still all look fine. It would be… frighteningly easy to abuse this. I’m not planning to, because I have integrity.)

            1. Suzie safety*

              This really important when youre in a high level position everyones expectations change based on your behavior

            2. Alli*

              I had a manager once who was senior level and probably worked, if I could estimate it, 15-20 hours per week. This was mostly in-person work with 1-2 telework days per week, we had no infrastructure for online meetings if someone was offsite besides conference calls where everyone would be in a meeting and one person would be on a phone that you couldn’t really hear. From what I could tell, she was doing a combo of reading a book/childcare the other days of the week. Our work required us to have lots of cross-departmental team meetings, and because we had to schedule them around the days this person would be available, and that availability would often change, work got delayed. People had to pick up the slack who were making less than what she made (way, way, less). If you asked her, she was doing adequate and meeting all her deadlines- and the team was meeting all our deadlines, but she was at such a senior level none of us could tell her that we were meeting them in spite of her not because of her! If there’s no way your lack of working hours is impacting other people, then that’s fine. But I’m sure somewhere down the line it is.

        2. Loredena Frisealach*

          and yet some of the most underworked, bored because they don’t have enough to do to fill a 40 hour week people I know are Director level. The OP is in Tech, which is broad – I could easily see a role that’s at this level/salary but whose actual work is spike. Really intense for 2 hours a day, and nothing for the rest of it. But not at the VP/C-suite level that is truly where the strategic work happens.

    5. Spearmint*

      You seem to be judging the LW for society inequalities they don’t control? I get being offput by the reality of inequality but it’s not LW’s fault.

      And on the point about $200k. Well, I think sometimes people can deliver that much value in less than 40 hours a week. People are paid for the value of their work (or, at least, perceived value), not how much they work. There’s nothing magical about 40 hours a week.

      1. AndersonDarling*

        And when you get to director level roles, there is more of an emphasis on management and “ideas” rather than producing TPS reports. You are paid to make sure your team/division is performing well. If the OP has years of experience, they can probably spot problems immediately and correct them perfectly the first time. They could have so much skill that they accomplish 2x as much as the average director.

        1. Daisy-dog*

          Yes, the pay rate is set for the knowledge & years of experience, not for the amount of time they actually are sitting in front of a computer.

          (The ethical dilemma of why only some jobs are highly paid because of their knowledge & years of experience still exists.)

      2. Despachito*

        Yes, exactly this!

        If OP were a freelancer, this would be a natural thing and nobody would question it.

        As a freelancer, I get X amount of work, with a deadline on Friday. If I am able to have it ready by Wednesday, I can choose either to twiddle my thumbs or to take another work on Thursday, and nobody will bat an eyelid. As long as I deliver spotless work, nobody cares. And I am getting quicker with experience, with maintaining the same quality.

        1. Nanani*

          I tried to describe the exact same thing in another reply.
          I’m interested in why, exactly, it’s so bad.

          IF OP is correct that no one cares about their specific hours, and they really can deliver quality work for both jobs, and there isn’t anything in their employment contract stating otherwise, which are all things they said and we are supposed to take OPs at their word, then what exactly is the problem?

          “It violates the norm” isn’t strong enough to convince me.
          They’re not scamming. They’re not stealing. It doesn’t sound like they lied to either job.

          And yet I’m not 100% convinced it really is okay, but its hard to say why.

          1. SimplytheBest*

            It’s bad for the same reason cheating is bad but polyamory isn’t. It’s about who’s in the know.

            1. Tea and Cake*

              The polyamory analogy isn’t convincing for me. The LW’s obligations between an employment situation and personal relationships are too different in my mind.

              For example, I need not disclose my “off the clock” activity to my employer. They need not disclose to me all strategy/company endeavors. There’s much in the employment relationship that is based on need to know status and who my work is benefitting and how. Maybe I’m overly cynical but employment is usually in service to a bottom line from which I gain monetary compensation for my efforts. I need not be included in all of the information about the performance of the other employees/entire office in order to be effective. Personal relationships are…not established in the same way.

          2. Tea and Cake*

            I’m in the same boat with you. There appears to be no company policy (at either company) to disclose other employment, no exclusivity required by either company, I don’t care about the salary number because it’s not impactful in the ethics question in my mind, but it feels a little weird and I cannot put my finger on why.

            I’m probably about 95% totally on board, seems ethically fine, but I can’t shake the 5% “huh. Seems weird.” part.

          3. Sweet Christmas*

            First of all, I’m skeptical that the job really doesn’t care about the hours. I work in a similar tech job making a similar salary, and my job also theoretically “doesn’t care” how many hours I’m working as long as I “get my work done.” But at that level, what “get your work done” means is more expansive and nebulous than an entry-level role. If I did only exactly what my manager told me to do, I would be considered to be underperforming – because a director-level role is about using your knowledge and expertise to lead/direct your org whether your a people manager or not. It’s in the title: director.

            But it’s also because in reality of course the hours work. For example, if I only worked 4 pm to 12 am, my job would be unhappy. Sure, I’m still putting in 8 hours a day – but part of my job is to be available to others during core business hours. I find it hard to believe that there is a director-level tech job (especially in finance) that doesn’t care about this. Or if I was consistently only working 2-3 hours a week, I feel like my manager would notice – not because I wouldn’t be getting the bare minimum done satisfactorily but because I don’t get paid $200K a year with a director level title to just push out widgets.

      3. Butterfly Counter*

        I think where I come down is that the OP is now in a position where she CAN possibly start to make needed changes for those inequalities (that she herself has experienced) in her field. I know, by going through the struggle to finally get where you are able to “get yours,” how tempting it can be just to reap the benefits you fought to achieve. But so many are still struggling and may never get to that level. Maybe now is the time to use the extra hours in the week to figure out how to use the power and influence she has to make downstream changes to benefit others.

    6. Empress Matilda*

      This is interesting. My first thought was as long as it’s between the individual and each of their employers, it’s more of a logistical challenge than an ethical one. Whether or not it’s sustainable in the long term is another question. But as long as the individual is meeting their expectations in both workplaces, I don’t think it’s inherently unethical from that standpoint.

      But you’re right – there’s a lot more at stake here than just the individual and their employers. From an equity perspective, it does matter that they’re potentially taking a job from another person. And this:

      people who are struggling in lower-income positions are the ones that would need the flexibility to work 2 jobs, but they’re micro-managed and worked to the bone and aren’t given that flexibility

      – this is a societal problem more than an individual one, and it’s not necessarily up to any given individual to solve it. But what is each person’s obligation to at least not perpetuate it?

      I guess from a purely capitalistic perspective, where we’re all in it for ourselves – eh, you do you. But if we want a more equitable society in general, each individual’s actions do matter, and it becomes a lot more problematic in that light.

      1. Spearmint*

        But how does it perpetuate they systemic issues? If the LW took only one job instead of two, that would do absolutely nothing to benefit marginalized people who have to work multiple jobs with micro-managing bosses.

      2. Eden*

        I don’t understand this thinking at all. How does “individual’s actions do matter” lead to calling this “problematic” because others can’t do it? Is it unethical to go to the doctor even though others don’t have paid sick time or health insurance? Suffering isn’t noble and doesn’t help people with less privilege.

        1. Empress Matilda*

          Replying to both Spearmint and Eden – I don’t know! I wrestle with that a lot, actually – as a privileged person in an inequitable society, what are my responsibilities to less privileged people? Advocacy and financial help, certainly. But if I take advantage of the system to my own benefit – am I contributing to the inequity? I think yes – it’s not a neutral action. But at the same time, if I genuinely need whatever benefits are being offered, there’s no moral value in turning them down just because others don’t have equal access.

          1. Eden*

            Thank you for explaining where you are coming from. I don’t agree with your thinking but I see what you are saying.

        2. Annie*

          Well, I would point out that these aren’t imaginary “others,” out in some system that the OP doesn’t have an influence on. There are others who are very likely directly impacted: “I don’t have any direct reports, but have awesome teammates who dotted-line report to me and who I can rely on to accomplish day-to-day activities.”

          The argument isn’t that it’s unfair because others “can’t” do it – the argument is that it’s unfair because the reason those others could never do it is that they are producing elements of the work that go into the OP’s ability to say their job is done at the end of the day.

    7. Environmental Compliance*

      I can’t say I’m very impressed either.

      However, I’m not sure they don’t need to work full time to meet objectives. They’ve been there for a month! That’s barely enough time to get used to things. Of course you could meet objectives in the first month… the expectation will be that you’re still settling in.

      I really, really doubt that they will be able to meet future objectives, especially in context with each job having a 25% travel requirement.

    8. Dino Star*

      I agree. I can give leeway to someone who actually needs two low paying jobs at the same time to keep a roof over their head. Taking on two six-figure jobs is way different, just sounds greedy. Do some unpaid volunteer remote work if you’re so bored at your director level job.

    9. Roscoe*

      Most what you are upset about isn’t on the writer, its on the companies and capitalism in general. As far as “greed” i mean, we don’t know where they live, what their family circumstances are, etc. 400k isn’t “low” anywhere, but in some places its definitely a lot more than other places. So if she lives in San Franscisco, has a few children (maybe one in college), and is the primary earner, its not that absurd to think its “getting by”

    12. Aquawoman*

      I don’t agree with your first point per se. There are people who are indecisive, overthinkers, or micromanagers who might “need” 40 hours to do the same job that someone else can do in 25. Why should they be paid more for that? The entity is looking for outcomes. If the work is getting done and it benefits the company X amount and it takes skills, compensation is mainly about the skills and the outcome, not the amount of time put in.

    13. kittymommy*

      I didn’t think about this initially, but while in theory the salary shouldn’t affect my opinion (FTR I think it’s unethical) it does seem more icky because of the higher wage.

    14. Avril Ludgateau*

      I’m bothered because I feel like this one scenario is literally the manufactured fear that so many old-school mentalities rely on in their crusade against WFH/remote work. They expect that their employees are dishonest and unethical, and that they’re doing things exactly like the OP.

      This kind of “controversy'” could, seen by the wrong superiors, result in the rescission of remote work in a company.

      1. Avril Ludgateau*

        Tangentially: I think the 40 hour workweek is (frankly, always has been) outdated, and the bar for “full time” should be lowered (of course, how do we accomplish this without further depressing wages?)

        In a context where 25 hours a week is the standard/expectation, I would not be so dismayed.

      2. Yessica Haircut*

        Thank you for making this point. I completely agree. If this ever comes out (and I have to imagine that’s inevitable), the OP is not just risking her own reputation, but the employee-friendly WFH policies at BOTH companies.

    15. Anonymous in PDX*

      Initially i was right there with you. I come from primarily NGO/local government jobs. $200K each? Spread the wealth a little for someone who may need a $200K job…. BUT my spouse works in cybersecurity and makes about the same as OP and most of his days is filled with naps and computer games…..learning from him its all about his value and the knowledge and skills he can bring to the company and industry….next time there is a global cyber threat– he’s working long hours and saving the world per say.

    16. Eman*

      Yeah. Similar shocked feeling when I saw it’s two $200k a year jobs, that’s a huge amount of money and it doesn’t seem like either org is getting the full attention they ought to for that much money

      I’m sure of this comes from jealousy at earning half of what one of those jobs pays, with no ability to shirk the current job to work another one. (Not that the OP is necessarily shirking but it feels wrong to this 40 something year old)

  7. Ali G*

    While I don’t inherently disagree with Alison, this definitely gave me pause: “they are Director level positions bringing in $200k each.”
    That is really a signal that these positions are intended to have the full attention of a very experienced person in an important role to the company. $200k is a lot of money! You are being well-compensated because these are important positions that require your full attention.
    If you were say, doing software development at the tune of ~75k per year for each, my opinion would be way different. I think this borders a little more into unethical territory due to the high level of these positions.

    1. honey cowl*

      Not your point, but if you are making 75k for software development, you are deeply, deeply underpaid and should get a new job!! Just one new job would double your earnings, much less 2 new jobs.

      1. elena*

        Hm, starting salaries for new graduates posted by the tech bootcamps around here are all in the $60k range. It’s a lower CoL city, sure, but that’s true even for various national programs. Does it increase so quickly?

        1. Spearmint*

          Entry level software development jobs in my city seem to go for $70k-$80. I’ve heard of people in Silicon Valley itself making six figures right out of college, but not in other parts of the country.

          (Not a developer myself, but I have many friends in the industry)

          1. Elenna*

            My sister works for a Silicon Valley tech company and yes, she was offered six figures right out of university. (And then COVID hit and she had to stay in Canada and they redid her contract based on Canadian salary bands, so it wasn’t six figures anymore, but still pretty close.)

          2. Ingrid*

            I just started an entry-level tech job this year, in a medium CoL area, and I was offered $100k base + $25k per year in stock. It’s a large company, but that’s about what I was expecting. My husband is in software engineering with 7 years experience and he makes $170k + ~$200k in stock.

            1. Just an autistic redhead*

              Huh. Now I kinda want to request one of those salary survey threads from Alison ^_^

          3. Anonymousaurus Rex*

            My brother got a job at a certain Seattle-based company right out of college as a junior developer and is paid in the 6 figures, plus a 5 figure signing bonus. He makes more than I do and I’m 15 years older than he is and have a PhD!

            1. Cat named Brian*

              Son is the same. 6 figures +5 figure signing. Stock options and opportunity to increase pay by year end, right out of undergrad. 22 years old. In Seattle. Wonder if they are working for the same company.

        2. dresscode*

          My husband graduated from a code bootcamp in Nov. 2017. He started as an apprentice making 50k right out the gate with no experience. Spent two years at that job, ended up with 65k when he left. Left from another company making 95K. Left that job in June, now making 150k as a lead. AND we live in a medium sized city that has a low COL. So… yeah.

          I could write pages about the whiplash I’ve felt with our relatively sudden increase in income. It’s been a blessing. Anyway- tech is where it’s at.

        3. honey cowl*

          Entry level salary at a medium+ company should be over 100. I make 135 base + 40-60 a year in stock in a mountain west city, 6 years of experience but 10 years out of college (unrelated degree, this was a career switch).

        4. TheseOldWings*

          My husband graduated from a bootcamp in 2018 and started at $60k. He now makes about $85k at the same company. I keep trying to persuade him to get a new job because I do think he’s underpaid.

          1. dresscode*

            He’s definitely underpaid. If he opened the LinkedIn floodgates by saying recruiters can contact him, he would likely be FLOODED with calls. It’s a feeding frenzy, to the great benefit of tech workers.

    2. BugSwallowersAnonymous*

      Yeah I agree with this take. In general I think companies should move more towards a model of focusing on goals and objectives with less attention to hours worked – rather than our current model of paying for 40 hr/week where the idea is that they kind of own all of your available working time. However, in this case it sounds like having that full attention could be important to both jobs because they are senior level and paying so much.

    3. Code Monkey, the SQL*

      I think that’s where I’m leaning too – I make about $55k doing data support/analysis/governance (yes, I’m underpaid). But for that money, when things go wrong, I kick it up the chain to people who are billing double or triple of me, and expect that they are there to do the off-hours, the complicated questions, and the soothing-of-upset-clients.

      If my $200k/yr boss was unavailable to do things like that because they were busy at their second $200k job, and I found out? My morale would tank, and I have a feeling a lot of other folks’ would too.

      1. Two Chairs, One to Go*

        I agree. If I found out someone who was a director at my company was working another full time second director job, that would be a huge hit to morale. I’d wonder why they were doing it, was something wrong with our company that they were privy to and I wasn’t, etc.

        I can’t quite put into words why I think this is a bad idea but I’d be okay with it if they were and individual contributor.

      2. SaaSsy*

        That’s where I land… I wouldn’t have minded picking up another analyst position a few years ago and juggling those, but where I’m starting to be more senior and in leadership I can’t imagine kicking inevitable issues down to one of my directs or peers. It’s just wildly unfair to let the slack fall there and morale is going to be a problem.

        (Also I enjoy your handle, Code Monkey – and yeah, wildly underpaid!)

    4. Jax*

      I had a different reaction–the title and salary immediately made me think, “Administrative Bloat.”

      Coupled with the fact that the OP can do both Director jobs at around 50 hours per week, and I’m firmly in Camp Bloat. Clearly, this is not an important position *to getting work done* but a position that someone climbs to and then kicks back to enjoy their past successes.

      I, myself, am not outraged by this. I’ve felt very “Eat the Rich” the past 6 months, and like Alison, I’m surprised to find myself here. I read this and chuckle grimly.

      1. Spearmint*

        Well, there’s another explanation, which is that because LW’s roles are high level and strategic, the results of their work may only become apparent over the long term. Many of these roles involve initiating and leading projects that take months or years to complete.

      2. Guacamole Bob*

        I think administrative bloat is one possibility here. The other is that OP is only a month in and can’t actually do both of these jobs in 50 hours a week, at least not well and not without shirking work that ends up with colleagues.

    5. middlemgmt*

      Agree, i feel like that changes the math. It would also depend, to me, whether the company had explicit “core hours” and if you’re supposed to be available for your colleagues during those hours, versus being able to get your work done on any schedule. if I wasn’t getting responses from a co-worker or they were all delayed, and found out it was because they were working else where and my question/need was “less urgent” than the other job, I’d be pretty annoyed. that’s impacting my own job now. Even if, on a cosmic scale, the other job’s task was more truly urgent, that’s not your call to make, in this circumstance. That’s supposed to be the real difference between freelancer/contractor and employee. You’re treating these jobs like a freelance/contract position where you have the option to prioritize those job, but the company believes your acting like an employee where their work should always come first, and you’re not.

    6. AndersonDarling*

      I went in the opposite direction. The best directors have loads of experience and they know how to spot and handle problems. The’ve experienced it all before. $200k doesn’t necessarily buy time, it buys a person with the skills and experience to be efficient. The more efficient they are, the less they need to work because they eliminate problems.
      It’s a proportional quandary.

    7. Purely Allegorical*

      I completely 100% agree. I also wonder if OP is perhaps not doing as well as she thinks she is — I wonder what her colleagues would say about her attention and focus in a couple months. Something for her to keep an eye/ear on.

      1. OP*

        Agree with you! I like to think I’m self-aware but am not more so than the next person…so I’ve been actively seeking feedback.

    9. AC4Life*

      More importantly, every time I’ve stepped into this kind of role I’ve started slow and then ramped up quickly as I became a trusted SME. High performance when tenure is counted in weeks won’t be high anymore at the one year mark.

    10. Beth*

      This gave me pause as well. Not least because the OP acknowledges that they’re taking a job that could be going to another person, and simply waves that away with “but in this job market…”

      In any job market, there are a super limited number of high level roles that pay that much! Even if we assume that OP is somehow able to meet every requirement for both jobs to a high level, this still feels selfish and unethical to me on that point alone. I’m sure there are plenty of people out there who are qualified for and interested in these roles but haven’t gotten one, and here OP is putting in half time with two of them. Even if that’s enough to meet expectations, it’s not a good look.

      And imagine if this comes out. We’re used to directors being relatively highly compensated compared to the average worker in the same company, of course. But it would be quite a morale hit to realize that not only is your director making a lot more than you, he ALSO has time to double dip with ANOTHER director role for double the income, while you’re working this one full-time job and probably keeping quite busy with it.

      I’d have a lot fewer concerns about a low- or mid-level employee doing this, but framing this as employees sticking it to the man doesn’t really work when the employee in question is a director.

  8. Albeira Dawn*

    I assume your employers aren’t competitors? Are there any overlapping interests that could cause a conflict?

    1. Eldritch Office Worker*

      OP says “The companies are not competitors, suppliers, or customers of each other.”

      1. Sola Lingua Bona Lingua Mortua Est*

        OP says “The companies are not competitors, suppliers, or customers of each other.”

        I know that’s supposed to be “better”, but it feels even worse to me. Hypothetically, if I took another job in my industry, I’d at least know the lay of the land, governing laws, precedent, etc. But if I kept my current job and got another in a completely different industry, I can see it being hard to keep a firewall between the two environments in my head (and by extension in my work). I’d be even less useful to each employer.

        1. Guacamole Bob*

          Eh, it’s Silicon Valley. It’s entirely possible to be qualified for strategic roles in two different 50-person software companies where the software product is aimed at two entirely different purposes and markets. Like one company does bill pay software for physician’s offices and the other does lunch account management for school districts or nonprofit website fundraising integration or something.

      2. Albeira Dawn*

        Oh true, I missed that. There could still be high level issues, especially concerning strategy, that might pit one company against another.

  9. Person from the Resume*

    LW is averaging 50 hrs a week so putting in about 25 hours a week in each if he’s evenly splitting his time. And getting paid $200K for each job.

    I think each company expects to get at least 40 hours of work out of him so they would feel they’re being deceived by LW.

    It is hard, though, because with workers like this could just be that
    – “LW does stellar work but he does it slowly.
    – “He’s not a quick on the turnaround as the last guy.”
    – “We expected him to work faster so he could help on X, but he never has the time for X or doing extra.”

    That is something LW could get feedback on, but it could just be something they put up with because they think he’s slow or not proactive about picking up other stuff when he’s actually working for another company.

    I do think it’s unethical.

    1. Nevadah*

      At that level the companies more likely expect 50-60 hours of work. That’s about what I put in at the same exact job level.

      2. NYWeasel*

        I came to post that too. All the directors I know either work crazy hours or they are intensely busy during their 40 hour work week.

    2. nona*

      I don’t even think the company needs to expect 40 hours of work/product, but they are definitely paying to reserve (at least) 40hrs of his time every week. And if there is stuff that can’t be time shifted (because each job has core hours), he is essentially selling the same set of hours (or at least a subset) to each company. Or selling the expectation of the same set of hours. And neither of your employers have consented to share that time.

      Especially with upper management positions – what fiduciary type duties or responsibilities are there to put the company’s interest above that of another company’s? That’s more of an issue when there are direct conflicts of interest, but if you are selling your time to two places, you *are* creating a conflict of interest and not giving your full (work day) availability, which was the implied promise when the company hired you and paid you money.

      I don’t think this means the company owns ALL your time, but if you have two jobs that have the same schedule/core hours, you’re selling the same bridge twice. You are selling the same units of capacity, not additional capacity. Just because the first employer isn’t using all the capacity, doesn’t mean you get to sell it to someone else to use without telling the first employer you are doing that. So…I guess if both employers were aware, I’d have less of an issue.

      Mostly, I just don’t think its sustainable. OP is going to burn out – either from too much work, or keeping secrets, or living a double work life. Something is going to slip and something is going to get missed.

      2. Willis*

        You articulated a lot of my thoughts on this. I get that OP’s jobs have metrics other than hours worked, but I agree that employers generally assume (fairly, I would say) that they are purchasing your full capacity when they hire and pay you to to do a full time job. But your last paragraph is really what I agree with. The fact that it’s worked for month at the beginning is not particularly indicative of how it would work long term, especially if you start to throw travel into the mix.

    3. OP*

      Now I REALLY wish I would have stated that I’m a woman in tech… some people have seen the $ and have been assuming male?
      I wonder if this would have unconsciously changed peoples’ responses?

      1. Purely Allegorical*

        Knowing you’re a woman does not change my opinion. I still think it’s unethical, given the duties you describe.

        I’d be curious what your colleagues might have to say about your time and attention in a couple months. If all the comments here today are confusing or contradict each other, your colleagues are the place to pay attention — might be worth asking for a 360 degree review in six months, to see what might be slipping as you try to burn both ends of the candle.

      2. MissElizaTudor*

        Yeah, it’s interesting to see how many people went to he/him pronouns for you on this one. My perception is that it’s more than usual.

        I think people would say it wouldn’t change their stance, but it does interrupt the image that a lot of people seem to have built in their heads of what kind of a person would do this.

        1. OP*

          For sure. Both the amount of money made and my gender, I would assume, shouldn’t matter. But truthfully we come into this with our own experiences and biases which matter a lot, a little, or not at all when analyzing a potential ethical situation. I am so grateful for people taking time on their thoughtful perspectives and interesting points of view. It’s giving me a ton to consider.

      3. Eldritch Office Worker*

        I mean you made it as a high level woman in tech and if you’re found out this reflects badly on women in tech. You are under no 0bligation to consider that, and the reality of it sucks, but I don’t think being a woman works in your favor. I am totally with you on sticking it to the people who stuck it to you. But that’s idealistic.

      4. Lorine*

        OP, one internet stranger to another, this is going to fall apart and it will be ugly and career-ruining when it does. Quit one of these jobs while you’re still ahead.

      5. teapot analytics manager*

        It makes me wonder if I worked for you, at one point.

        Because I, too, had a director who was rarely available (if you’re working 25 hours a week per job, that is rarely available) and left things to me and her other direct reports to handle. We struggled along because we didn’t have someone at that leadership level to coordinate with other departments to ensure that we had the buy-in for our initiatives and authority to request the work we needed for other areas. It was a nightmare.

        That may not matter to you OP, but what might matter is that every single person at the organization knew how bad a job our director was doing. You might be getting by with it now, but the impression you are leaving on everyone’s minds will remain. I’d be concerned about your reputation in the future, director-level positions in tech are part of a surprisingly small pool of people and gossip travels.

      8. KuklaRed*

        Your gender is completely irrelevant here. I am also a company director in tech and I cannot imagine doing this to my employer. It seems like you are seriously slacking on both jobs – I work 60+ hours every week, between meetings and work on various projects. If you find yourself not filling the days I think you are doing it wrong and doing serious disservice to both companies.

      9. nona*

        I defaulted to male, because who that’s who I think of when I think of people who think they are entitled to two full time sr mgmt jobs because “how hard could that be”. And the overconfidence to think that “of course I can do this.”

        Gender does not have anything to do with the ethics or feasability of this. Although…now that I think about it, it feels more gross on a visceral level, because I would hope you would have been more aware than your male colleagues of how hard it is for women to break into upper management, and you are now sitting in *2* of those seats, when the other opportunity could have gone to another women or minority. I realize that’s not a guarantee that another women or minority would have been hired, but you are blocking someone else from gaining/providing their expertise at that level. It’s not like it would be self-sacrificing to not take 2 jobs – it’s just a normal expectation to only take one senior mgmt job at a time.

        1. hbc*

          Ha, that’s exactly why I went male too. My “I get my job done” high level person was a guy who spent most of the extra time at the lake house rather than on a second job, and he was sure he was getting everything done. Everyone knew better when he claimed that he brought work home with him, he would drop “strategies” on the team and just wait for the little people to make them happen, and I was easily able to do his job and mine when he resigned before the jig was entirely up.

          There were no obvious balls dropped because he delegated most things and people eventually stopped waiting for him on the rest.

        2. Yessica Haircut*

          To me, the greatest harm done by OP as a senior leader in tech who’s a woman is not that OP is taking up two spots, one of which could go to someone else. It’s that when this inevitably blows up in her face, her companies will likely say, “well, we TRIED hiring a female director, but she did something hugely unethical, so experiment failed! Time to go back to the same white men we’ve always hired.”

          I don’t believe in respectability politics or people from marginalized communities needing to be some kind of “ambassador” for their demographic–but I think OP has a moral imperative to consider how her very bad judgment here could go on to harm other women in tech. This isn’t the exhausting expectation of “do twice the work of any man to show your worth in the workplace.” It’s “don’t misrepresent yourself and commit a major ethics violation when your male-dominated industry has cracked its door open to you, a woman in tech leadership.”

          OP isn’t shattering the glass ceiling here; she’s carefully piecing shards back together with a hot glue gun. Don’t be an Elizabeth Holmes here, OP.

          1. Yessica Haircut*

            (To clarify my first sentence, I’m not a senior leader in tech myself. That was just meant to refer to OP. I realize the wording is a little confusing. But I am a mid-level manager in a technical field who would love the door to senior leadership to stay open to me!)

      10. Beth*

        You know what, I did assume you were a man, I think because this is an arrogant enough move that I assumed you must be. I’ll take the correction on that front.

        This is still wrong to do at the director level. If you were entry-level, or a mid-level individual contributor, go for it. But at the level you’re at, honestly, I think this is a shitty thing to do.

      11. Tali*

        It is very frustrating to see you use your gender, the economy, what other companies have done elsewhere in the past and other irrelevant factors as justification for your actions.

        If you believe you are behaving ethically, fine. But you don’t get a pass for a free “immoral action card” just because you’re a woman in tech, or because capitalism.

    4. Urbanchic*

      The flag to me is that the OP is declining or rescheduling meetings and travel due to the commitments from the competing jobs. In these roles you are paid in part due to availability. Now, there are a lot of non-work reasons why a person may request a trip or meeting be rescheduled – maybe a family commitment, a vacation, etc. But if this is happening weekly/frequently, I don’t think its ethical for the employee to force each employer to flex to accommodate the other employer. There’s also the issue that one employer may feel as if they are subsidizing the work of the other employer if one job is getting less time or attention than another. OP, am sure you thought of this, just make sure you’re following federal guidelines when it comes to retirement match programs, and each of your employers may have guidance on insurance benefits (some require that you not have the ability to get benefits elsewhere before you can access the plan – not sure how that works if you are getting benefits through another employer as opposed to thru a partner’s plan). You’ll also overpay significantly on social security, yet will owe more federal taxes than job with holds. Am sure you worked through all of this with your accountant.

      1. Vanderlyle CB*

        Yes, this! I think it will be either a tax issue or insurance issue that will disclose the OP’s situation.

    5. Pobody’s Nerfect*

      It’s been my experience that no employer gets 40 hours out of any full time employee. Someone above commented they only work 5-8 hours in their 40 hour week. The full time people I work with do maybe 10 hours of actual work, if that. But yet they draw a full time salary & benefits. It’s unfair and unethical of the employee but also the employer and managers to let that continue to happen.

  10. FrenchCusser*

    There may be ‘no shortage of jobs out there’, but there are definitely a shortage of $200,000/year jobs. Sure, poor people generally have to work 2-3 jobs to survive, but this just strikes me as greedy.

    1. Lady Catherine de Bourgh*

      Generally the people working 2-3 jobs to survive aren’t going to be qualified for the $200k jobs.

      1. Dr. Anon*

        That seems like an unnecessarily unkind take to me. Many people find themselves in a position where they must accept work that underpays them, regardless of qualifications or credentials.

        But if that is your primary view of the situation: OP apparently isn’t qualified for a $400k job, so what do you say to that?

        1. Lady Catherine de Bourgh*

          I’m not quite following. My point is just that it’s not as though the LW taking these jobs is directly taking them away from someone else who is currently working multiple jobs to survive.

      2. Stevie*

        In an academic exercise sort of way, you could argue that there would be a trickle-down effect (so sorry) here, though, i.e. the addition of a new $200k job could allow someone making slightly less to move up and so on. That being said, I doubt everything would happen so neatly.

      3. Myrin*

        I know you said “generally” but I just want to point out that there are people here on this very board – I’m talking about myself but I’m assuming there might be others as well – who are in exactly that situation.

        I have a master’s (I actually worked on my doctorate for three years but dropped out) and yet because of an unfortunate combination of a cancer diagnosis, the affects covid’s had on my general field, and a general change in career plans largely because of those two things, meaning I now, at age 30, have the not-completely-but-at-least-somewhat wrong experience for what I want to do, I’m muddling through by earning between 600 and 800 euros a month (roughly 695 to 926 dollars, and that’s before taxes) working two manually hard and pretty thankless parttime jobs (which I like, don’t get me wrong; but I would like working somewhere where I can earn more and actually use my years-long training much more).

        I know you aren’t generally wrong and certainly I’m just mentally exhausted right now because I’m in a flurry of applying for jobs in my field I know I would be qualified for where I could at least earn something like 2000€/month but nothing ever seems to work in my favour but I can’t help but feel a little crabby about comments like this.

      4. Wilbur*

        There’s a lot of workers between people that have 2-3 jobs to survive and people who have $200k jobs. There’s not always a lot of room to move up at companies. At my company you can see a whole chain of people get shuffled around into new opportunities because one person got a new job. Sometimes these are promotions, sometimes it’s lateral moves for development. That’s bad for those workers, and bad for the employer.

        Part of whats mentioned is the OP has other, non-direct reports that can handle some of the slack. This could mean OP is handling 80% of 2 jobs and his non-direct reports are overburdened.

        I’d also say to think long term-what does happen if these companies find out and you lose your job? Are you going to be able to get a $200k/year job after the decline to provide a reference?

    3. Dr. Anon*

      Yeah, I can’t get past that “no shortage of jobs out there” comment, as a PhD who has spent the last few years massively underemployed while looking for a stable job that might pay me what many people would think of as basically entry-level salary. Why is one $200k/year position not enough for the OP? When I have worked more than 1 job when teaching, the employers were aware of the other position(s) due to the restraints it put upon my availability. And they knew that the reason I was working additional jobs was that they were not paying a livable wage.

    4. Anne of Green Gables*

      Yeah, I got to that part and thought, “$200,000 director-level jobs are not the ones that are staying open.” I realize that’s not the ethics conundrum, but I also feel like LW is dismissive of this particular element.

      1. OP*

        I hate that I sounded dismissive. I truly realize how fortunate I am to make this amount and that it’s ridiculously more than most. But I still don’t think we should put an arbitrary number out there… i don’t know the exact multiplier but if CEOs can make a significant x% more than everyone else, and still try to make more, why isn’t that enough? Most people strive to increase their pay throughout their careers.

        1. Dara*

          Yeah but CEOs try to increase their salaries by increasing the value of the company – their pay is supposed to reflect that. Not saying it always does, but that’s the idea.

          Most people try to increase their pay by getting promoted (thereby increasing the value they bring to the company), not by working two high-level jobs under the table.

          Unclear how you could be substantially increasing the value of the companies you’re working for in 25 hours a week. Also really unclear to me why one person would need two $200k jobs. Is $200k really not enough?

        2. Avril Ludgateau*

          i don’t know the exact multiplier but if CEOs can make a significant x% more than everyone else, and still try to make more, why isn’t that enough? Most people strive to increase their pay throughout their careers.

          I don’t know if or how you have remained shielded from this discussion, or if you are being disingenuous, but there is a lot – A LOT – of critical discussion about executive pay, the proportion by which it exceeds the wages of labor, and whether this is justifiable, moral, ethical, or even sustainable. Especially on the topic of billionaires… And this isn’t a post-COVID dialectic, either. This has been part of a growing capitalism-critical zeitgeist that emerged post mid-aughts recession.

          And “but other people exploit the system, so why can’t I?” is not, in and of itself, an argument in favor of your ethical choices.

    5. mreasy*

      I’m interested in this because the high salary seems to be the sticking point. If OP was a single parent doing this but each job was $30k and half of their combined salary went to childcare, it would be different and nobody would be calling them greedy. But where do we draw the line? What total salary amount makes this “greedy” or taking a good job off the market?

      1. Purely Allegorical*

        It’s not about the salary, for me. It’s about the particular duties involved here, which tend to come with the higher salary (but not always). OP is being paid to manage Big Strategy — that is a role where I think it’s unethical to only be devoting 25/40 hours. 38% of her time is going to other things. That’s a pretty big number.

        1. Yessica Haircut*

          This! If you work a lower level role, where your manager is assigning you chunks of project work, you have a really clear sense of whether you’re performing up to snuff in that role. It all comes down to: did you check all your boxes for that week? I still wouldn’t approve of someone working two full-time jobs simultaneously in that situation, but at least you’d be more likely to be pulling your weight and fulfilling your job duties. But in a role like this, with much less oversight and a focus on strategy, the assumption is that you are hiring an expert to devote their full attention to new strategies/methods/approaches. It may even be a situation where no one has in the company has the subject matter knowledge to evaluate whether OP is doing a good job, but just trusts that she’s doing her best.

      2. Sick of the Pandemic*

        When you’re making enough money to comfortably provide for your family, and you’re still sneaking around to get more, that’s when it gets greedy. Unless you have 9 kids you don’t need a $200k salary let alone a $400k salary.

    6. MicroManagered*

      Yeah I was surprised Alison didn’t point this out. By holding 2 jobs for $200k each, you are essentially taking that money from another person/family.

  11. Person*

    The part that gets me here is that both jobs OP agreed to work for are full time, which typically means they expect your focus for ~40 hours a week. However, OP is averaging ~50 hours for both, which strikes me as way less than what they agreed to do. Sure, you can make the argument that if you’re getting your assigned work done, but in all jobs that I have, once you’re done with your assigned work, the expectation is that you’d find something else to do or ask for more work to fill the time so you’re not just getting paid to sit around. Obviously there is some exception to this, like no one would expect you to request more work at 4pm on a Friday, but unless this job is one where finding more stuff to work on isn’t the expectation, this strikes me as unethical.

    1. lunchtime caller*

      Especially with a high level, highly paid job, a lot of what you’re being paid for is big picture thinking, not just the day to day fires! So right now things might be running fine, but when it comes time to steer the ship in more creative ways the lack of time for that big picture thinking/planning is going to come back to bite.

      1. Empress Matilda*

        Although, if we go back to yesterday’s letter about dream-time problem solving, this might actually be to the OP’s benefit. It’s possible that by switching tasks like this, they’re moving problem solving for job A to the back of their mind while they do the actual work of Job B, and vice versa. And the creativity they’re developing in the background might be applicable to both jobs.

        This is called “slow motion multitasking.” There’s a really interesting TED talk about this (A Powerful Way to Unleash Your Creativity, by Tim Harford.) Also the book “Range” by David Epstein, which is about the benefits of working as a generalist rather than a specialist.

    2. J*

      You’ve stated what I was having trouble with. I have never, ever had a professional job that included 40 hours of “assigned” work. It has always been more like “here are the projects we currently have running,” and then I have looked around and figured out what to do next. Improve processes? Start a new project? Look back and evaluate past projects? Help out my coworkers who are slammed? Hell, even organizing and filing.

      In a position like this, there really shouldn’t be a lot of true down time. It’s not like you’re the receptionist and you’re paid to wait around until someone needs to be buzzed in, or a shift worker who is there to stock shelves until 5:00 sharp, and if there are no pallets to unload you get to sit down.

      1. Anonymoose*

        Your first paragraph describes my life. My job is similar to OP’s in title and pay, and it’s more than full-time and involves a lot of strategic planning, project coordination, crisis management, and just generally making sure things work well and continue to be relevant to our customer base and organization. I also have a half-dozen direct reports and a total of about 50 people in my department. My boss provides direction and feedback but generally expects me to be planning and pitching to her.

    3. Spearmint*

      I disagree. I rarely work anywhere close to 40 hours a week, and many of my friends who have office jobs say they don’t either. In fact, studies show people usually only work 4 hours per day in an average full-time job. The idea we need to be laser focused for 40 hours a week all day every day is anachronistic at best.

      1. Person*

        I did say focused, but not laser focused. What I mean here isn’t that you should spend exactly 40 hours a week working/thinking about the job. Obviously people take breaks, spend time talking with coworkers, etc (and if they don’t, they should probably rethink either the way they do their job, or if they should find another one where that’s possible)

        But if say for example, you have 1 full time job, for which with all your breaks and other things, you’re only getting like 4 hours of actual work done per day. Assuming you work 5 days a week, this is 20 hours a week.

        OP works 50 hours a week. If we split this in half and assume 25 hours a week per job, how much of this time do you think is actually spent doing work? because I doubt it’s the full 25 hours. Even with two full time jobs, you’re still going to be taking breaks and doing other things, just like you are right now, and the amount of time you spend actually working on each job is going to be less than the amount you’d spend if you only had one job.

        1. OP*

          Actually I did mean 50 hours of actual work, not including breaks etc. I’m being ticky tack maybe, but wanted to clarify anyway.

          1. UShoe*

            So how many hours do you spend “at work”? (I understand you’re remote) I think that’s kind of important.

      2. Analytical Tree Hugger*

        Well, in my job, we are online for 40+ hours. Much of that time is in meeting and we often joke/complain that we can’t get any work done because we’re in meetings. So, are those studies and anecdotes reflecting time spent “on/engaged in some work activity (i.e., including meetings)” or are they estimates of time spent “producing = working”?

        Because I work 40+ hours at a much lower level than director and I know everyone above me works more than that, because they both have to engage substantively in meetings and produce. It sounds like OP is pushing the latter onto lower level employees, which is Not Cool.

    4. Roscoe*

      I think that is an outdated expectation honestly of “let me ask for more work”. Because if I can finish my work in less time than someone else getting paid the same time as me, I’m not going to ask for more work to get the same as someone else. That is one of those weird things that management has convinced you is “right” when its really them just sqeezing more output out of you without compensating you for it.

      1. Cordelia*

        but at director level, it’s presumably not just about “asking for more work”, its about taking the initiative to find out what else needs doing, how things could be improved, bigger picture stuff – not about the allocation of more tasks. That’s what the 200k is for. So I agree with the commenters who say the fact that this is a senior position is significant, and makes this not ok

    5. Admin 4 life*

      I have a full time admin job supporting high up leadership in a globally known business. When I’m not covering for anyone else, I get ten solid hours of work a week, five hours of generic questions and have 20 hours where I’m jiggling my mouse and refreshing my inbox.

      I also do side gigs on work time because there is nothing to do. I do data analysis and create presentations for small businesses on a contract basis. I’m never in front of a computer for more than 42 hours a week. I make $85k a year in my full time job and $2,500 a month(pre tax) on my side gigs. I’ve also continued doing my side gig when I’ve been covering two other full time positions for more than 6 months. They have no qualms about not giving me the salaries for those two jobs even though they benefited from setting ridiculous expectations. I have no reservations about continuing to look after my bottom line either.

    6. Evonon*

      That’s what I was thinking too. I can do my job in less than 40 hours but I use those extra hours to maintain and improve my systems or take up an extra project. If the argument is “well I’m not getting paid for extra work at Job A so I might as well take on Job B for extra cash”, then maybe the job just isn’t challenging enough? In which case, why take it at all, let alone two jobs you can do in your sleep? Like get your bag and all that but for me that just seems like overcomplicating things

      1. Pennilyn Lot*

        I’m not sure if you’re being sarcastic or not? I don’t think it’s implausible someone would do this, I think it’s less likely that they’d jot all the incriminating details down in a letter, send it out to a public blog, and risk the $400k/year scam they’re running

        1. Empress Matilda*

          Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. But does it matter? Alison posted it for the purpose of generating a discussion about the ethics. It’s likely hypothetical to 99% of her readers anyway, so whether or not there is one specific person in this specific situation is kind of beside the point.

        2. The Tin Man*

          It’s been brought up many times before, but Alison has mentioned that she answers letters that, even if they may be fake, her answer (and the subsequent discussion) would/could be a benefit to people in similar positions.

          It doesn’t matter if this letter, specifically, is a true situation. What matters is that this is a thing that has been increasingly brought up because of the increase in remote work and it is an interesting discussion to have.

          Aside from all that…beware Emily Gilmore!

          1. Emma*

            I know someone who does this too. And I wish them the best of luck. It is high risk but they have chosen to work a lot during a year to be able to buy a house. As long as both jobs are happy, this isn’t different than having a side hustle, or develop your own company on the side.
            If OP has the capacity to work at this place, congratulations.

          2. Pennilyn Lot*

            Cool – I think it was a monumentally bad idea to write up a bunch of identifying information about something you’re doing that is potentially breaking the terms of both your contracts and send it out for publication on a blog you can’t control. If this is real, I highly suggest you stop telling people about it

      2. Dr. Anon*

        My cynical take is that, yes, there are certainly people doing this exact thing (at least, accepting 2 full-time remote roles on the sly), but that the media is emphasizing the “trend” for the benefit of corporate interests and at the expense of workers who benefit from more flexible jobs.

    2. Lady Catherine de Bourgh*

      I don’t know about this specific letter but I do personally know someone in this exact situation (although making less than $200k). So what’s being described is definitely happening in real life.

    4. Avril Ludgateau*

      I thought the same. It seems like it would be written by somebody who is against remote work because they believe workers are inherently untrustworthy, so they concocted the exact nightmare scenario so many micromanagers use to justify their stance.

      Now those same skeptical micromanagers are going to use this unverifiable anecdote as “proof” they were right all along.

      The OP wrote above in a nested offshoot that “CEOs command egregious compensation, so why can’t I?” which also lends to my suspicion of baiting.

      1. OP*

        Didn’t mean to bait… well aware of the critiques on executive comp. Not saying that execs are paid fairly, that I’m paid fairly, hell that ANYONE is paid fairly. My point is that, what $ is TOO MUCH to earn that doing this becomes unfair/unethical?

      2. Tea and Cake*

        If the egregious compensation was from a single employer, would this many people be so up in arms at the salary? There are people in the world pulling a 400k salary for a single job.

        It’s not about the money. Or, I guess, it shouldn’t be.

  13. Sola Lingua Bona Lingua Mortua Est*

    I had a peer do this for ~2 years. He worked 12 hour days 6 days a week, focusing on the other job’s responsibilities by day another ours overnight. He fooled exactly no one; it was an open secret after ~2 weeks. He had a guardian angel in the C-suite; we suspect that’s why he felt emboldened to try.

    In the end, it wasn’t the double-dipping that got him, it was his quality score. It was never particularly high, and those in the trenches knew the issues with his work, but it was always hand-waved away with “but his attendance is perfect, he’s always available, etc.” Once that ceased to be the dominant impression of him, things went downhill *fast*.

    I think a peer who composes more reliable code that’s not as maintenance-needy might be able to get away with it indefinitely.

    So my reaction is Kudos as long as you can make it work well, and save one of those two salaries in case you can’t or cease to be able to.

    1. Murphy*

      That also just sounds like a terrible experience. I wouldn’t want to work that much for any amount of money.

      1. Sola Lingua Bona Lingua Mortua Est*

        That also just sounds like a terrible experience. I wouldn’t want to work that much for any amount of money.

        His morale steadily improved until his debts were down to just the new mortgage, but the second year he didn’t act miserable as much as just permanently mentally exhausted (and it showed in the code). Our positions were mostly parallel, and the modus operandi he ended up developing was in most ways opposite of mine, so we drifted farther apart and I interacted with him less and less (other than auditing his code, which I usually joked about needing a Beefeater assistant to get through) as things progressed.

    2. jm*

      good advice. i sure hope lw is taking advantage of these incomes to save for a rainy day. it could be difficult finding another job at this level once they’re found out.

    3. Honor Harrington*

      I have a friend in a director role who took on a low-level part time job. Then a second one. Then a third. He can use the same work output for most of those jobs (remote teaching). Last I heard, he had his full time job and was remote teaching 8-9 classes. He simply wouldn’t turn down the money. Unfortunately to do this much, he has to do the grading and planning during main-job. The quality of his main work is now so bad that he hasn’t been able to find a new main-job at his main company. He has no idea why, and doesn’t understand how bad his reputation has become.

      While OP doesn’t seem to have this risk, OP should be careful to monitor work quality to ensure he doesn’t ruin his reputation.

    4. OP*

      Saving one, living off the other (part of my budget includes charitable giving for animal welfare, social justice, and public health orgs). If I can keep this up I hope to retire early and focus on the things I love to do.. which yes, includes volunteering for the above orgs.

      1. MissElizaTudor*

        I was wondering what you’re doing with the additional salary, and this only makes me like you more. I hope you’re able to succeed at both jobs and retire early to focus on trying the make the world a better place. Best of luck!

      2. Kudos*

        OP, as a fellow woman in tech, I support you. “Trickle down” is just plain irrelevant here and we both know there are positions that you absolutely can get 2 jobs worth of work done each week. I would just say stay mindful of creeping responsibilities so that you can quit while ahead if it turns out to be necessary. Otherwise, hope it all goes well. Companies have done the reverse to us forever.
        You being a woman does matter to me, because I know you worked twice as hard to get both. Kudos.

    5. Zee*

      He was working 36 hours/week at each job… how is that double-dipping? That’s just having two full-time jobs. Not at all the same scenario as OP.

      1. Analytical Tree Hugger*

        I disagred. In both cases work output is negatively impacted.

        OP writes “[I] have awesome teammates who dotted-line report to me and who I can rely on to accomplish day-to-day activities.” So, their dotted line reports are picking up OP’s slack, which wouldn’t be there if OP was doing either job properly.

        In Sola Lingua Bona Lingua Mortua Est’s example, the coworker’s only saving grace was availability and attendance, which tanked. And I get the impression the coworker’s work quality went from bad to worse.

        1. Sola Lingua Bona Lingua Mortua Est*

          In Sola Lingua Bona Lingua Mortua Est’s example, the coworker’s only saving grace was availability and attendance, which tanked. And I get the impression the coworker’s work quality went from bad to worse.

          I’d list his willingness to take a shot at things that would stretch his skill set as a saving grace, too, but that tanked right alongside the availability and attendance. He is a likable guy, which helped him as well, but ultimately your summary is pretty much on the nose.

          I respect your opinion, Zee, and your right to it, but no one I spoke to over those two years had a single doubt that what he was doing was double-dipping.

          1. Sola Lingua Bona Lingua Mortua Est*

            I should also acknowledge the other programmers in the role were working roughly 10 hours per day 5 days per week. I don’t know what the standard time commitment was for the other job, but we were getting ~25 hours on second shift when his peers were mostly working 50+ hours on first shift during the week.

  14. Bee Eye Ill*

    Most leadership positions involve lots of meetings, so I wonder about time management here, but I also know that in many places the “chiefs” don’t really do much day to day. The real work is done by the people a few steps down the proverbial ladder. It’s almost like the LW is more like a consultant for both companies rather than an employee. If the employers feel like they get what they pay for here, I say keep it going!

    1. Empress Matilda*

      Yeah, I think it would matter more at “lower” levels of the org chart, where the work is more about doing than thinking.

    2. One of the Spreadsheet Horde*

      For meeting time management you’d have to be pretty organized to maintain two separate calendars with two sets of meetings. Considering how many things get rescheduled…

      Then you have 2x the email. And 2x the annual training. And 2x the annual performance reviews.

      Do you have 2 different work cell phones to
      mentally delineate which job you’re responding on?

      2. Guacamole Bob*

        Yeah, if someone tried to do this in my job it would fall apart over meeting scheduling, I’m guessing, if nothing else did it. There aren’t options to sync with external calendars (much to my frustration in the past year when my spouse and I had to coordinate child care during remote school), and you’re expected to keep your calendar up to date so that people can schedule based on your calendar availability. I can’t really imagine trying to keep up with manually blocking off time on one calendar every time something changed on the other. Sometimes the meeting notices don’t even hit my inbox but go straight to my calendar and/or deleted items based on what kind of update it is.

        Maybe OP’s roles have fewer meetings than mine.

    3. Purely Allegorical*

      “If the employers feel like they get what they pay for here” — my bigger issue is OP’s colleagues. If you’re deferring 38% of your work, where is that going?

      I know OP says she’s getting through her work quickly cuz she can stay focused/organized etc etc, but a couple lines in her letter made me wonder if she’s overly relying on her colleagues or dotted line reports to get stuff done that she should really be paying attention to here.

  15. The Smiling Pug*

    This entire letter strikes as greedy and a bit tone-deaf to what’s going on in the world-job market. Some people are struggling to get by with three part-time jobs, and this LW thinks it’s “flying under the radar” with $400k/year. Someone is bound to notice something, sooner or later.

      1. The Smiling Pug*

        Especially if your work performance is suffering due to not being able to focus completely on a project. As time goes by, what’ll happen when crunch time comes? Yikes…

      2. The Best Revenge is Your Paper*

        This. This is all I could think reading this.
        Ethics aside, even with the LinkedIn profile deleted, there is no way to completely work 2 director level positions in an opaque bubble. One of those dotted line reports at one company, may have a spouse whose brother in law across the country is a dotted line report to OP at a different company.
        Ultimately it doesn’t really matter whether Alison or any of us think it’s ethical. It really matters if the people in charge at either company would care if/when they find out. I can’t imagine a world in which they wouldn’t care. . and I also can’t imagine the sheer unlikely luck of never being outed.
        And the ‘outing’ seems like it would come with a LOT of career-tarnishing fallout.

    2. mreasy*

      I make $150k/year working 40-50 hours/week, not doing manual labor, not on my feet all day. Plenty of people by virtue of their lot in life work multiple jobs to make 1/3 of what I do. Not saying I don’t work hard, but I don’t see a difference here in terms of “what is going on in the world.”

      2. Avril Ludgateau*

        This snarky little quip tells me your parents’ attempts to instill in you gratitude, empathy, and perspective tragically failed. My deepest sympathies to them.

        1. Nails*

          It’s possible your sympathies aren’t needed! “Eat your vegetables because kids [often in an exploited nation] have none” is not recommended at all as a parenting technique, and is actually the prime example of the “Fallacy of relative privation” (aka “appeal to worse problems” or “not as bad as”) – dismissing an argument or complaint without addressing it, because of a fictional scenario.

          It also does not instil empathy – there is nothing a child can do with this information. Eating their vegetables will not change the suffering of other children. It is simply adding the suffering to their plate.

          It does not instil gratitude – true gratitude does not come from comparison, which is the thief of joy.

          It’s hard to say how the fallacy of relative privation instils a *healthy* perspective, because it’s about dismissing any concern that isn’t the worst case scenario, and scolding people for … not living under the worst case scenario? For example, the fallacy’s often used to dismiss the very real person concerns of women, by stating that “women in other nations have it worse.” Over time, I feel it would be harder to maintain perspective this way because there will *always* be some hypothetical construct of something worse that could happen, which could be used to make the first person feel bad.

          And it doesn’t even make kids eat their vegetables.

          So I’m not sure that the fallacy of relative privation is very relevant at any level of this argument, even for OP. She is not going to be able to charitably donate one of her “excess” jobs to someone in greater need, because it isn’t in her power to do so; jobs are assigned by demonstration of merit.

          I think there’s an ethical argument to be made for why OP should re-examine her job, but it isn’t fallacy-based.

        2. Nanani*

          When you’re done pouring condescencion on the thread, consider applying logic.

          Neither your dinner plate nor LWs jobs affect the availability of those things to other people. The world we live in was not created by kids being too full for carrots or by people working two jobs.

          (also like, my parents never used that line on me; they had it used on them and recognized that it was bullshit which should not be passed on)

  16. idwtpaun*

    You would have to be a very organized person to pull this off, I think. Imagine accidentally mentioning a task or a coworker belonging to one job while talking to someone from the other.

    I suppose you could argue that in theory it’s no different than freelancing or having an Etsy shop on the side of a full-time job, but it does feel different. And I think the biggest reason why is that these are jobs with employment contracts (I assume). There is an implication in a contract that while you’re doing this job during whatever its hours are, you’re doing *only* this job. Maybe employers will have to start spelling that out now if situations like yours become more common.

    My last thought about what is actually going on is that you’re so efficient at your job that you can, in essence, do everything required of you in what would be part-time hours… except that the job was offered to you as full time and why wouldn’t you take that salary. So you took advantage of that by taking a second “part-time” job. An employer would probably argue that if you’re actually working part-time hours they should be paying you part-time salary.

    1. Phony Genius*

      I was thinking something along the lines of your first paragraph, but worse. Imagine sending a completed assignment to the wrong company. That will get you instantly caught and fired by one company.

      Then that would open a new ethical question: If you found out your employee was doing this, of course you would fire them. But would you inform the other company?

      1. River Otter*

        OP definitely has a different laptop for each company. Probably a different cell phone, too.

        It’s really not that hard to keep projects separate. Think about a lawyer or doctor. They have to keep client information completely separate. It might seem hard if you’ve never worked this way, but it really is not.

      2. Admin 4 life*

        I have to imagine that’s harder to do though. He’s probably issued a laptop for both companies and the files he has access to will be restricted to those laptops. Any automated branding in MS Office Suite will be another indicator he needs to switch laptops. It will be hard to send data between work accounts and foolish to try. It would be very easy to keep them separated. The only issue I do see is saying something but at OPs level, that could be excused with saying he was looking at the wrong notes or thinking about a new project they could do.

        Travel is where I’d bet this will unravel. The tech company I work for does random location checks by pinging their laptops (for state taxation purposes allegedly) so if there is travel involved, things could be tricky (this was also brought on by people leaving the country but continuing to work in their designated time zones). They occasionally activate our mics too which I’m sure have picked up my kid screaming at some point. Anyone busted is investigated and terminated.

        1. Estrella the Starfish*

          What is your company investigating by activating your mics? Is to try and catch people doing what OP is doing or to catch people out if they have a 10 minute conversation with whoever they live with?

          I take it the location check is because they only want you working from home, not some random location?

          1. Admin 4 life*

            We’ve been told it’s a security glitch. But a few times every day the mic symbol comes up and it pops up with “Microsoft Teams has activated your mic.”

            I’m assuming they run the snippets of sound through an automated program to screen for anything noteworthy. It’s the one thing that bothers me about how the company has handled covid. I understand the tax liabilities of saying you work in Texas but you’re traveling and working from India (this specific one has happened a lot) which is why they check our locations. The mic check feels like it could be used to discriminate against parents when they go back to requiring our kids to have someone else provide full time care while we work.

    2. Angelinha*

      I think it’s safe to assume that since these jobs are both in the US, there are no contracts in place.

      1. idwtpaun*

        To be honest, I still don’t quite understand how that works for you all. You agree to the terms (salary, benefits, etc), but then no one signs anything?

        1. Name Required*

          Employees in the US usually sign an offer letter that typically states that employment is at-will and not guaranteed. The offer letter includes your compensation, PTO, stuff like that.

        2. Ha2*

          No, there’s an official offer letter and it’s signed, it describes the past and benefits and so on. The main difference is that it’s “at will” – either party can unilaterally terminate the agreement at any time. So you can either quit or be fired for any reason at any time. (There are some specific reasons for fitting that are illegal – generally discrimination for being in a protected class, and a few others. And on the employee’s side, quitting with no notice probably would ruin the relationship with that specific company.)

    3. quill*

      The other difference is the potential crossover of proprietary data. Sure, the businesses may have no conflict of interest, but that doesn’t mean LW doesn’t have access to confidential info that could cross over accidentally.

      It’s one thing if you’re working in two separate fields (writing a novel on the clock, running an etsy store, etc,) but if you’re c-suite in two companies, there’s just no way they’re distinct enough that there isn’t cause for concern.

    4. Bernice Clifton*

      Yup. I remember way back when I was in high school in the time of landlines a guy I knew got busted for two-timing his girlfriend because he called her house and asked for another girl by name.

      1. idwtpaun*

        Ha! Yes, I ended up not putting in my comment, but that’s exactly the kind of parallel I was thinking of.

  17. lunchtime caller*

    Coming from someone currently working 3 jobs cobbled together into a 60 hour a week schedule (but where all know about each other and exactly how much time I’m giving to them)…this doesn’t feel right to me, mainly because the short term benefits (the double salary) are not going to outweigh the longterm of having to explain any of this to a next job! Do you just ignore the less flashy one on your resume? Trust that no one is ever going to connect that you’re at both and cause a fuss? I’d say if anything, just pick the one you like more and leave the other citing some sort of “couldn’t turn it down” reason. Especially as you keep rising in the ranks, it is extremely hard to imagine this will both stay secret and not come into conflict with some of company policy.

  18. Elle*

    Many people have their own businesses that they run even while working full-time elsewhere, even to the point of companies being okay with salaried people handling issues related to the side business during “normal” business hours. Many of my coworkers are farmers, one owns a landscaping business with her husband, and so on. Many people work a second job that they may even have 30+ hours a week doing on evenings and weekends. Fundamentally, how is this much different?

    This recently came up in conversation with my grandboss. I am one of those people with a side business, which my company knows and supports. It’s even on the top of my resume because it is in our field. I have to say, I was a little disappointed when she said she would have no trouble having a second full-time remote job in addition to what she does now as my grandboss because to me that signaled that she wasn’t working very hard. I know this seems hypocritical, but my side business can be kept 90% outside of normal business hours.

    1. Person from the Resume*

      companies being okay with salaried people handling issues related to the side business during “normal” business hours.

      In my experience companies are NOT okay with someone doing their side business during normal duty hours” on the clock. Companies really frown on this and fire people for this.

      It sounds like your own experience / industry is unusual in this way. But your disappointment points to why. Your grandboss could be doing more / lots more and isn’t. You seem to wish you had more support, assistance, oversight because she’s not providing the best management/leadership that she could be.

      1. DarnTheMan*

        I had a former co-worker who explicitly would bring in his side business design work to work on at the office because we had better graphic software; the only reason he couldn’t be fired was because it was a government job and he had a permanent role. But even though they couldn’t fire him over it, it severely damaged his reputation to the point that he couldn’t move to any other ministries because no one at my work would give him a good reference, and the managers gave him no quarter when it came to anything else about the job.

      2. Elle*

        In my estimation, when people are salaried, “on the clock” doesn’t really exist. That’s one of the main characteristics of being salaried. Now certainly there are exceptions, and if it’s disruptive to your normal duties obviously it wouldn’t work, but in most cases when your salaried you have the flexibility to take a non-company call or appointment, or to read an internet forum occasionally during normal business hours.

      3. NotAnotherManager!*

        Yeah, this is explicitly prohibited in our staff handbook and a fireable offense, especially if you bill time to a customer project when you’re not working on it (and there are annual project-hour requirements that, if you don’t meet, impact your performance review and bonus). Taking a personal call or doing a quick bank run would probably not be a big deal, but, bringing your second job to work would be Not Okay.

        Our parameters around second jobs are generally that they do not interfere with normal business hours (in-person or virtual, most of our roles are availability/coverage-related), that the other employer is not a competitor or customer, and that it doesn’t impact your job performance.

    2. Mary*

      I would agree with you Elle, A lot of senior people take on other responsibilities, charity roles, board position, etc; and there is a bit of overlap into their day job. It happens everywhere so why not a bit lower down the food chain. I know our senior exec say we work much hard than they do, just to get through stuff. They think and consider strategy a lot and do less hands on tasks to be done today/tomorrow. And if the LW cuts out all the chit/chat & time wasting why not get both jobs done in the 50 hours. The only think is the meetings, off site days, training days. Where your presence is required at a certain place and time so you can fulfill your job. I know a lot of senior execs send stand in as they are often double and triple booked. But would you if you were new to the role?

      1. nona*

        Except those charity roles and board positions know the person has the first job and aren’t asking for the same 8 hours every day as the first job. And sometimes they are actually a bonus to the first job, because of networking or making the first job company feel good about itself that its employees are such good community members.

        That’s a different animal than working for a second company, promising the same 8 hours every day to someone else that first job doesn’t know about. The second job isn’t providing any benefit or goodwill to the first job.

        1. Elle*

          In this case though, where it sounds like a fairly flexible role where “on-duty” and “off-duty” time isn’t very clear cut, it doesn’t really seem like they *are* promising the same 8 hours to two different people. They aren’t even promising 40 hours each week to either company, let alone the exact *same* 40 hours.

    3. Metadata minion*

      If you can do your side business entirely outside of the hours you’re working for your main job, that seems completely ethical! I wouldn’t even have a problem with someone answering the occasional customer email or whatever for their side business during slow times. Plenty of people have to make ends meet by working 2 or 3 part-time jobs and this isn’t really any different.

      The difference in this letter is that the LW is working two full-time jobs in substantially less than two full-time jobs’ worth of time, and is having to balance prioritizing tasks for both jobs against each other rather than just having their M-F office job and their evening/weekend gig giving singing lessons or whatever.

      1. Elle*

        I mean, I can’t do it *entirely* outside those hours. I have to have probably 2ish hours a week during ‘normal’ 8-5 hours of responsibilities with my side business, for meetings or calls that have to be done during the 8-5. I treat them just like my company treats having a dentist appointment or making a call to pay my phone bill — that is to say, I block the time on my calendar and make sure my work is all getting handled in a timely manner and it’s no big deal because I’m salaried and they are flexible.

    4. Hlao-roo*

      The fundamental difference I see is that the company in your case knows about the side businesses (I’m assuming from your comment). If the OP told each of their employers about the other job, and everyone was OK with the situation, then it would all be good and above-board. But if they told their employers they were working two jobs and the companies were not OK with that, then there’s the difference between OP’s situation and yours.

      1. Elle*

        To an extent, yes. My company knows about my business, it’s at the top of my resume, and I certainly talk about it openly. There are probably situations in which an employee has a side gig that their employer *doesn’t* actually know about but it wouldn’t be a big deal if they did – say, starting a business selling crafts. Only an unreasonable employer would get upset about that presuming the employee was being responsible. But yes, in this case even a reasonable employer would probably have serious misgivings. If anything, it should be wakeup call to the employer that this position is overpaid and/or under-delivering on its value!

  19. Goose*

    Pulling out the popcorn for this one.

    Ethical? Couldn’t say. Chaotic neutral? Maybe.

    OP, if you are actually pulling it off, get yours. I salute you. That said, it’s only been a month, and things may ramp up at one or more of the positions. Please keep up in the loop of how long you’re able to pull this off!

    1. Kiki*

      I’m also curious how this will be going in month 6! I don’t necessarily condone doing this, but I feel like if you’re going to, you should start one job first, work there for a year and get a sense for the workload, THEN add a second job, not start two completely new jobs at once!

      1. A Simple Narwhal*

        Yes I’m very interested in hearing an update once the LW has been at the company longer. I’ve definitely had jobs where I felt like I did almost nothing for the first few months as I settled in and then bam!, the workload increased.

      2. Ali G*

        Yeah I wouldn’t be surprised if the LW is forced to choose one job over the other by the 6 month mark. Regardless of the ethics, I just don’t think it’s sustainable. At least they will have 6-months of $400k income to fall back on if they do!

  20. Eldritch Office Worker*

    Alison I’d like to add the letter you linked from 2019 to the requests for updates – I’d love to see how that turned out given this conversation happening now.

    1. Mrs. Smith*

      I’m curious: how does this arrangement affect benefits? Which insurance do you use, what pension plan gets the contribution? And sick leave – do you take sick leave at both jobs if you’re actually sick?

      1. Toodie*

        US residents have to pay into to SSN on only the first $142,000 of income (I think). What happens to you after you’ve met your max?

          1. Anonymoose*

            This. My paycheck shot up a month or so ago, and, when I called payroll to make sure I wasn’t being overpaid, they said I’d hit my SS max and they were no longer deducting it.

            1. OP*

              They stop taking it out after the limit is reached. The limit is per person not per paycheck, so since I’ll hit the limit twice, I’ll get repaid the overage at tax time.

              1. Jen in Oregon*

                This might be your Achilles heel. Next year, both of your HR departments could get a ping from the SSA that you’ve maxed out for the year some time in late April/early May. They’ll check their records, look at your compensation for the year, and might very well put 2 and 2 together.

                1. I got the dirty twirls, Schmidty!*

                  This might clue in one/the other/both of the companies that OP has more than one job, but she’s already said nothing in her employee handbooks prohibits a second job. That alone won’t be evidence of anything other than possibly an extremely lucrative side hustle, at least not to the HR staff.

                  OP – kudos. It’s definitely a weird arrangement but if you’re organized enough to keep it from getting overwhelming for you or affecting your colleagues at either org, I think this is really cool.

        3. Mitzii*

          Good point on the SSI deductions. OP will be basically double-paying until she hits the limit individually at each job. Wonder how that will all shake out?

      2. Elle*

        Insurance would work the same way it does now for people who are married — you pick which one you want to be on. Recently I switched off of my husband’s and onto my company’s because mine is actually better than his. If you are too sick to work either job, you would presumably take sick leave from both.

        1. Gumby*

          Yup, but! If OP ends up leaving (by choice or not) the job from which she is getting medical insurance, it could be harder to get on to the other company’s plan outside of the normal enrollment period. Because it’s a lot easier to explain a spouse losing the job that was providing benefits than you doing it when company #1 doesn’t know about company #2.

    2. Yvette*

      Which one, “Is there any way to find out…” or “our new hire was secretly working …”? Because both were really interesting. I would love an update for each.

      1. Hlao-roo*

        The letter linked in the text “I never would have condoned” in Alison’s answer. It is titled “my coworker plans to work a second job during our work hours, without telling our boss” from 27 February 2019.

    3. Hlao-roo*

      I really liked reading this part of Alison’s answer from that letter:

      “I can imagine someone arguing that if he’s getting all his work done for his first company, then it shouldn’t matter if he’s also working a second job during his hours for them. And in a totally different universe without our particular norms and expectations around work, maybe that would be true.”

      It appears we are approaching that totally different universe with new norms and expectations around work…

      2. Avril Ludgateau*

        Even if I find OP’s ethics very questionable, I will say I truly appreciate Alison’s willingness to question her pre-conceived notions and change her perspective when circumstances call for it. And her self-awareness in recognizing both the change and the need for it. Well done, Alison!

  21. Kiki*

    Apparently a guy at my new company was doing this and was let go shortly before I was hired this summer. It seemed very silly to me because it’s a small agency and everyone has to bill their time. It was clear very fast that he wasn’t doing anything! There are totally jobs where I think you could get away with this in our field, but they’re at big product corporations, not small agencies!

  22. TimeTravlR*

    I love your answer, Alison! We all learn and grow, don’t we? I once had a job that would have been great to partner with a second position because the only deadline I ever had was to get my reports reviewed and returned within three days of receiving them. I worked when I wanted and where I wanted. And never missed a deadline. There are probably a few others out there but definitely not my current job!

  23. BlueberryFields*

    I think it’s hard to use an ethics argument because I feel like capitalism is inherently unethical, but I’m mostly like, I would be really annoyed if I were your coworker and it impacted my job (i.e. made more work, etc.).

      2. cranky*

        That’s such a copout attitude though.

        “It’s on other people ot catch you screwing someone over.” Excuse me, what? No. This person is a C level, and part of that means being available to your reports, and proactively looking for growth opportunities.

  24. Twenty Points for the Copier*

    Ethics aside, I think one thing the LW should consider is the relative value of current vs. future earnings. If you’re very close to retirement, the extra 200k for a year or two may be worth it. But if you’re someone who is going to be director level or higher for many more years, the reputational hit of being caught working two jobs at once could really outweigh, financially, the short term benefit of pulling down two salaries.

    1. Emmie*

      This is a really good point. The LW could also get terminated from both jobs if this comes to light, which may impact future job opportunities and LW’s reputation with her current coworkers. I also wonder whether this is a violation of LWs company policies. Is the risk – short and long term – worth the reward?

      1. A Person*

        I wonder about this too! Although in tech I could see some people being impressed by the ability / audacity…

    2. L. Ron Jeremy*

      Especially if you’re interviewing at a new job down the line and run into a coworker from company A (company A isn’t on your resume, company B is).

      Or worse, you’re hired at the new company and company A coworker starts talking about your work history at company A and this draws blank stares from the people who hired you.

  25. Office Hamster*

    I dunnooooo. My first reaction was NO but the more I consider…I dunno! I DO think it’s HIIIIGHLY likely that you are not going to be as effective as you think you are juggling both. The commenter above who predicted you’ll gain a reputation for being slow to work/respond is probably correct.

    Or maybe not! Some people (myself included) are very fast workers who truly can juggle a lot effectively, who are traditionally penalized either doing hourly work (fast work = less pay) or salary (lots of bored downtime).

    I feel like the truly ethical thing would be for you to be a freelance consultant. Then your clients know they’re sharing you, you can have however many you want without worry. Delivering 25 hours of work when you agreed to 40, and helping yourself to their benefits packages as well does feel shady.

    1. lunchtime caller*

      The only thing that worries me as a fellow fast worker is that if your job is more intangible deliverables like big picture thinking, longterm planning, creative steering of the ship, etc, you basically cannot do that on an accelerated schedule–it requires sufficient periods of uninterrupted, deep thinking time. So I think OP can skate by in that type of job for a while because there aren’t that many hard deliverables on a weekly basis, but frankly they’ll do a kinda shitty job next to someone with their whole heart in it longterm.

      1. Office Hamster*

        That’s true! When I’m spread thin I often find I can only manage production work, big-picture and abstract tasks are much harder…I think you’re right that despite their best intentions, OP isn’t going to be able to deliver particularly thoughtful work.

        Also DANGER ZONE for giving the same solution to each client. Competitor or not, that seems like a no-no.

    2. I'd Rather Be Eating Dumplings*

      Yeah. I’m with you. In theory, I guess I don’t have an issue with it….in practice, I think it’s most likely that either those jobs are overpaid or OP is underperforming.

  26. Joan Clayton*

    Right now this may be a good idea. But these jobs sound like they need to have a lot of attention to detail. I’m just thinking about months down the line when you may start missing these details and signing off on things that look “janky.”
    IDK, I love my peace of mind more than money, so I couldn’t put my mind through these hoops. Best of luck tho!

  27. Anonymous Koala*

    I think you’re only managing to limit work to 50 hrs/week because you’re a month in and the companies are giving you some slack to get up to speed. Come back in 6-12 months and let us know how this plays out.

    1. BlueberryFields*

      Exactly. I’m just imagining a scenario where there are two end of fiscal year fires to put out and OP is in the middle of both of them. If it’s your responsibility to put out fires and you’re not there with the hose, I am not going to be happy. I think OP can manage it for a while, but it’s not going to work for the long term.

    2. Environmental Compliance*

      +10000

      As soon as I read that it had only been a month, I chuckled. Of course they can meet objectives! The expectations will still be revolving around getting used to the company, processes, etc.

    3. Awkward Interviewee*

      Yup. I’ve very skeptical someone can do a director level job well long term (with travel!) at 25 hours a week. I think OP is fooling themself.

    4. CheeryO*

      Yeah, one month in is truly nothing. I’m six months into a big jump in responsibility at work, and I only started feeling the squeeze about a month ago. I don’t care how energetic the LW is – this will absolutely catch up to them, either in quality of work output or in their responsiveness and how they are perceived in general. I think the travel requirements alone with do them in. I would definitely have my doubts about someone who appeared to be unavailable for a core job duty a large chunk of the time, unless I was pretty clueless about their day-to-day work.

    5. DarnTheMan*

      My team has had a lot of director turnover over the past few years – and amount of time needed to commit to the role was something the whole team flagged as a consideration for our senior leadership after our most recent director left. I’ve worked places where the director positions really aren’t that busy but in a lot of other jobs I’ve been in, directors are putting in 50-60 hours a week and no amount of efficiencies will cut that time down by a significant amount.

    6. Guacamole Bob*

      Yeah, this was my thought. There’s the thought experiment aspect of it that’s fun for the comments section to debate, but in practical terms OP hasn’t really demonstrated that they can make this work yet.

  28. Occo*

    I think it’s very unethical. You’re getting paid for full time, working half time, and if you had crises going on at both jobs at the same time, you’d “prioritize” – meaning, both employers would be paying you, but you’d secretly choose whose crisis to actually work on. (And how would that work, I wonder? What excuse would you give to the team you decided to deprioritize?)

    The employee-employer relationship changing is a good thing, rank outright dishonesty is not.

      1. Willis*

        Yeah, I kind of feel like OP is going to end up being some executive’s example that proves why “we just can’t trust people are actually working when they’re at home.”

    2. rl09*

      Yeah, I’m with you. This is not a “grey-area.” It’s unethical, full-stop.

      Especially this part: “I have awesome teammates who dotted-line report to me and who I can rely on to accomplish day-to-day activities.”

      Sooooo you plan to collect 200k per year while only working 25 hours per week, because you know you can push your responsibilities on to your teammates…who most likely make less money than you, and are already working more hours than you. But good for you, I guess?

      2. Sparkles McFadden*

        Yeah, this is where I land on this too. I’ve been the person who had to pick up the slack when a coworker started prioritizing his side-gig, doing that work on company equipment during regular work hours.

    3. nona*

      Yup – you are selling the same time/capacity twice (not additional), without informing either employer, so both have the expectation of exclusive rights to your time/attention during business hours.

      1. MissElizaTudor*

        They may have that expectation, but that doesn’t mean they actually have the rights to that.

        1. nona*

          Why not? What was in the job description ? What is in the handbook? Why would a company hiring a full-time employee not expect to have that employees attention for 40 hrs a week, unless otherwise using vacation/PTO time? What was discussed in the interview? I would argue those facts to start to add up to a reasonable expectation about the exclusive relationship between an employee and employer. What else would need to happen for an employer have the right to that expectation?

          Has not 36-40 hrs a week been established as full time in the public consciousness? Is it not such an understood convention in the US that if an employer/employee had expectations of a different relationship that would have been discussed. I would argue that if you mean to buck convention, then there’s a conversation that needs to be had with all parties involved to make sure you are on the same page.

          1. Nanani*

            This is the key to the question.
            If they didnt explicitly ask for exclusivity, they shouldn’t get it based on a nebulous norm.
            Why are nebulous norms okay to violate when employers do it but not in this case?
            If you have an answer to that, great, but if it’s just “But… theres a NORM” then that’s not actually an answer to the ethical question.

            1. nona*

              Is it really that nebulous though? I don’t think it’s nebulous that a full-time office job = 40 hrs/wk of exclusive access to your time, whether or not the employer needs it all. That’s been the standard understanding for the last few decades, right? Maybe that’s changing, maybe not, but that doesn’t make decades of precedent nebulous.

              What are these norms that we are actually okay with the Employer violating? Or do we point those out as bad things when the Employer does it too? “Employer does bad things too” isn’t really an counterpoint to the ethical question.

              1. Jamie Starr*

                There’s also the case of benefits – specifically insurance. If the OP is enrolled in one of the employer’s health plans, the contract usually specifies how many hours have to be worked for an employee to be eligible for coverage. For example, ours is 30 hours so I think there would be an assumption that OP would be working at least enough to meet the requirement for benefits. If the OP knowingly isn’t that seems like insurance fraud to me. (Not on the part of the employer because they’re operating on the belief OP is working full time ie. 35 – 40 hours, but on the part of the OP.)

  29. JustMyImagination*

    I think LW needs to keep in mind it’s only been a month. At director level, doing strategy work, I’d expect the first month to be getting the lay of the land, making connections with other business leaders to accomplish their strategy and possibly schmoozing clients. You have the ability to be working ~25 hours at each job right now but are you really doing all you can? What happens in another month when the new-hire period has ended and you’re expected to understand the overall business strategy and use your influence to get things done. Will you have really earned enough influence and made the right connections by only working part time?

    1. Escapee from Corporate Management*

      That’s a really good point. Here’s another one: what happens when you hit a high-workload event (budget time, investor meeting, etc.)? What is both companies have simultaneous high-workload events? You may suddenly have two 60-hour per week jobs.

      1. DarnTheMan*

        Or simultaneous busy seasons; different industries often have different periods but given the nature of the work, OP might find that there is overlap between their jobs where both enter a busy season of a few months.

    2. momamma*

      This, especially in relation to the strategy work. A month in, ok, but as time goes on? Missing 15 hours a week, ongoing, seems like a lot when considering the aspect of less quantifiable work.

  30. wbw*

    Unless both contracts state non-exclusivity you’re likely just simply in violation of both deals. If you were explicitly non-exclusive I could see the ethics being debated about “I’m flexing what that means and haven’t told either side I have another job” but this is probably just a simple “you’re violating your contract” kind of thing and I’d be pretty worried about the ruse falling apart.

      1. Daffy Duck*

        My rinky-dink $45,000/year 40 hour/week job told me at hire I couldn’t continue my temp work (completely unrelated field) and work for them also. No actual contract, but I’m very sure I’d be fired if I started temping during a regular work week and making up hours on the weekend/evenings even tho the job is extremely flexible and independent. They stress life/work balance as part of keeping quality up. It blows me away someone would jepordize a $200,000/year job (and their reputation) by not being upfront with the company.

  31. AY*

    400K is a lot of money, but the stress of keeping this up would take years off my life. I couldn’t do it. I also think OP is unlikely to be able to keep it up (as a practical matter, not an ethical one). It’s only been a month. It’s really hard to imagine avoiding a true double crisis in both positions indefinitely.

  32. Cat Lover*

    I feel like working two *director* level positions to the tune of hundreds of thousands is really tone deaf towards the current reality. I would be pissed if I were the companies. Plus that seems like wage theft.

  33. JSPA*

    Some people put 35+ hours a week into their art, childcare, sex lives, fandom, writing, eldercare, learning languages, online gaming, fostering kittens.

    Some of those things are scheduling negotiable. Some, not really (or really not). They make it work.

    If OP finds that two jobs each distract pleasurably from the other, as a consuming hobby would do, and if OP happens not to have many other draws on their time, such that an occasional 85 hour work week is doable, this may be reasonably doable. Especially if they have a creative and orderly brain, such that good ideas for both jobs pop up and get mentally filed without much distraction.

    I’d sure check the fine print on any hiring agreement / company policy / contract.

    I tangentially wonder how this will land with the IRS, but it’s generally OK to withhold too much, so maybe that’s fine?

    If it becomes unmanageable, OP does need a graceful exit strategy.

    I can’t imagine that there will not eventually be overlap (if you include spouses of coworkers and clients) who will catch on.

    At that point–human nature!–whatever effort you’ve done and whatever product you’ve created will be retroactively downgraded in people’s minds if they know that you didn’t while paying “halftime attention.”

    1. Old Cynic*

      Funny you mention IRS. Income taxes will likely come out in the wash at the end of the year. BUT…this guy will be overpaying Social Security withholdings at about $10k/year. I don’t recall a line on the 1040 for recouping that. ??

      1. NotAnotherManager!*

        All your pay and all your withholdings are added up and the overage will be refunded. It’s no different than having multiple consecutive jobs in one year – enter the W-2s and your tax software or accountant will calculate your refund, including overpayment of taxes. According to a quick google search, TurboTax says it shows up as a tax credit on Form 1040, Schedule 3, Line 10.

        1. Ha2*

          Yeah, the IRS doesn’t mind. As long as you give them too much money up front rather than too little, you just get a refund for the extra money later and it’s fine.

          (I’m not an accountant and this is not tax advice, consult with a professional if you’re using this info for anything other than chatting on the internet, etc)

      2. JSPA*

        If I remember correctly, and it hasn’t changed (from a situation where nothing was witheld, due to some oddness with a grant) you can’t recoup immediately, but you get credited to the next year / it rolls forward.

  34. Jean*

    Get your bag, OP. I say make it work for as long as you can, and then if you need to quit one then do it and keep it moving.

    There’s no compelling reason that employees shouldn’t be able to benefit from the same exploitative system that employers have been benefiting from since the beginning of work.

    3. CBB*

      You make a good point that should any problems arise with LW’s current setup, they can just quit one job.

      The moment you find yourself unable to juggle priorities, or unable put in the required hours, or if one employer starts getting suspicious. Just quit! You don’t even have to give a two-week notice or worry about getting a good reference because that job will never appear on your resume.

    5. Pam Poovey*

      This is where I am, too. I have a hard time caring about whether or not this is fair to a company when we all know that company would screw you over in a heartbeat if it helped their bottom line by a penny. Get that cash, stop one of them if it becomes too much.

  35. jj82*

    The logistics of this are just mind boggling to me. Do you have two laptops? How do you keep all the people and projects straight? And what happens when you inevitably make a mistake and send the wrong document to the wrong person at the wrong company? I just can’t imagine how this is sustainable long term.

    Also, I think the OP has their ethics question answered in that they don’t want anyone to find out…

    2. anonymous73*

      I have 2 laptops for the same job because I’m on a government contract and I’m working on a second internal project. I’m a Project Manager, can multi-task like nobody’s business and am extremely organized. And yet sometimes I’m trying to figure out why I can’t find someone in the address book because I’m looking it up on the wrong laptop. OP is a month in – let’s see how it’s going in 6 months or a year.

      1. Office Hamster*

        Lol same, I freelance and I juggle 10-15 projects at a time, there is a LOT of pretending I remember client team members. Fine for a freelancer (they know I’m not exclusive to them, and “have we worked together before?” goes both ways) but much less fine when you’re “full-time” and really should have everything down.

        I think it’s possible to do, but it’s hard and it takes time. Some of the teams I work with are large, and even after years together they’ll mention a team member I don’t know (but would if I actually worked there).

        1. jj82*

          Yeah, I have a job where I multitask but if I send the wrong thing to the wrong person it’s a much easier explanation then it would be in this case!

    3. River Otter*

      It’s really not difficult to keep different projects with different clients and different staff separate. Think about a lawyer or doctor. They have the same staff, but they are able to keep their client info separate. It sounds complicated if you’ve never done it, but it’s not any harder than keeping your hobbies separate from your work.

      1. Willis*

        Right, but if a lawyer accidentally says the wrong client name to their support staff, everyone can understand it was a mistake cause they deal with both those clients. If you accidentally say the wrong client name and it’s a client at the other law firm you also work at, it looks a lot weirder.

    4. CBB*

      I have three computers that I use everyday: one for my job; one for my hobby as an amateur musician; and one for personal stuff.

      Each one is optimized with hardware needed for different jobs, is logged into different email and social media accounts, and contains different files and applications. It turns out to be a good way to keep different duties organized and separate.

    6. Loredena Frisealach*

      Because I’m a consultant I currently have: laptop for employer; laptop for client; my personal desktop – all in a half circle where I sit in my home office! It’s actually not that hard to keep straight the documents/people/company. But I at least would never manage to keep my meetings coordinated if they were truly separate – I also forward between employer and client so I’m blocking them time on both, or I’d either overlap or miss meetings on the regular.

  36. Detective Amy Santiago*

    I’ll condemn it.

    There may be someone else out there who is qualified for one or both of these jobs that is stuck working a couple of crappy jobs without benefits because LW is taking two full time roles. I am sick and tired of all the people who forget that we live in a society and that taking care of everyone benefits us all. This is beyond selfish and unnecessary.

    1. DarnTheMan*

      I agree; OP doesn’t work in the industry that I do but in mine, well-paying (with benefits) positions, even at the senior level, are a unicorn type role because once people get into them, they don’t leave them until they retire or get poached by another organization (who usually can offer them more than what they’re currently getting), so the idea of someone holding onto two of them just because they can feels wrong.

      Also as someone who reports directly to a director role, the idea of not feeling like my director can have time for me, or has my back when it comes to fixing emergency issues because they’re prioritizing a second team/job is just kind of icky.

    2. Lorine*

      Agreed. OP, this is a terrible idea, and it meets the definition of fraud: 1. You’re lying (in this case by omission, it still counts). 2. You know you’re lying. 3. You expect the person/company to believe you.

      I don’t know how this would play out if one (or both!) of these companies decided it was worth it to go after you in court, but it would at the very least be an expensive, reputation-destroying mess. Maybe they would “just” fire you, but it’s a juicy enough story that they would 100% be telling other people in the industry about it.

      I would quit one job while you’re still ahead.

    3. General von Klinkerhoffen*

      And then people below that who can’t get those two jobs, and so on, down to the person who can’t get a job at all.

      I think this is where I fall, too, and also I feel it would be different for a person on lower pay (ie up to about 60th centile hourly). But wanting to double your salary from $200k feels more like greed than need, and if it’s zero sum or even just not enough to go round unless fairly shared, then someone is suffering as a result.

    4. hbc*

      Seriously, I’m shocked at the number of people declaring this ethical. I bet none of them would be cool if, say, the babysitter they hired to watch their kids was simultaneously watching some other kids at the same time, or if they paid a trainer for a private lesson who kept leaving between sets to coach someone else or spent half the time on their phone. If you hire someone to spend the day doing chores for your elderly mother all day, are you fine if they decide they’ve done the amount required and kick their feet up for two hours? Does it really not matter as long as you don’t catch on?

      1. Salsa Verde*

        If the babysitter I hired to watch my kid was watching one other kid at the same time, I’d be ok with that, as long as my expectations around my kid being safe were met.
        For the trainer, I pay for their time, so I would not be ok if they spent half the time on their phone.
        For the chores, yes, if I pay for certain chores to be completed and they are, then I don’t care how long it takes them. However, if our agreement was 8 hours of chores, that would be different.

        I guess it centers around whether you see this as hours-based or not. I do not, since we have heard from the OP that there is no stated expectation around hours for these roles. In addition, we have seen that for jobs such as this, employers also do not abide by an expectation of hours, they expect the job to get done, even if that means working more than the stated expectation.

        1. General von Klinkerhoffen*

          If I hired a babysitter to sit my child, I’d want to know if they were sitting another child at the same time, though. I might not insist on one-on-one care, but I’d want to know what I was choosing.

    5. PhD survivor*

      Yes, I agree that secretly working two full time jobs during the same hours is a problem and it is taking a job from someone else. What if everyone did this? There would be a huge shortage of jobs and even more inequality than we already have. How can 200k a year in a good job in a good company not be enough?

  37. Katefish*

    Definitely not the biggest issue here, but this writer’s tax bill is going to be nasty unless they’re having a ton withheld.

    1. Cat Lover*

      Taxes and benefits (sick leave/pto, insurance, etc) are the most interesting parts of this scenario, ethics aside.

      1. No longer working*

        Yes the health insurance! I think an insurance company would know/discover if you have health insurance with another company. Someone in the field, correct me if I’m wrong about that. And if you you turn down insurance because you’re covered elsewhere, OP would have to…lie?

        1. Purely Allegorical*

          I was really wondering about the health insurance angle, too. I don’t know enough about that area to know if OP is in violation of something or in a position to accidentally (or not accidentally, since this is all on purpose?) lie to the federal gov. Something for her to look into! Could really come back on her in a nasty way!

        2. Rich or Poor...*

          All you have to do is indicate that you don’t want the health insurance, and if you give them your current insurer name/group number, it appears as if OP is using domestic partner coverage — no one will bat an eye.

        3. Jamie Starr*

          Yes I mentioned this upthread. Normally the insurance contract states that employees must work a certain minimum hours per week to be eligible for coverage. At my company it’s 30 hours. So it seems to me the employer would, at a minimum, have an expectation OP would work at least that many hours. If they’re not, I think they are also committing insurance fraud.

        4. NotAnotherManager!*

          I decline my company’s health insurance because my spouse’s is a better value, and I’ve never had to do anything other than tick the box during open enrollment that says, “Decline healthcare insurance”. I’ve been declining for almost a decade now, and my employer has never required any additional information about it. Less cost for them, they don’t care if/why I’m declining.

      1. nona*

        Ooo…probably ones that deals with AMT (alternative minimum tax). They would definitely deserve having to deal with AMT because of this.

    3. EleanorShellstrop*

      You can make tax payments directly to the IRS without it going through withholding. OP would just have to make quarterly estimated payments to account for the higher tax bracket.

      1. So they all rolled over and one fell out*

        I have extra taxes taken out of my paycheck and my spouse has almost no taxes taken out of her paycheck. We put all the allowances we’re allowed between us on her W-2, and 0 on mine plus additional $ withholding. My employer didn’t bat an eye. The IRS doesn’t care as long as your total withholding is enough to avoid a penalty.

  38. kitryan*

    The employee handbook at my office explicitly states that it’s not permitted to work another job without specific approval. So, if either company covered this in their policies that OP agreed to, that’d make it pretty open and shut as ‘wrong’.
    I’ve actually paid close attention to this since I’ve ‘worked another job’ on a few occasions. I used to work in a different field before starting at this job where freelancing is common and in order to ‘keep my hand in’ I occasionally take small jobs from friends. I do them outside of my normal hrs or during PTO. It’s usually less than $300 and 5-10 hrs per job, and I take 0-3 jobs per year. So, I haven’t necessarily explicitly requested written permission for these jobs, since they’re so small, but I have mentioned it to past supervisors who haven’t had any issue. I did, last year, take a job that was more serious. It required +/- 20 hrs a week, for 3.5 weeks and overlapped a bit with work hours. For this I 100% ran it by my supervisor, either requested 1/2 days PTO or flexed my time to cover the time I was double booked for and worked both jobs. I’m glad I could make it work but I wouldn’t have wanted to do it without disclosing it to ‘main’ job – I don’t think I could handle the stress!

    1. Boof*

      Yeah my job allows side gigs but not more than 1 day/week commitment, if I recall correctly. If there’s a company policy against then then I think it’s wrong to lie about it.

    2. Sparkles McFadden*

      This was true for my workplace too. You had to disclose the other work so they could vet it and make sure it wasn’t with a competitor and that it didn’t interfere with work hours. I had a short term side project for awhile, and HR OKd it right away, but I think it would have been a problem if they’d discovered it and I hadn’t disclosed it.

  39. lost academic*

    Starting a comment thread here to take bets on how long this will last – either because the OP drops one or both positions, or one or both find out and let them go. My bet is under a year.

      1. Environmental Compliance*

        I’m guessing between 6-9months. It’ll start getting noticed at about 6 months, with consequences setting in by 9 months.

        1. CBB*

          I agree. If it starts getting noticed around 6 months, LW would be wise to quietly resign one job before consequences start setting in.

          Personally I think working 25 hr/week for $200k would be a much sweeter gig than working 50 hr for $400k, so maybe LW will cut out this nonsense even before suspicion arise.

          1. So they all rolled over and one fell out*

            Before taxes. The taxes on $400k are more than twice as much as those on $200k.

    2. I'd Rather Be Eating Dumplings*

      I don’t have an opinion on this — but I hope the comment section isn’t too off-putting to the OP because I would LOVE an update. I would be really curious to see how OP feels about this in a year’s time.

      Personally, I imagine the mental load of a director position means that this juggling might be more emotionally exhausting than they anticipate, but some people are good at compartmentalizing.

      2. OP*

        Nah, it’s not too off-putting! I’m grateful and humbled that people are spending the time thinking about this. Will for sure update you.

    3. No longer working*

      I don’t know how long it will last, but if you live a double life, the gig will be up at some point. Someone at company A will know someone at company B and her name will come up at some point. It’s beyond her control and she’ll get outed and ruin her career.

  40. Escapee from Corporate Management*

    The thing that stands out for me is not holding two job, but doing so at a director level. Most director-level roles come with expectations of leadership, drive, and availability. A factory worker or an entry-level analyst may have unfixable downtime because they had not been assigned work. A director with downtime would be expected to create work (e.g., propose a new project) or be clear with senior management that they had availability. That point is somewhat hypothetical, since most directors at the companies where I have worked did not have enough hours in the day to cover all of these responsibilities.

    Here is the ethical question: are you delivering the $200,000 value that each company expects from you? OP, if you emailed your senior management and said you were working only 25 hours a week, would they tell you that you can freely use the rest of your worktime for non-company activities? If yes, then you are in the clear. If not, then you are committing an ethical breach. The fact that you has kept this quiet tells me the latter may be the case.

    1. Eldritch Office Worker*

      “Here is the ethical question: are you delivering the $200,000 value that each company expects from you?”

      Yes, perfectly worded.

    2. Awkward Interviewee*

      Agreed. If OP was in, say, an individual contributor role and a particularly fast worker, finishing all their work in 25 hours, hitting all their metrics, there really wasn’t extra work available, etc., then this might be different. But… that is not how director roles work.

      1. DarnTheMan*

        I’ve admittedly thought about a second job before; my job is very niche so I can’t really take on work from other people and I definitely go through ebbs and flows where sometimes I’m very busy and sometimes I spend all day sitting around waiting to receive a project piece from someone. But even in my considerations I’d always thought about freelance work because the optics of applying – and getting hired – at a second company, while both companies are believing that they’re solely employing me for 40+ hours/week isn’t great.

    4. Anonymous Koala*

      Agreed. If OP was a salaried individual contributor who was hitting their metrics in 25 hrs/week, I would have very few qualms about this – especially because companies are *very* likely to give you more work if you work faster than your peers, but very unlikely to increase your compensation in proportion to that extra work. But OP is a director, which suggests that they’re getting paid in part to come up with specific, creative long term corporate strategies and put out fires – things that are almost impossible to do well when you’re splitting your attention between two companies.

    5. WhatAMaroon*

      The leadership part is something I think im stuck on as well. Whether or not you have true direct reports I would say at most companies (that are functioning well) at the director level there is usually an expectation of some amount of mentorship and guidance and shaping of others to be prepared for growth. I don’t know how you do that at 2 jobs with only 25 hours a week. Maybe that’s not a major metric at your job but I do think it’s often a consideration point.

  41. CBB*

    Lot’s of people have side gigs in addition to their primary full-time job. I guess this is just an extreme example of that?

    I wonder if either of LW’s employers requires employees to inform them of other work they do. If they did, would LW be willing to abide by that policy?

  42. Yvette*

    ” I don’t have any direct reports, but have awesome teammates who dotted-line report to me and who I can rely on to accomplish day-to-day activities.” Are these activities those LW would/should normally do if they didn’t have another full time job? “Here, you take this work off my plate so I can work elsewhere.” I don’t think that is very ethical.

    1. S*

      YES. This is where things get shady. If your “dotted-line” report coworker is doing your day-to-day, you’re not successfully balancing your duties, you’re taking advantage.

    2. V. Anon*

      And if one of those coworkers find out? If it was me I’d be gunning for your job/salary (and no, I wouldn’t have a conversation w/OP about it, I’d just pounce). When you step outside the rules, it’s Thunderdome for everybody.

  43. Boof*

    Devil’s advocate (because I am skeptical of this arrangement too – if you have to hide it it’s not a good idea to do it in my book; and if you think the reasons it’s frowned upon are unjust well, maybe work on those reasons? Tell the companies up front “I I can do this I’ll be doing another job as well. Are you willing to give it a try?”.) – there’s a focus on 40 hrs/week. On the one hand, it’s possible to work 80 hrs/week (I’d say it’s unwise but, some folks can tolerate it; hey some folks only need 5-6 hrs of sleep a night). And secondly, if it’s salaried, I’d say it’s more a commitment to a certain volume of usefulness than hourly accounting.

    I think the biggest problem is the secrecy that’s going to be inherently involved in the arrangement described. If employers are really desperate for employees, I bet they’d be willing to consider sharing; on the other hand, if I was an employer and thought I was accommodating work life balance and personal needs, but found out I was really accommodating a second job when I thought I was the only one; well I would feel a bit cheated. The analogies with romantic relationships abound!

    I think the only way to ethically do this is 1) if the jobs have zero conflicts 2) ideally with full disclosure to both jobs for good measure anyway.

      1. River Otter*

        I have distracted coworkers who work 40+ hours at one job. Is this so different? If they are getting me what I need, who cares what the rest of their time is spent on?

        1. BlueberryFields*

          Sorry, I should have been clearer–I meant a coworker who isn’t getting work done because they are distracted by the other job’s priorities. Obviously, we don’t have evidence that OP will drop the ball, but it seems inevitable after the honeymoon period is over.

          1. River Otter*

            But again, how is that different to me from a coworker with multiple projects at the same company? I’ve got plenty of those.

            1. cranky*

              How would you like to work for a distracted manager? Cause that’s what this person is.

              They’re a damn director! The absolute best case is insane title creep at both jobs; the more likely case is that they’re leaning on reports/coworkers, failing to adequately mentor and do other director level task and that’ll have repercussions for their reports.

        2. mreasy*

          Yeah I was going to say – I have a coworker (director level w 3 reports) who is totally ineffectual and scattered and turns in everythjng late, but because of his skill set everyone accepts it. I would rather have someone with mysteriously low availability who got their deliverables in on time so my projects weren’t delayed.

      2. Adelphi*

        I’m a distracted coworker and I’m great at my job. I got no problems with others being distracted. That ain’t my business.

      3. cranky*

        Or worse, as you manager? How many letters come to this site about managers that aren’t available/don’t seem to do much to fix issues/etc?

      4. cranky*

        Or worse, as you manager? How many letters come to this site about managers that aren’t available/don’t seem to do much to fix issues/etc? This person is a dang director! Working for distracted upper management really sucks.

    2. ImOnlyHereForThePoetry*

      Nope

      I am not sure that ethically “stick it to the man” works because we don’t know who the OP works for. If it’s a non-profits or ethically run companies then the argument that companies are bad so I may as well get everything I can from them just doesn’t hold up.

      Also, when the OP is found out, the companies are going to be way less likely to hire remote employees. Even posting this type of letter may make a lot of people wary of allowing people to work from home.

      1. A Genuine Scientician*

        I find all of the “stick it to the man” and “companies have been taking advantage of workers” arguments sadly lacking.

        OK, so other people have mistreated others — and maybe even you — in one particular way. That….enables you to mistreat others in the same way? Others who have not done this to you?

        No.

        I felt the same thing about the recent discussion about how employers ghosted on job applicants before, so now applicants are fine ghosting on employers. It’s the equivalent to thinking “My last SO cheated on me, so now I’m going to cheat on you”

        1. Tali*

          Same, especially considering OP is a director–she is “the man” now! She is the management! Who is she taking advantage of at that point, the C-suite??

    3. Detective Amy Santiago*

      This comment right here is why I hate most people. There is nothing remotely admirable about what this LW is doing.

      2. Sparkles McFadden*

        Some people have this mentality that getting away with something, particularly at work, makes you a hero.

        This reminds me of a time when an ethically-challenged coworker was bragging about how he hired someone to tamper with his electric meter so it would only report a fraction of his usage. Another coworker said “I’m not sure what’s worse. That you are a thief or that you’re openly bragging about being a thief. In either case, I now know you can’t be trusted, so thanks for that information.”

  45. PrairieEffingDawn*

    I wish my life was this breezy. I don’t have it too bad but I feel like at busy times with my job, I’ve struggled tremendously to fit ~45+ hours of work into my week on top of other life demands (child rearing, keeping a home, etc) and make nowhere near $200k, nevermind $440k. So, I’m jealous but at the same time, if you can pull it off I guess you can pull it off?

  46. Hattie*

    People are obviously talking about this more and more and I’m sure it’s happening far less than the media is suggesting, but I worry that if some people are doing it, it’ll encourage some employers to be more micro-managing about their remote employees. My boss and my stepdad have both made comments about millennials picking up second jobs while wfh, and I think it affects their behaviour as managers.

    Obviously that’s on managers to manage better, but I worry that if trust is abused like this it will lead to a breakdown in the idea of remote working and we’ll be back to where we were two years ago.

  47. Lou*

    Why would you even want to work two jobs if you don’t need the extra income? It seems stressfull. Moreover your reasoning for doing it seems to just be “why not?” I’d wonder about your decision-making in other ethical scenarios in the future.

    1. Littorally*

      Right? If you can pull in 200k from working 25 hours a week, why not give yourself the rest of the hours back and have a life?

        1. Littorally*

          Right, yeah.

          If OP feels driven to work more than one full job to stay busy, why not put the rest of the time toward actually, you know, improving society? Find a volunteer mission. Do some good in the world.

          1. Sparkles McFadden*

            I think the response to that would be “But…MONEY!!!”

            I hope we get an update to this a few months down the road. I don’t think LW can sustain this as she thinks she can.

    2. SciDiver*

      Yeah this is what got me! The pay grade and potential for it to all come apart has me uneasy and it’s so indicative of other more structural problems in the workforce, but the longer I thought about it, it’s just…why are we even here? I’d happily take 25 hour weeks for 200k over 50-60 hour weeks for 400k. Read books, bake bread, volunteer, remodel your bathroom, start a new hobby.

    3. Tea and Cake*

      There is also the angle that each position is professionally rewarding in different ways, and each position offers different challenges/experiences. If LW found a director role for $400k that combined all of the rewards and challenges, would you ask why they would want to work for so much money?

  48. Roscoe*

    This is one of those things where I fully believe people wouldn’t like it just because it “feels” wrong, even if theoretically the person’s work is perfectly fine.

    And assuming there aren’t really set hours, I don’t really see the issue. I fully believe a company is paying for you to be available for 40 hours of work a week, even if you don’t actually do 40 hours a week. And if, like many people these days, are able to shift your hours around and work as you need to, there really should be no issue.

    I agree that OP may likely get burned out, but I don’t think its wrong. Similarly, assuming you never signed something saying they were your ONLY employer, I don’t even really think its unethical. Just because a manager wouldn’t like it, doesn’t mean its unethical.

  49. bunniferous*

    I think this has the potential to bite OP in the butt at a future time. If both companies find out, both fire him, it would make it harder to get another job later. Plus, what if someone who knows him at one job winds up switching jobs to one at the second job?

    Dude, pick one and drop the other. Just because you CAN do something does not mean you SHOULD. At the very least there is -or would have to be at some point-lying involved. Don’t do this.

  50. Oh well….*

    I’m a little surprised that you didn’t need to sign anything indicating that you had to seek permission for work outside of either employer. Especially, if you are higher up in an organization. I’m basically a worker bee, and I was required to sign such a policy at my current employer. And, I know many of our competitors, especially those that have remote work staff, who have similar policies.

    I do think this is going to blow up in the OPs face at some point. There will be something that comes up. Especially, once you’ve been in both positions for awhile. As you get up to speed you get more work.

  51. Aria*

    I feel like this could blow up in a big time, spectacular, popcorn-munching/ AAM-reading way!

    The problem is not wanting the jobs to know. That tells you that you already know it’s unethical and you are ok with that. What are you going to put on your resume going forward? What happens to your references? I think this could easily tank a director level career in so much juicy gossip. No one’s field is so vast that a director could do this and no one would ever know. It’s short sighted.

    1. Fashion Show at Lunch!*

      This. If you’re going to great pains to hide what you’re doing, then that’s your first clue that what you’re doing is not OK. If the OP had been upfront with both companies about their intentions and had negotiated some sort of part-time/freelance consultant type of role with both (or had gotten them both to sign off on the current arrangement, although that seems highly unlikely), then it wouldn’t be a problem.

      The issue here isn’t the quality of work the OP is doing, their availability or the actual number of hours they’re putting in at each job—it’s the deception.

    2. Daffy Duck*

      Yup, if the companies were OK with it that would be one thing. It is keeping it secret that is the problem. It is the cover-up that will get them in trouble.

  52. River Otter*

    Eh, I once knew someone who completed all her work in less than 40 hrs/week and therefore didn’t work 40 hrs. Her work had no idea she worked this way. I have mixed feelings about it, since the usual salaried expectation is that one will fill all 40 hours with work, and I suspect, since she was hiding her actual hours, that this was the expectation at her work. But, she got all her work done by being super efficient.

    So, as long as one isn’t in a billable hours type of situation, I’m landing on “just get all your work done.”

    OP, have you considered quitting one of the jobs and becoming a coach or consultant for efficient work habits?

    1. Mockingjay*

      I routinely finish my work in less than 20 hours. While it’s nice to get the housework done in between teleconferences and free up my Saturday morning, the rest of the time drags. What do I do the rest of the time? I contact supervisor and grandboss and let them know my availability to fill in on other projects. I’ve been loaned to the corporate office for proposal support. I write up how-tos and post these. I train junior team members on toolsets and engineering processes. And so on.

      I find work. Within my company. Because that’s the ethical thing to do – professionally and personally.

      1. Zee*

        If I’m good enough at my job to finish in 20 hours that would take someone else 40 hours, why should I then be punished by taking on additional work without getting paid any additional money?

  53. Naomi*

    I just feel like this is a house of cards. Whatever you think of it ethically, this is a minefield in a practical sense, because there are so many ways it can go wrong. Someday both companies will have a crisis at once, or both will want the OP to travel at once (they both have a lot of travel!) or one company or the other will become dissatisfied with OP’s performance because they’re only getting part-time work in a full-time position, or someone will find out about the other job, or OP will burn out trying to do both jobs. It’s not sustainable in the long term.

  54. Samantha F*

    There is no universe in which what the OP is doing is ok. I am surprised by Alison.
    I do think this is highly unethical. If I ever found out somebody was doing this I would definitely report them / never hire them, and would certainly let any reference seeker know how unethical this person is. In our small industry circle, if word got around this would definitely be career ending.

    Firstly, there’s the issue of trust. As you go higher up in a job, the less you get ‘micromanaged’ typically, and you are trusted to spend your time doing the most important work. Breaking that trust is wrong.
    Secondly, there’s the fact that others have to pick up your slack without the compensation. It may be harder for your boss to notice if you are only doing 25h/week instead of the 60h/week probably most of your colleagues are putting in (in silicon valley) because you are delegating. What this means is what really needs to get done will be done by others. Your immediate supervisor might not even notice for a while that they are covering for you, but that doesn’t mean it’s ok. Those people would be underpaid and resentful. The company may lose top talent.

    Finally , there is the aspect of emergencies. What if you had a driving instructor whose job was to sit next to you, maybe not do anything obvious most of the time, but help you stop a car crash, in an emergency. What if he was working a second job, and claimed it was ok because he wasn’t needed full-time anyway, and nobody noticed that he wasn’t paying full attention? When you really needed him, he might be preoccupied with his second job.

    This is just terrible. I can’t believe anybody would condone this behavior. It’s straight-up conning the employer.

    1. Firm Believer*

      My sentiments exactly and I’m disappointed at even a suggestion that this is ok. I thought the mantra here was employers should trust their employees? How do these two thought processes coexist? I’ve had two people come to me this year from competitors asking if they could work part time for me while continuing on with their current jobs. I told them the ethics were questionable and they should ask themselves if their employer would look favorably on it. It’s wrong, full stop.

    2. Ask a Manager* Post author

      I thought I made it pretty clear it’s not okay and I don’t condone it. From my response as I reviewed various elements of the situation: “that’s a huge ethical issue” … “that’s a big deal” … “The biggest one is the deception … That’s a big deal.”

      Saying “I still don’t condone it because of the deception, but I also can’t condemn it as strongly as I would have in the past” is not saying that it’s okay.

      1. Samantha F*

        But Alison… You know that you have a blog that loads of people read, and has some real-life impact, right? Someone like you saying you don’t condemn this that much, is impactful. It could lead to more people behaving this way. We already many managers who are worried about people working remotely exactly for this kind of reason, and if more employees behaved like this (if this became a THING), remote work would get harder for all of us. Please don’t give the impression it’s ok to do this kind of thing.

        1. Ask a Manager* Post author

          What I wrote is what my take on it is: deceptive, a big deal, a huge ethical issue … and also not something I’m nearly worked up about as I would have been in the past.

          1. Annie Moose*

            I have to admit, if you really think it is “a big deal, a huge ethical issue”… then why should we not be worked up about it? If it’s genuinely a huge ethical issue, then should it not be condemned? And if it’s not important enough to strongly condemn, then doesn’t that mean it’s not a huge ethical issue? I don’t understand where the line is being drawn here.

            1. Ask a Manager* Post author

              You don’t have a scale of how intensely you’re bothered by different things? I’m just not as worked up about this one as I am by, say, employers abusing their power over workers. This one just doesn’t land with me the same way, or even the way it used to. Things can be wrong without me feeling like screaming in the streets over them. And I don’t think you can look at this one without seeing it in the full landscape of the larger system it exists in.

              1. Annie Moose*

                The letter writer has two director’s positions making $200k a year each–I don’t think it’s great to lump her extremely privileged situation in with people suffering genuine exploitation at the hands of employers.

                I also think we can be worked up about multiple things at once without needing to rank them. We can acknowledge that employer abuse of employees is a serious problem, while also acknowledging that this situation is not an example of that occurring. The reality is, by going “well, I’m not as worked up about X as I am about Y”, you do give the strong impression that you’re not worked up about X very much at all.

                1. ecnaseener*

                  Lump in? Alison was contrasting the two situations. The very opposite of lumping them together.

              2. Don*

                “Wage theft” has been dropped in a few places, and while that’s probably correct from a dictionary point of view it also pretty well explains why I just can’t get worked up about this other than from a theoretical standpoint. From a 2017 EPI report (available here https://www.epi.org/publication/employers-steal-billions-from-workers-paychecks-each-year/):

                “What this report finds: This report assesses the prevalence and magnitude of one form of wage theft—minimum wage violations (workers being paid at an effective hourly rate below the binding minimum wage)—in the 10 most populous U.S. states. We find that, in these states, 2.4 million workers lose $8 billion annually (an average of $3,300 per year for year-round workers) to minimum wage violations—nearly a quarter of their earned wages. This form of wage theft affects 17 percent of low-wage workers, with workers in all demographic categories being cheated out of pay.”

                By comparison, this one person shorting two employers by 50% of his effort concerns be about as much as when I drop a single piece of popcorn on the floor.

                1. Annie Moose*

                  Oh, well, in that case, I guess I’m going to start robbing banks. I mean, it’ll only be a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of exploitation large companies and financial institutions commit, right? After that I’ll go burn down someone’s house; after all, it’s such a small thing compared to how many houses have been destroyed by wildfires set by dumb humans. For a finale maybe I’ll kill a couple people. Nothing compared to the number of people governments kill through war, starvation, etc. so it shouldn’t concern anyone.

                  If something’s wrong, it’s wrong even if other people are committing greater wrongs. This notion of “it doesn’t matter what individuals do wrong because big organizations do bigger wrongs” is absurd. LW is deceiving both her employers; it’s wrong and is very likely to blow up in her face.

                2. Nanani*

                  I dont even think it’s theft. Assuming LW is correct that they dont expect specific hour availability and there isn’t a real rule (not a “norm” but an actual contract or policy rule) being violated, then they aren’t scamming and it’s not theft.

                3. Don*

                  This is a whole lot of indignation over other folks having a more nuanced outlook on an ethical question than yourself. But if I really do have this much influence on random internet people, please, let me be clear: don’t do murders. You probably shouldn’t rob banks either but if you do please don’t use weapons or violence.

                4. Salsa Verde*

                  I can’t reply to Annie Moose directly because of nesting limits, but honestly? I wouldn’t be as worked up about her robbing a bank, where I assume the loss will come out of the banks profits, as I would be about her burning someone’s house down or killing someone. To me, one is a transgression against a corporation, and the others are transgressions against individuals.

                5. Frank Doyle*

                  I actually would be fine with you robbing a bank, as long as no one got hurt. Banks get robbed all the time! Screw banks.

                6. Luffi*

                  I totally agree with Annie Moose’s perspective, and I have to believe that people here are being deliberately obtuse about her argument because they don’t want to honestly consider it.

                  Worse things happen, but what LW is doing is still bad. Stealing a stick of gum from the store is a minor thing, but it’s still wrong.

                  I’m amazed you are all willing to accept that this behaviour is ok.

            2. Lotus*

              My personal two cents: something could be unethical but not unjust? Employers are not the ones who have been historically screwed over, so deceiving the employer isn’t riling people up as much. Kind of like stealing from a Target.

              That being said, I do think there are ethical implications of this, but my concern is for the impact on other employees not the employer.

              Also, if your goal is to be and stay employed, lying to your employer is definitely a bad idea.

        2. Tuesday*

          But we come to this blog because we want to hear Alison’s honest take on workplace issues. We wouldn’t be here for the discussion of the response was just, “No, this is bad.” I’d like to think most of us can handle a little nuance, and I think a person would really have to be set on deceiving themselves in order to read the response and decide it meant they should do the same as the OP.

          1. Luffi*

            That last paragraph makes it pretty clear that Alison would be willing to have a chat if she found out that someone was doing this. That’s nuts, in my opinion.

            Let’s pretend we live in a fantasy world where working two full time, leadership roles doesn’t affect the director’s performance in any way. It’s still a huge lie that is being perpetrated against a company BY A DIRECTOR and says a whole bundle about someone’s character that they can be this deceptive.

            Then, when we return to reality, you also have to factor in that their performance is definitely being affected. I mean come on, does anyone really believe that a director can function properly in two full-time jobs?

            Alison’s argument is that there is a societal shift happening between employees and employers. But does that apply to directors making 200K? What, you need that extra job to hoik you up to afford your second house? Please. It’s a scummy thing to do.

            1. Neptune*

              Yeah, I just don’t see how anyone can get past the issue of such a huge deception being perpetrated by a director-level employee purely for their own financial gain. You could never trust a person like that again. I mean, say the OP makes some huge, costly error in one job – maybe even makes the error because she’s distracted by the other job or gets mixed up or something. Can you trust her to tell the truth about it? I wouldn’t. There is no way to live like this without lying all the time, about everything from “how come you weren’t at the meeting yesterday?” to “so what do you do?”.

            2. Salsa Verde*

              If this is against the rules, I totally understand deleting this comment, but:
              Luffi, do you feel like being a billionaire is unethical? I am honestly asking. It would make sense to me if you do think that, but if you do not, then I guess I am not understanding the nuances in your thinking.

              1. Luffi*

                Let me help you understand my nuances!

                I think a low level employee who is earning peanuts is more justified in deceiving their employer and taking two jobs, because they can legitimately argue that they need the extra income to live. I believe that’s part of the “societal shift” Alison is talking about, and I am all for discussing the ethics of fair pay and responsibility between employees and employers at that level.

                On the other hand, someone in a leadership or management position who makes more than enough to live comfortably at one job, does not have the ethical high ground to take on two jobs. They can’t argue they need that money to survive. They just want more money for funsies such as, perhaps, a new house, and they are happy to deliver mediocre work at two companies in order to get it.

                And on an unrelated note yes I feel that billionaires are perpetuating the growing divide between haves and have nots, and I think they almost always grow their wealth through corrupt business practices and don’t pay their share of taxes.

              2. Purple cat*

                “Do you feel like being a billionaire is unethical”

                Ooh, I have been personally wrestling with this exact question, since I work for a global privately held company whose owner is, not surprisingly, a multi-billionaire. And yes, it just feels unethical to me. Not downright evil, but there’s no “good” way (IMO) to amass such wealth.

    3. Hills to Die On*

      It’s really not OK. It’s either unethical or it isn’t. But political view drives Alison’s responses a lot. Whereas if it were a left-leaning political organization or a non-profit, I suspect there would be stronger outcry from Alison and others. I think you have to read this blog through that lens and account for it.
      I think the inclination towards anti-Capitalism has some people saying ‘meh’ – which I don’t agree with. But it’s your personal integrity that should be driving your personal behavior – just one person’s opinion. This will *probably* come back to bite the OP one way or another. Good on you, OP, if it hurts nobody and you get away with it, but I don’t think that will be the case long-term.

      1. Ask a Manager* Post author

        It’s absolutely true that if she were doing this at a charity, I’d have a much stronger response to it. She’s doing it at a company that exists to make profit. That doesn’t make it okay — again, it’s not okay; it’s still deceptive and an ethical problem — but it does make it different (to me).

        1. Hills to Die On*

          To be clear – it was not a judgement. I am saying all of us have our biases, these are yours, and it’s a factor in your personal response.
          I get you – there’s a spectrum of ‘not okay’ and wherever people land on this particular issue, everyone has their own compass.

  55. anonymous73*

    I honestly think you’re kidding yourself that you can manage this long term. You’re a month in…that’s nothing. You say you’d handle multiple crises at each company like you would if they were happening at the same company. But it’s NOT the same. If you had multiple urgent tasks requiring you to work on both at once at the same company, prioritizing one over the other would be easier to justify when the tasks are within the same company. You can’t justify your time spent elsewhere when elsewhere is a completely different job. You can try and justify your reasoning for pursuing this a million different ways, but you need to prepare yourself for it blowing up in your face down the road…and going from 2 jobs to zero jobs.

    1. Littorally*

      Right. When it’s at the same company, you can say to the people you’re accountable to, “Hey, I hear you that X is a high priority. Y is too. I’m going to devote as much time as I can to keeping both these balls in the air.”

      OP categorically can’t do that. And that’s not trivial.

  56. Reluctant Manager*

    I can’t believe one gotten this far and not found a long thread about these two little words: “deception aside.” It’s an interesting thought experiment, but for me OP is automatically in the wrong because any employer has a reasonable expectation that their staff is not deceiving them, explicitly or by omission. Things may be changing fast, but this is still a big deceit by omission. If you think it’s ok, talk to your employers. If you aren’t willing to do that, it sounds like you think it’s deceitful and you shouldn’t do it.

    1. Neptune*

      This! The deception is not something you can just put to the side – it speaks to character in a really fundamental way. A director level position implies a certain degree of trust, access to information, authority over others. The OP is engaged in an ongoing deception that must surely involve constant lies, either by omission or outright. How can anyone trust her with anything? If she thinks lying about something will make her 200k, will she do it?

  57. alynn*

    ‘have awesome teammates who dotted-line report to me and who I can rely on to accomplish day-to-day activities.’

    This stood out to me. I’m part of a team and we are happy to help/cover for each other when someone is swamped or out sick, etc. BUT if I found out I was consistently covering for someone doing what this LW is doing (at this pay level) i would be furious. Especially if it made my workload heavier or otherwise negatively impacted meeting my goals and deadlines.

  58. Littorally*

    I’m really startled (and a little skeptical) that you’ve somehow managed to find two director-level, strategic jobs, in the same or similar enough industry that your experience is applicable and useful, that don’t compete with each other, which you can get by on with an average of 25 hours a week apiece and do an apparently okay job. You’re only a month in, which means you’re still in the ramp-up — I really wonder if this is actually going to be sustainable a year or two from now. It seems likely to me that you’re going to find yourself either doing a more and more mediocre job at each, or constantly putting off one to focus on the other — or, if you’re too conscientious for that, devoting more and more time to each job until you’re working 80-100 hour weeks.

    If each job is paying about $200k, are they really jobs that can be done with 25 hours a week, to the same standard they’re expecting from someone working 40 hours a week? I’m dubious. This attitude sounds a lot like the people who have written in saying “I’m doing three people’s worth of work so I should get triple salary, right?” The truth is, they aren’t doing three whole people’s worth of work, they’re hitting the highest-priority items from three different jobs and letting a lot of low-priority balls drop.

  59. Hills to Die On*

    If it were your company, would you be okay with your employee working ~25 hours/week instead of 40 and maybe prioritizing other jobs ahead of the one you are paying them to do? There’s your barometer.

    1. Albeira Dawn*

      Oooooh, I think this is an interesting question, especially since LW is at a high level. If one of your teammates dropped a major ball at work, and you found out it was because they were working another job and prioritized something there, how would you feel about that person? Would it be similar to if they had a personal crisis? Would it indicate that as a practice, working 2 full-time jobs is unsustainable? Or just that this one person couldn’t sustain it?

    3. Nanani*

      Are they getting the work done?
      If it only took them 25 hours, they can play minecraft or work a part time job or whatever they want.

      Unless the job is a butt in seat face time job, and LW’s isn’t, then it’s fine both ways by this metric.

      I dont think this metric is sufficient.

  60. Cat Lady in the Mountains*

    The thing that makes this iffy to me is when the LW this: “I don’t have any direct reports, but have awesome teammates who dotted-line report to me and who I can rely on to accomplish day-to-day activities.”

    Is LW leaning on teammates to do things that LW really should be doing? Is that putting an unfair burden on people lower on the ladder — who are paid less and have less power to push back — than LW? Is that resulting in colleagues working longer hours? If not now, could it eventually? If any of that is a possibility, I do think LW has an ethical obligation to pick one job.

    Also, folks in leadership set the culture for the institution more broadly, so if LW seems unavailable or disengaged or just not pulling their weight to innovate and drive the business forward, does that signal to colleagues that it’s ok for them to do the same? If not, I see that leading to bitterness about double standards for leadership vs. frontline staff. If frontline staff are expected to work 40 hours a week and LW isn’t — no matter how good their work is — I feel like that creates an untenable internal equity issue. If I were managing LW and I found out about this, that’s the biggest thing I’d be looking at when deciding whether to keep them on and/or insist on them leaving their other job if they want to stay.

    1. AdequateAdmin*

      I wondered about the work division too. It may seem like you are managing things just fine, but how much are you really pushing off an to other people? To me, it’s no different than if your boss was gone/unreachable all the time so you had to pick up their slack (which, been there done that, bought the t-shirt). And your point that it may be people who don’t have the capital to push back is what really concerns me.

    2. Annie Moose*

      Yeah, those day-to-day responsibilities–are those things LW is supposed to be accomplishing but isn’t, because she’s got this other job she’s doing? Sure, everything might get done, but is it getting done by you, the person responsible for getting it done, or are you shoving your responsibilities off on other people because you don’t have the time for it (due to your second job)?

  61. irritable vowel*

    The thing about director-level positions is that even if your name isn’t on the company website, there’s likely a certain amount of professional networking that goes on in the industry at that level, and OP is eventually going to be found out as having roles at two different companies (unless the positions are in two totally separate industries, which seems unlikely given the amount of domain-level expertise I imagine they would have to have for positions like these). It might not be someone at one of the companies they work for who makes the initial discovery, but this kind of info is going to spread like wildfire once *anyone* in the industry finds out.

    1. irritable vowel*

      That being said, I’m not ethically opposed to the situation and am actually heartened by the number of comments in support of making capitalism work for you rather than the other way around.

      1. Littorally*

        I think the big ethical concern is what people have raised about the OP offloading work onto coworkers — ie, it isn’t the companies as entities the OP might be doing wrong by, but the other individuals who would end up picking up their slack.

      2. Xavier Desmond*

        It’s a lot easier to make capitalism work for you when you are earning 200k a year. Good luck with that for someone on minimum wage.

      3. successor state*

        This person is a director who makes 200K even without the double job stuff. Capitalism already works for them. This isn’t the cool “get back at the man” type story so many people want it to be.

  62. Reluctant Manager*

    I keep hearing that there are plenty of jobs to go around, but there are plenty of people who are still desperate for good jobs or who need the leverage to ask for basic working conditions like paid family leave. If you weren’t there, would one employer have to offer a better benefits package to someone else? Would the job go to someone who needed and disclosed flexibility for child care?

    Like one of your stellar direct reports, who could potentially step up into a more senior role if you weren’t sitting in two seats at the table?

    1. Bernice Clifton*

      Yeah, I really wish people would stop pushing the narrative that Every Organization Is Desperate For Help right now. That’s not true for every position or industry. I was laid off last summer and it still took a pre-Covid level of time for me to find a position that would pay my bills. I was still up against dozens of other applicants for most openings. Which, fine, that’s what job searching is about, but it’s annoying to feel like you have to justify why you don’t have a new job yet to retired family members or friends in totally different industries who think everyone is hiring.

      1. Just Somebody*

        Same. I am trying to change careers and have been (somewhat passively) searching for two months now. One interview and then silence and/or rejections for the rest of the apps. It’s still hard to break into some fields unless you have previous experience, and even then, there may be so many candidates that even good people will not get a job immediately.

  63. My head hurts*

    I have mixed feelings about this as a person who only works 20 hours out of 40 that my job expects from me. In my case, those other hours are spent being in physical or emotional pain. I’ve been in this job for years, and got a raise and a promotion recently for excellent work. But I still don’t work all 40 hours.

    For the folks saying that this is unethical bc the OP isn’t working the number of hours expected- I’m wondering if my situation is any different?

    1. S*

      You’re not using the extra time to create profit for someone else, you’re using it to care for yourself. To me, that’s different.

    2. quill*

      I mean, you’re not *choosing* to have other things going on during those work hours. There’s no “I can get frank to do a third of my job so I can be working my second job” potential conflict there. A reasonable expectation of 40 hour availability, if not 40 hours of actual productivity, is going to have exceptions for the fact that our bodies are fallible.

      1. Annie Moose*

        Yes, I think the availability aspect is key here. Theoretically, if you had a really good mental health/low pain week, you could actually work all 40 of those hours for your regular job, right? You are technically available during them, even if you often aren’t actually able to actively work during those times. (fwiw I also have mental health stuff which means I basically never actually work a full week of 40 hours, so I very much sympathize with My head hurts)

        With LW, she isn’t actually offering 40 hours of availability to each of her jobs, because she’s splitting that availability between both jobs. It’s not “theoretically available 40 hours, practically available 20”, it’s both theoretically and practically available only 20-25.

        (the availability thing comes into play with like, meetings and situations that require a quick turnaround. Even if I’m otherwise not productive on a day, let’s say I spend most of Thursday unable to be productive, but at 3 PM I get pinged to jump on an emergency call with a client, I am generally going to be able to power through that, because I’m available even though I’m (mostly) not productive. If I’m working a second job, though, what if I’m in the middle of giving a presentation for my other job, or heads down on some important project, or having a one-on-one with my boss, or… whatever? I’m not available to jump on that last-minute call for my second job. Just a simple example to illustrate what I mean.)

    3. ImOnlyHereForThePoetry*

      Yes, you aren’t working another job.

      Also, is your position as well paid and at as high a level as the OPs?

  64. L.H. Puttgrass*

    I’m confused about whether each employer knows what the LW is doing. The words “under the radar” make me think not, but then the LW says that “leadership is flexible and supportive.” Does leadership of both companies know about both jobs? If so, I see no ethical issue. If they don’t know, then LW’s actions are deceptive, regardless of whether LW can do all the duties of both jobs successfully. And that’s unethical, IMO.

    1. Willis*

      I took that to mean leadership is flexible and supportive of employees in general, not that they know about this specific, two-job situation.

  65. M*

    If I found out an employee was doing this, but was still fantastic at their job and getting glowing reviews, I would change the job to be part time. It clearly doesn’t take 40 hrs/week to perform the job at a stellar level, and the company is clearly only getting ~25 hrs/week (on average, assuming time is split equally) – so it’s a part time job.

  66. learnedthehardway*

    I am a consultant, and am working at about 2-300% of capacity right now. It’s not sustainable in the long term, but it sure makes up for a COVID year in the short term. Just had a conversation with a client who was questioning how much work I am doing, since I had told them X amount was what I could do for their company and I’m at X+1. I pointed out that that wasn’t my total capacity, just what I have allotted to them, so that I can maintain my independent status as a consultant (Tax implications exist here if you’re not actually independent).

    I would be awfully careful in the OP’s shoes, because I’m sure that your employment contracts probably specify something about not working for other companies without prior approval from your manager. This is pretty common in senior level employment contracts. Don’t get caught, let’s put it that way.

  67. Paper Librarian*

    I gotta admit, I dislike this arrangement because I feel like it will inherently hurt people in lower positions. This is the kind of situation that companies will argue is why the status quo needs to return. But, managers with reports and resources to work multiple jobs won’t be penalized, but new employees to the workforce will lose access to work from home and other benefits. That’s how I see it playing out, at least.

  68. Czhorat*

    A director level job very likely is expected to require 50-60 hours of your attention in any given week.

    There’s no way you can ethically be fulfilling your duties to either employer in half that time.

  69. Double A*

    We just had a letter from someone expecting their hires to work 100 your weeks, or 2.5 jobs for one company. Yes, there was a lot of condemnation in the comments, but the concept wasn’t exactly unique. The issue is that people didn’t WANT to. If they want to… Well, then, they can, right? So what’s the difference if someone wants to work 2 jobs, just with different companies?

    I admit it feels different but I wonder if that’s just our ingrained deference to employers that we’ve been accustomed to. Like Allison said, things are changing…

    I can’t imagine the companies will be happy about this, but if OP can pull it off, I’m having a hard time seeing what is wrong with it exactly. It does surprise me that they can do each $200k job in 25 hours a week. I’d expect someone attempting this to be putting in 80-100 hour weeks.

    1. Anonymous Hippo*

      If she was working 80-90 hours a week nobody would care (IMO). But she isn’t. She is giving a director level position 20-25 hours a week, a position that I would suggest usually calls for 40-50 by itself. So basically half the expected time. That’s not at all the same thing. Even it it was approaching 70 we’d probably not be so taken aback.

      1. Salsa Verde*

        So then what is the cutoff, I wonder? I personally think that commenters here would still care if she was working 80-90 hour weeks, they would still think it was unethical, just for the other reasons that have been brought up.

        But lots of the people who think this is unethical are making assumptions that the OP cannot possibly be doing a good job, and/or that others must be picking up their slack, and I wonder what the threshold for that is. If she said she was working 60 hour weeks, would that erase those comments? And if it is about hours, I would point out that she said she’s just a few months in to these jobs – it makes sense to me that she could get it all done in 40 hours, and it also makes sense that she can expect to work more hours regularly in the future if she keeps both jobs.

    2. Nails*

      Came here to say this. I think *this* is the crux of the ethical matter.

      Is it possible and ethical to work two jobs? Certainly!

      Is it possible and ethical to work two full-time jobs? Certainly, in 80 hours a week. There might be concern about maintaining core business hours, which is an (often unwritten) expectation, but that is a question of communication – not ethics. It would be utterly reasonable for some people to work two full-time jobs, if exhausting, and thousands of people do so.

      Is it possible to ethical to work two full-time jobs with staggered/flexed hours – i.e. one job gets all mornings, etc, so the 80 hours a week is distributed fairly across both jobs and across working hours? Certainly, and many people do so.

      Is it ethically possible to do two jobs on the same clock? Sort of – this would appear to be along the lines of delivering the intention of the full-time job, as discussed elsewhere in the thread. A security guard can deliver their core job (being physically present) while also preparing content for their blog; a parent may attend a Zoom meeting while supervising children, although both are considered full-time employment. The expectation here is that the person must be able to put down the added-in task to attend to the job on the clock.

      Is it ethically possible to run two clocks at the same time and charge for both? In some circumstances, surely – but conflict of interest would become an issue, and the person doing it would not be the best qualified to assess the conflict, since they are the source of both directions of the conflicts of interest. One would need to be honest with the keepers of both clocks, unless it was a case of “taking paid vacation from one role to work on the other.”

      I feel the arguments about the ethics have to come down on honesty and expectations. The stuff about “but some people don’t even have ONE job” and “are you SURE you’re really DOING the job” are not things we can do anything about from here, and we have no influence over them. After all, OP can’t award one job to a “better” person, and if their performance is rated good by their superiors, well, we have to trust that their superiors will know far more than we do. The only argument that can’t be rebutted with evidence is the one of honesty.

  70. Viki*

    It’s unethical and a lie of omission. I shouldn’t have to be asking people I hire, if they are planning on taking a second full time job or are working a second full time job when I am expecting you to be working for my company, where I am paying you.

    In my company, that is a breach of our code of conduct and ethical code which we do training for manually.

  71. Ashley Ledon*

    I know this question isn’t fully the point of this letter, but would love to get people’s thoughts on 40-hour work-weeks. If you are good at your job and get all your work done, do you need to find busy work for the rest of the hours? With the switch to WFH and flexible work hours, does it really matter if you hit 40-hours? I manage a lot of projects (20+ at once), so taking on more work would stretch me thin, but I’m not in meetings 8+ hours a day either.

    1. Roscoe*

      No, I don’t think so.

      As I said somewhere else, IMO I’m being paid to be available 40 hours a week (roughly) not to actually do 40 hours of work. I have specific goals to meet, and if it takes me 25 hours and a colleague 40, why should I ask for more work? All that leads to is me doing more work for less money

    2. alynn*

      My partner and I discuss the 40 hour question with some regularity. I’m salary with the expectation that if the workload requires more hours we do it. -the idea is this would be occasional, less than 4x a year- Then when work is light and completed in less than 40hrs, I get to be done with work.

      However, that just is not the culture of my company -and dare I say, the US. At least before COVID, 38-40 hours was expected regardless if the workload was leas. With WFH I’m able to do stuff if work is light. I just stay signed on and check in every hour or so to see if anyone needs anything.

    3. Random Internet Stranger*

      I have a lot of thoughts on this, but I think some of my thoughts here are a reflection of the type of work I do. I am the director (and only employee) of a nonprofit doing advocacy and education type work. I don’t always work 40 hours per week. Sometimes I work 25 and sometimes I work 50 (and I like to think it comes out in the wash). But I always have more work I could be doing, so if I were consistently only working 25 hours per week, I would definitely have some guilt. My job is already unsustainable at 40 hours per week and I don’t feel guilty when I only work 25 since I am human and my output is good, but I couldn’t consistently work 25 hours per week.

      If I worked in a role with a finite amount of work, I might feel completely differently.

      1. Ashley*

        I guess my question is more around – why do we even count hours at all now instead of expectations/function of the role? Because I agree with you on the guilt. In my previous roles, I was on call 24/7, 365,. My current role doesn’t have a lot of after-hours work but does have some travel (about once a month). But I feel the pressure to be in front of my computer from 8-5 every day no matter the timezone or calls before/after 8-5.

        1. Random Internet Stranger*

          Ah, that I can’t answer. I get why counting hours makes sense for some people (it’s an easy metric and, for me and people like me, it helps me to not accidentally work way too many hours), but I feel zero pressure to be “on” at certain times. If I write a grant in the evening and want to sleep until 10 am the next morning, I totally do. I have to work late tonight, so this morning I took myself out to breakfast and rolled into the office an hour later than usual.

        2. Loredena Frisealach*

          I’m a consultant, which means I’m primarily measured on billable hours – and I only have one client. I’m currently billing a flat 40 hours and my PM just pushed an expectation that I should be billing time to PTO or other non-billable codes because I’ve had personal time for appts, an issue with home buying, etc. so his perception is that I’m not working 40 hours.
          BUT – while I’m still sitting here all day answering emails, attending meetings, supporting the developers during those core hours, my primary responsibility for the next year is migration work. Work that is mostly done nights/weekends. So yes, some weeks I may have only worked 20 hours during the core work hours while making calls/going to appts/reading AAM inbetween — but there was an additional 20-40 that isn’t visible to him.

    4. NotAnotherManager!*

      Depends on your industry. If you work in a field that evaluates on client or project hours billed, then you need to seek out more work. A number of my jobs are availability-based, so if someone’s not busy every second of the day, that’s generally okay as long as they are available to pick up customer requests as they come in during their scheduled hours. The ones that do other projects during wait time tend to be more highly reviewed and bonused, though.

      It can also factor into advancement. I had a department admin who turned out to be fantastic and constantly asked for more work/offered to help on projects. (It wasn’t busy work, we have tons to do that is often set aside based on client demands.) We paid for a professional certificate for them, and they were promoted into a much higher level role after a very short period of time with high-level support. They are currently working on a company-wide project with executive leadership (and training their admin replacement).

    5. Software Dev*

      My work literally never runs out (The whole team has a Kanban board with tickets, when you finish a ticket, you grab the next one, the board will never empty). But it is also high cognition—I could force myself to sit at a computer 8 hours a day but I wouldn’t be anymore useful than I am now (and probably less useful, as I would write bad code and just have to fix it). So I rarely work 8 hours a day (but I do always check slack on my phone until work is over so I can stay responsive).

    6. Jean Pargetter Hardcastle*

      I am strongly opposed to the 40-hour workweek. There’s so much evidence that we can’t be productive for 8 hours a day, sitting that long is terrible for us, etc., and I just abhor the way we in America value work above all else. I think it takes up way too much of our life, and we should be able to live a perfectly decent, comfortable life on a shorter workweek. I work in customer service, where people have to be scheduled during times that we are open (that’s mostly on-site but occasionally remote), so theoretically we have 40 hours’ worth of work to do – but none of us (maybe higher-ups?) have 40 hours’ worth of non-customer-facing work.

    7. RebelwithMouseyHair*

      In my previous job it was easy to gauge my output: I translated X number of words, I proofread Y number of words, I handled Z number of projects. For all those metrics, I did double what my colleague did, despite her working full-time and me part-time.

      After a while, I realised that I wasn’t getting a pay rise or bonus or even any perks in return for my greater output, so I scaled back to the minimum expectations and did my volunteer work instead. I see no reason to produce more than what the boss expects if he doesn’t show any gratitude for my productivity.

  72. Xavier Desmond*

    This is 100% ethically wrong end of story imo. To be surreptitiously working two jobs with very high salary would be something I would consider greedy and completely unethical. Forget your employers, if I worked for this company 40 hours a week for a lower salary and I found it someone higher up was doing this I would be beyond livid.

  73. Indigo*

    This is the part that leapt out at me:

    I […] have awesome teammates who dotted-line report to me and who I can rely on to accomplish day-to-day activities.

    To me, this says the reason LW can “get it all done” in ~25 hours a week is because there are other people who are functionally doing a good chunk of “it.” The reason LW can avoid hard deadlines is because they’re falling on those folks, and if they stopped picking up the slack, LW’s scheme would fall apart pretty quickly — and I would guess that not only has management not approved this, the people this work is falling on haven’t agreed to it either. That’s a pretty unethical way to treat people who work under you.

    That said, “junior people do the day-to-day work so that someone above them takes credit for it” is functionally how most jobs work, on one level or another — this just takes it to another level. I suspect management would probably never agree to this as an above-board contract arrangement specifically because it makes very clear that directors don’t get higher salaries because they work harder.

    1. Oh well….*

      I’d argue even the most senior level employees get hard deadlines of some type or another. Even if it’s for a process, program, project that their direct reports are working on. My grand boss reports to the CEO. She definitely has hard deadlines. The work is different than what I do, or even what my boss does, but she doesn’t get to just do work whenever she wants it.

  74. Jaybeetee*

    Huh, you know what.

    I keep seeing and hearing that since wfh has become the norm, a lot of people are finding that they’re actively working fewer hours, but still staying on top of their workloads. In that sense, knowing it’s becoming more common to not *really* work 40 hours but still collect a 40-hour salary, it feels hypocritical to freak out if someone works *two* full-time jobs without putting in full-time hours. I suppose if the person is meeting their deliverables and the higher-ups are happy, why not?

    That said, the only thing that makes me wonder is the two director-level titles. I’m not sure if the responsibilities and expectations in a position of leadership shifts the ethics on the topic. But two full-time IC positions, as long as the work is getting done and everyone is happy? It’s your life.

  75. JustA___*

    Is it honest? No.
    Is it sustainable? Likely no (but let me add my own request for an update in 6-12 months to the chorus!).
    Is it satisfying to read? On some level, yes.

    I’m conflicted on this one. But, in a lot of ways, I’d argue that this is a great “turnaround is fair play” on the companies that hire on a provisional/probationary basis. I had a boss who kept someone on as “probationary” for nearly a year (for no good reason, the employee in question was overqualified and worked very hard)–how is this any different from OP essentially putting both employers on probation? Granted, I’m pretty convinced this is unsustainable, and OP will have to choose one job sometime in the future.

  76. Anon for now*

    Super fascinating. It would never fly where I work right now even though I regularly do not have 40 hours worth of work each week. I have very specific, cyclical “crunch times” 3 or 4 times per year. But other than that, 3/5 time rather than full-time woukd be PLENTY to accomplish my job for most of the year. If I could fill that empty time with another job, I would because I’m bored and idle so much of the time. It’s one of the reasons I’ve become unhappy at my job.

  77. SheLooksFamiliar*

    I’ve been an employee, and also a contracted consultant who bills by the hour. I understand that an 8 hour day doesn’t equal 8 solid hours of work-specific activity – however, it’s more typical for me as an hourly consultant because I’m accountable for deliverables on a certain timeline. And my work is mostly/purely strategic in nature.

    I also don’t have a problem with a main job with a side hustle. What I do have a problem with is two full-time jobs as OP describes. There’s a reasonable expectation that even with salaried employees, a 40 hour week is standard – not just for delivering results, but for team building, learning, etc. The OP admits to putting in ~50 hours total, so neither employer is getting the benefit of the OP’s time and attention. Strategic or tactical, a 40 hour week means more than delivering only what’s expected. And the OP will set a terrible example of commitment to work and the team if s/he is only truly available ~25 hours a week. Don’t kid yourself, OP, people notice these things

    Also, the OP is only one month into this arrangement! Maybe it’s ‘so far, so good!’ right now, but I guarantee there will come a time when s/he has to make a hard choice about which employer is the priority. Maybe the OP’s arrangement won’t come to light at that point but, in today’s very connected and networked world, I doubt OP will fly under the radar for long. Things like this just have a way of coming out.

  78. hmbalison*

    I think the issue that stands out for me is that the OP is not telling their employers what they’re doing. For 5 years, I had a F/T job and I also was doing freelance writing on the side that added up to almost F/T hours. But when I accepted my F/T job, I told my boss that I’d like to keep freelancing. He said OK as long as I wasn’t working with a competitor–and I wasn’t.

  79. Hiring Mgr*

    I don’t think it’s unethical but I also doubt this is real and if it is, there’s no way you can sustain it.

  80. Not my usual screen name*

    I have been doing the same on a much much smaller pay scale, after separating from my husband and realizing I couldn’t afford a place to live without putting down our 3 elderly dogs. In my role I do find that I have prioritized one position that is the main position that I work to stay ahead of the game on and do not let anything jeopardize it and the other I take more risks at. I still find I am working very late hours and weekends to catch up and be sure I am working at a level I am good with.

    1. PrairieEffingDawn*

      Do your employers know about one another? Regardless, I feel like taking on extra work to stay afloat is much more ethical than doing it “just because.” Similarly, I think your situation reveals admirable characteristics in you, whereas LW’s situation could comes across as flippant and lacking judgement.

      1. Not my usual screen name*

        Yes, they know I have another position but they are not aware it is a full time position.

  81. coffeeandpearls*

    I keep thinking about the person who is languishing in a non-director level role who could have gotten a promotion. As someone who started their career in the great recession, this hits me harder than it might others who started at a different time, as I’ve had to be scrappy to get scraps!

    I have no doubt that someone could pull off doing two jobs, but I’m just genuinely curious why OP chose this vs. being employed and then consulting on top of that.

  82. Amethystmoon*

    I could maybe see this with a full time and part time job. But how would you have time to focus on fire drill tasks? We get a lot of those at my job. Plus I would never have time to do anything for Toastmasters or do training classes my boss wants us to do.

  83. Essentially Cheesy*

    If this is not something that is openly known, and if OP is honestly deceiving both employers … that is the problem. OP is not working 16 hour days obviously. This is no bueno.

  85. Calvin B*

    Some employers treat employees very poorly, but not all do, and in this case neither employer seems to have done anything to merit not getting what they are paying for, even if there is a “societal shift.” It is one thing if the employee is being underpaid, but that does not seem to be the case here.

  86. Polecat*

    Yes, your behavior is inherently unethical. You’re lying about it, so you know it’s wrong. You really didn’t need to write to an advice column. If you find that you have to cover up your behavior, it’s a good sign that you’re doing something shitty.

    1. CaviaPorcellus*

      I’m not so sure about that. Plenty of people, self included, sometimes need gut checks to do things that are actually totally fine (Example: All of the “I want to quit but don’t I owe it to my team/clients to stay with my abusive employer?” letters in Alison’s archives!)

    2. Don*

      That seems a pretty questionable absolute. I would like to think most of us reading this column would think it absolutely reasonable for a financially insecure person who is working for a bigot to lie about their homosexuality. Hopefully a similarly large number would think it reasonable for a person working on union organizing to keep their actions secret from an employer who they think would illegally retaliate against them. Maybe someone wants to do some volunteer phonebank work for a candidate that their boss is diametrically and passionately opposed to politically.

      Most of us in the US are in employment at will states and have little to no protection against being fired for things most of us consider pretty fair and reasonable activities. Keeping those secrets from the people who control our very ability to feed ourselves is perfectly ethical.

      1. not that kind of Doctor*

        That doesn’t mean the behavior is ethical, it just means that sometimes it’s not safe to behave ethically. Sometimes unethical behavior is the best/only option a person has.

        The OP can afford to be the better person, they’re just choosing not to.

        1. Software Dev*

          Um no I would argue that the behavior is “ethical” and that hardline ethics that no room for nuance or how real life works are in fact unethical but also just impractical. Theoretical Ethics might be fun as discussion fodder but real ethics should seek to minimize harm, not hit some ideal ethical purity outcome.

    3. PrairieEffingDawn*

      I agree with you. Sure, maybe we’re in a new working world with more gray area but if LW wouldn’t be comfortable disclosing their other position to either company, that gives them their answer that it’s not ethical.

      1. CaviaPorcellus*

        I’m uncomfortable disclosing my position on the Board of one of my synagogue’s committees at my job, where I do not like to discuss my Judaism. Does that make my involvement with the synagogue unethical?

        2. AvonLady Barksdale*

          Hardly the same thing. A volunteer board position (if you’re getting paid for sitting on a shul board, I’d want to know where on earth this is) is not the same as a second full-time job.

          1. CaviaPorcellus*

            You say “Hardly the same thing”, but it is the same thing from where I’m sitting.

            It’s:
            A) Something I do outside of my job for (x) company that I
            B) Am uncomfortable disclosing to my employer

            Since the original comment says that *being uncomfortable disclosing* would be the way to determine if it’s unethical, it’s a very salient example. If this is, in fact, totally different and in the realm of ethical, why? Because it’s NOT the discomfort, as the original comment said. So there has to be something else to make it unethical. Name that criteria, not the discomfort in talking about it.

            1. RebelwithMouseyHair*

              The thing is that the aspect they’re uncomfortable about has nothing to do with anything discriminatory or unions or politics, it’s the fact that they are not giving their employer the 40 hours of work they are being paid for.

        3. PrairieEffingDawn*

          Of course not. People join committees outside of work all the time and I can understand that there are several reasons you might not choose to share this with your employer. I think it’s the reason *why* LW wouldn’t feel comfortable disclosing his second full time job that shows that he’s likely in the wrong. I do not see your situation as a comparable one as long as it’s not also a full time job you’re getting paid for. Just because you wouldn’t share something with your boss doesn’t mean I think it’s unethical.

          1. CaviaPorcellus*

            OK, then why would the employee be uncomfortable disclosing? If the reason they’re uncomfortable is “I may be fired”, that doesn’t really get us anywhere, because they could fear disclosing any number of totally ethical things they do that they might get fired for.

            Maybe I’m coming across as totally nit-picky here today, I don’t know, but a lot of the “it’s unethical” comments today seem…squishy in their reasoning. Discomfort in disclosing is not a sign of being unethical. Fearing being fired is not a sign of being unethical. So, on what actual grounds is this unethical? I’d like to see that named, and so far I haven’t, except for with reasoning that could just as easily be applied to innocuous or ethical actions.

            1. PrairieEffingDawn*

              Promising 2 companies at once the same 9-5, 40 hours of work is, in my opinion, dishonest behavior. I think there are justifiable reasons why one might do this but “just cuz” doesn’t pass the sniff test (for me! This is my opinion). Also, I think there’d be a difference if the situation was, I do job A from 9-5 and job B from 6-2, and naturally sometimes those hours blend the way we all juggle multiple priorities in life, but this doesn’t sound like that.

              Again, this is how I feel about it! I told my husband about this story, he owns a business and he told me, “If I found out one of my employees was doing this I would quote Ron Burgundy and say, ‘I’m not even mad, I’m just impressed!'”

  87. Pikachu*

    I have no comment other than my best Bill Lumbergh impression.

    Heyyy Alison, what’s happening? I’m gonna need you to just go ahead and schedule a 6 month update post, mmmmkay? Great.

  88. dresscode*

    I think it’s really interesting how much the pay and the level are affecting the comments (and my feelings too!. Would we have the same thoughts if this were some one working two jobs that each pay $50k? I think the inequity of just knowing there are people out there with these options is fascinating. And infuriating.

    1. Essentially Cheesy*

      For me, the level of pay is irrelevant. If both jobs have expectations of employee being available from 9 to 5 (for example), then the employee is being dishonest. If Job 1 hours are 7-noon and Job 2 hours are 1-6 (since employee says work can be done for each job in less than 8 hours), and it’s clear what the boundaries are – that’s not unethical.

      It’s the shadyness that is not good.

      1. Roscoe*

        What if neither job has “set” hours? At my job, the engineers essentially work when they want. They have projects, and they have to finish them. But realistically I’ll see that they were doing stuff at 2 am and not starting their day until 4pm. If you have a job like that, and OP is able to keep her committments, I don’t see a problem.

        Now again, I question if it is sustainable. But I don’t find it unethical

        1. Essentially Cheesy*

          Normally, part of HR policies state that a routine set of minimum office/working hours are expected to be adhered to – such as from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. for example (my employer has such a policy). I suppose this is out the window with the events of the last couple years but I think employers still generally expect their employees to be working/available during typical business hours.

        2. Essentially Cheesy*

          I mean really, if OP is doing things at atypical office hours (6 – 10 p.m. for example), then this is all out the window. I would be surprised if that was the case, however.

    2. Roscoe*

      Yes, exactly. I find this really interesting. I don’t want to call it “jealousy”, but I have a feeling had OP not mentioned what the salary was, people wouldn’t care nearly as much. Its like people are mad that people make that much in general, more than OP situation

      1. Neptune*

        I think people care because the question and answer are trying to pass off this behaviour as some kind of stick-it-to-the-man act getting one over on the evil employers. When what’s actually happening is that OP IS the man, getting paid not one but two enormous salaries and not caring about the effects on her lower-paid employees who will end up picking up her slack, for no reason other than greed. If the question and answer hadn’t tried to pass it off as something admirable it wouldn’t be so aggravating.

        1. Roscoe*

          So where is everyone getting this “sticking it to the man” idea? I reread this twice, and at no point did OP imply that is what she was doing. She just said “if I can do it, why not”. I’ve seen this implication so many times, but its just not anywhere in the letter. I guess Alison kind of brings that up in a way, but not the letter writer themselves. OP never called it admirable, she just doesn’t find it unethical. Which I think is a good way to see it.

          And as I asked someone else, I’m also interested to how you people determine who “the man” is. Is it their salary? If so, at what level? Anyone in management? I mean, my boss is a director level, and I wouldn’t call her “the man” as she still has a much more difficult boss to deal with than I do. And for a salary that, IMO, isn’t worth it.

    3. Seacalliope*

      Certainly it’s hard to see someone making 200k as a champion of workers who is sticking it to big business instead of another wealthy person who is working the system that exploits workers to their breaking point. Money in the working world is deeply entwined with ethics and I think it’s fairly silly to pretend otherwise.

    4. Detective Amy Santiago*

      I’d have a lot more sympathy for a single parent who is scraping by to house and feed their children by working two jobs that pay $30,000 a year. It’s still unethical, but not nearly at the same level.

      For all you want to say that this LW is “sticking it to the man”, when you’re making $200,000 per year, you ARE “the man”.

      2. Salsa Verde*

        This is really interesting. I would argue that anyone who does not have part-ownership of the company, meaning anyone whose only compensation is a paid salary, is not “the man”. Interesting to think of it as based on amount of money made, rather than ownership vs. employee.

      3. Roscoe*

        What level of income do you consider being “the man”? Are doctors who get paid well “the man”? What about Executive Directors of non profits?

        I think deciding who the man is based on how much they are paid (especially when you know nothing else about them) seems like a huge leap.

          1. Roscoe*

            I mean, they also have bosses they report to. So is it anyone in management? How high do they have to be. My boss is a “director” and is one level higher than me. I wouldn’t call her “the man”. In a lot of ways, I have more freedom than she has because I don’t have a CEO breathing down my neck

            1. Tali*

              In my country “management”/the “employer” side as opposed to the “worker” side is legally defined. Someone director level would almost certainly be “management”.

              If OP is a director, meaning she directs a department, approves initiatives, manages a budget, and has input with the C-suite and other higher ups that determine the direction of the company… then yeah OP is “the man”. You can’t argue that you’re screwing over a company on behalf of the workers when your position is closer to the top of the company than the bottom. Then you’re just screwing over the company; don’t pretend that this helps the workers in any way.

    5. successor state*

      The pay stands out for me mostly because it really contrasts against conversations people are having these days about shifting dynamics in worker-employer relations. I can’t get on board with this situation being one of those shining “getting back at the man” stories when this person already has greatly benefited from the systems in place. Director level positions at 200K/yr are not in that exploited class of workers and frankly, someone in LW’s position has a much higher risk of becoming one of the people doing the exploiting.

  89. Die Elster*

    If I, as a manager, found out that my employee who seemed very busy and was not available for all meeting times, was actually only spending 25 hours a week on this job, I would be upset that I didn’t have this information. If I learned it was because they had another full time job during the same hours, I would absolutely consider it deception.

    If I’m paying someone for a full-time job and they’re only spending 25 hours a week on it, I’d like to know, because I can have them take on other projects, or perhaps I need to rethink the position entirely and not make it a full FTE.

  90. SnowyRose*

    Working two or more jobs at the same time isn’t inherently unethical – we regularly use consultants who have more than one client or subject matter experts who are employed full time elsewhere. The key here is, though, that everything is above board and out in the open. We’re aware of their other commitments and their primary employers (if not a consultant) are aware of their work with us. Everyone is required to complete a conflict of interest form that addresses this because you’d be surprised where a conflict of interest pops up sometimes. For our actual staff (we’re a nonprofit), we have to notify HR if we have secondary employment and the understanding is that our association is primary and work hours are not to overlap. Very rarely does HR or the association take issue with a second job – it’s only when there is a conflict of interest or the second job consistently affects our work. Travel is a regular part of our job and it’s made clear in both the job postings and during interviews.

    In the OP’s case, he hasn’t disclosed it to either job and for me, that’s the unethical piece.

  91. Tin Cormorant*

    My husband ended up working two jobs remotely last year. His company had gone remote around the same time it was acquired by a second company, and he had a 6-month contract with the new company followed by a nice severance. This new company, knowing he’d only be there for 6 months, opted to give him very little work to do, so aside from a weekly check-in with his boss, he was spending all of his time job-searching and playing board games with me.

    A couple of months before his contract was done, he got a very nice job offer from a new company. He went ahead and accepted it right away, and was technically getting paid for two jobs for two months until his contract ran out.

  92. I'm just here for the cats!*

    I think it really depends on the jobs. I’m really surprised that LW is doing this with 2 director level jobs. Thats got to be a lot of work.

    I could see if one job was a director and the other was say, a transcriptionist or some type of writer where things could be set aside for a few hours if you had to focus more on the other job.

  93. Falling Diphthong*

    I think there’s a reason that Alison doesn’t field a lot of letters asking how to list on the resume two simultaneous full-time jobs. (In that the experiment crashes and burns quickly, not that it works out so great you never need to apply for a job again.)

  94. Lizzy May*

    I’m not mad at the OP for doing this but I don’t think it’s sustainable and so I don’t think it’s in the OP’s best interest.
    In terms of ethics, it’s not ethical but companies treat employees in non-ethical ways all the time.

  95. MarmaladeToday*

    I see a lot of comments focussing on question of whether he’s properly earning his twice $200K, in both hours and work output.
    But try looking at it a little differently. We all know people who put in way more time for way less money. The rationale is supposed to be that lower skill work deserves less money per time unit. But how much less? Is a pay scale that has some people earning hundreds or thousands times what other people earn for the same number of hours, fair in itself? Lower paid jobs are, on the whole, more onerous, and often also demeaning and tedious and bring risks of chronic health problems. If you think in terms of life-energy and time traded for the paycheck, they deserve much higher pay…

    I’m inclined to say, yes, at the individual level, it is a bit shady to work two jobs intended to be full-time, without letting on. But I don’t think it is inherently wrong in a system that assumes each job is worth whatever you convince someone to pay you for it.

    1. Littorally*

      I’d say what you’re missing in that analysis is the OP’s comment that they have people willing to take on the day to day work. Are you earning your $400k if you aren’t working as hard as your employer thinks is a very different question from are you earning your $400k if someone else is doing half your job.

      1. Software Dev*

        I mean OP has clarified these people are direct reports doing their job and their duties wouldn’t be the OPs job under normal circumstances.

    2. Anonymous Hippo*

      I think the assumption that each job is worth whatever you convince someone to pay for it IS unethical. So they land in the same bucket for me.

  96. QTS*

    I’m not sure about how much it matters with regards to what an employee owes to their employer, but this is something with the potential to harm other employees. Not just because the likelihood of substandard work, but for how this will effect the work from home policy when OP is found out.
    I could definitely see a company completely nixing their WFH policy if they caught an employee doing this.

  97. Tex*

    To side step this (both, the moral and the practical issues), you should have signed up to both jobs as a high priced strategy consultant (billing at the equivalent of $200k/year). That sets expectations that you could ramp hours up and down as needed but that you still have another client. You might lose benefits, but you could also have a lot more tax deductions.

  98. Don*

    From a pure ethics standpoint the “what if you have emergency situations at both?” question is even more interesting if you consider this: presumably an employer will accept that there may be situations where you have both a personal emergency and a professional one at the same time and you may (have to) choose the personal one and delegate the professional one, even if that’s sub-optimal from the company’s standpoint.

    One assumes that a company would differentiate or be explicit when the job is /predicted/ to have these things. I’m considering a job right now where there would be on-call shifts periodically. I’m sure that they’d accept extreme and unpredictable situations arising – hospitalized spouse, for example – where I’d have to beg off that professional emergency even if I was on call, but overall they would reasonably expect me to be prioritizing them in those situations and making alternate arrangements for most possible distractions.

    So given that this is a thing we recognize, the explicit on-call time, do most of us have an ethical duty to our employer to prioritize them over other things calling to us? I’m the only dad my older baseball-playing kid has and I go to his games. If I also am the only employee my job has who can fix emergency X that unexpectedly pops up during that game, who deserves my attention? Is the answer automatic? (I mean, it basically is /for me/ but many employers might have a different automatic answer…) Does it matter if I can fix it on a laptop in the bleachers while also watching the game?

    I don’t even know the exact answer to the above, but I think it begs the question of whether the answers are or should be different if the other situation demanding your time is an alternate employment one. What if I was volunteering at a blood drive? Working at a hot dog stand?

    There’s clearly some “is this the time you’re expected to be available?” issue at play in the ethics as well though it’s not like that is absolute either. I’d hope most jobs without fixed time issues would think nothing of their remote worker going to their kid’s 4pm game. If an issue arose then at 4:30p do they expect priority? Is the answer different at 5:30p? At 6:30p when they game’s in extra innings?

    It’s really a fascinating question. We need Chidi Anagonye, employment ethicist, to write a comprehensive /What Do We Owe To Our Employer?/

    2. Falling Diphthong*

      One thing I’ve found to hold true in a variety of contexts, including work: People’s willingness to be inconvenienced by you is directly proportional to how hard you are trying not to inconvenience them. So people pitch in to help because Jane is buried on the Unobtainium Project, or because Jane has a family emergency this week…. but if it comes out that Jane was mia because of her second full-time job, or because she claimed a dead grandmother and then went to comic-con (in disguise except for a distinctive tattoo that unraveled the whole thing)–then her coworkers at the first job are pretty furious. Even if they would happily have put in the extra time to cover for Jane racing to see her grandmother in hospice.

      1. Falling Diphthong*

        Like, there’s an economy model of humans where all that matters is that you’re asking me to pitch in and do something for three hours, and it shouldn’t matter what the reason is, just the numeric value I place on those hours.

        Then there are actual humans, who care like heck what the reason is that you need me to help for three hours.

      2. Robin Ellacott*

        I was thinking this too, though I hadn’t articulated it as well as your first sentence.

        Some of the amazing direct reports who are presumably making this possible may have been in line for her position(s) were one of them vacant.

        Also, the tattoo-related flight of fancy delights me.

  99. Lou*

    What happens in your next job search? How do you write your CV? Which compagny do you omit? What if you’re really proud of a specific achievement in job 1 but job 2 is where you’ve been most recently employed? (assuming working 2 jobs at the same time backfired for you)
    What would references say about you? “Oh we had to fire OP because they were working at another place without telling us. Are they still employed at that other place? I don’t know.”

    1. Princess Trachea-Aurelia Belaroth*

      This is what I’m thinking, and it’s similar to the pattern of employers being ghosted by candidates.

      On the one hand, more power to you. Stick it to the man, make it work, upset the status quo. I am so, so pleased that companies are getting this thrown back at them. So pleased.

      On the other hand, on an individual level, you’re really risking a lot for yourself based on changing factors. You should maintain your own integrity, because you will have to keep living with your reputation if the circumstances change.

    2. AndersonDarling*

      I think the problem will resolve itself. One company will figure it out and end the employment, and that company will drop off the resume. Or the OP will chose one company and resign from the other company. The first company to drop will come off the resume and no one will ever know the OP was employed there.
      But it’s also possible that both companies will find out and be okay with the arrangement. Then the OP can keep both on the resume.

  100. Too Tired for This*

    As a salaried employee, my company pays me for my output, not my time. I’d do this if I were younger and child-free.

  101. Tost&Tatws*

    I’m having a hard time articulating how I feel, but something about this strikes me as icky. Not because of the deception to the employers, but because of the general imbalance of the work world. Someone in a director-level position pulling in $200k has the time and flexibility to get a second $200k job just for funsies. Meanwhile, we have frontline workers (in grocery stores, transit, sanitation, schools, hospitals) working much harder for way, way less money. If I could try to sum up how this makes me feel, it’s an example of “the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer.”

    4. Anonymous Hippo*

      Yes. Because this person is the exploiter, not the expoitee. And it is unlikely the company is the only person that is going to suffer because of this.

    6. Jean Pargetter Hardcastle*

      I don’t find this situation unethical and in fact I love the way it flips what employers have always demanded of exempt employees (I’m a card-carrying member of the “capitalism is inherently unethical” camp here), but I do think it perfectly highlights inequity. OP, what I hope you will do is find the time in both of your jobs to use your director position to ensure that *anyone* who wanted to do this would be able to. Preserve strong WFH policies, counter micromanagement, ensure workloads are distributed equitably – whatever it is that’s enabling you to do this, do as much as you can to make sure others can do it, too. To me, advocating for all employees is the most important part of management.

      1. Jean Pargetter Hardcastle*

        Forgot to clarify – I’m not suggesting bringing this up to management or making it formally enshrined (although so much the better if you could!). I’m just saying, make sure others have the same conditions you do.

    7. Nanani*

      Nah

      A tech director making 200k a year is not responsible for teachers and cashiers being underpaid. It’s just not the case.
      I agree with your feelings but,
      “This other injustice exists” just isnt relevant to -this- discussion.

    8. Tali*

      Totally agree. People are trying so hard to see this as a victory for the underdog–it’s a high-paying director role! Just to get more money because she can! She is already at the top and trying to claw more from those above her and claiming it’s a victory for the people below her.

      I feel like OP needs that Batman discussion–instead of doing sketchy things that you claim help others but primarily help yourself, what if you worked 1 job and took your extra time and money and did something that actually helped your community?

  102. QKL*

    I think the shift in society makes the ethics of this clearer than it did before the shift. With so many norms being open for scrutiny, it’s as if the legend of the rules are in question. It boils down to the type of relationship we have with our employors, turns out they’re all transactional. We have a wealth of information on the ethics of transactional personal relationships and know better understand how to navigate the work relationship. Transactional relationships can be incredibly abusive if one sided, but if both parties enter it with eyes wide open, everyone can take what they need and there are no victims. The problem comes in when one side who’s used to getting everything they want is in denial of how they are making that happen. All the legends of dress code and scheduled time would naturally come at a premium in any other transactional relationship. I think because there is no legendary honor left to revere, the ethics changed, OP is doing what those ethics allow, and being pretty awesome at it.

    Because a large number of the workforce is retiring or has sadly passed away, and many of the requirements in the relationship feel to the employees like their lives are being risked for nonsense, there aren’t a lot of cards left for the employers to play at this point.

  103. Apple Shapes*

    Someone in my industry did this. He had a contract that specified the Board of Directors needed to approve any other paid work. He asked to go to 20 hours per week because of medical issues and then was caught working at his other job in another state. (He was fired.)
    He found another job that is ok with him working 40 hours at his “real” job and 20 hours for them, plus 20 hours at another job. These are Director-level jobs, with adequate salaries.
    I suspect that he is short-changing all of them.

  104. Monty & Millie's Mom*

    Okay, honestly, I can’t even imagine a salary of $200k, much less TWO salaries of that amount, for roughly the same amount of hours I’m working now. But it just seems wrong, although not the LW’s fault, that many, MANY people struggle to earn a fraction of that for reasons that are not their fault, either. I can’t wrap my head around it. It’s not fair, and I’m finding that this question makes me really sad, honestly – I mean, good for the LW, but most people I know are not even close to this income level and this type of “problem” is entirely foreign. I know it’s the differences that make this world amazing, but it’s differences like this that make me worry that we as humans literally have no idea how to relate to people who are different than we are. Even the differences in the comments show this! It’s fascinating and sad all at once!

    1. Roscoe*

      As someone else said, and this is by no means meant to sound bad, people who are struggling and can’t earn a fraction of that, probably wouldn’t be earning what she would at one job anyway. Like, if you have minimum wage skills, you don’t really need to worry about being a director anytime soon. So at some point, you are blaming OP for a problem that you have with society.

      1. JustKnope*

        I don’t think the commenter is blaming OP, just making note of how sad and unfair the situation is. Our society really lets some people earn $400K doing 50 hours of work a week while others earn $7.25/hour doing difficult and crappy labor. It’s not OP’s fault but the dichotomy here is really worth looking at hard.

        1. Monty & Millie's Mom*

          Thanks JustKnope, that’s exactly right. Those earning minimum wage are not typically less competent than the LW, but they have not had the same experiences/opportunities, and that’s the sad part. So to be fair, I DID stray from the actual issue at hand, looking more at the root of it than the issue itself, but they ARE connected! And again I will say that is NOT the LW’s fault at all – no blame here at all. Just – ugh!

    2. Software Dev*

      Yeah, I feel genuinely guilty that I make more than 2x what I used to make in the same company, doing a much easier job (admittedly the people that are doing that job now are paid more, as I understand it).

  105. anon, seems safer*

    I’m surprised and a little relieved at Alison’s response because I sort of do this? I don’t have two full time jobs, but I freelance pretty heavily and don’t always keep it strictly to my off hours at my main job. My main job is pretty easy, and I’d have like 3-4 hours a day to just… sit in my office or on my couch otherwise?

    I don’t think it’s the Absolute Most Ethical Thing that I could do, but I’ve been doing it this way for a year and a half (I kept it more separate pre-pandemic) and my performance hasn’t suffered. I do prioritize my main work, and if something came up there my freelancing is thankfully flexible enough that I can push due dates around easily.

    1. DD*

      I did a similar thing with an unrelated side hustle when I worked. My job was busy at month end and extra busy at quarter end but slower other times. During those slower times I could surf the Internet and try to look busy or work on side hustle (which was flexible and always took a back seat to real work). Earnings from the side hustle let me leave the corporate world about 10 years ahead of schedule. Just in time to stay home as COVID hit.

  106. Sleepless*

    OP, if you don’t feel that you could disclose to either employer that you have an additional full time job, there’s your answer. This is unethical.

    1. Eldritch Office Worker*

      I don’t think that’s accurate. Plenty of people don’t feel they can disclose to their employer that they’re pregnant, mentally ill, job searching, any number of things we discuss here regularly. Transparency in an employment arrangement is at best a grey area.

        1. Eldritch Office Worker*

          Yes, because the evaluation that not wanting to disclose something to your employer makes it unethical is an incorrect absolute.

          1. Cat Lover*

            That’s not what the comment said. The comment said “if you don’t feel that you could disclose to either employer that you have an additional full time job”. Emphasis on “additional full time job”.

        2. Don*

          Are they really, though? Those are things that should be protected legally but we all know unethical operations skirt those rules. From a purely utilitarian standpoint you could argue that those things you call false equivalencies are ones that actually concretely impact a worker’s output and change what an employer can expect to get from them. An employer almost certainly will have to accommodate someone who is going to give birth. LW here could theoretically deliver on expectations indefinitely if their employers are so slipshod with their hiring and staffing that they have all this free time.

          If we accept that “It’s wrong if you have to keep it to yourself” doesn’t work because there are situations where you can’t count on being safe from illegal retaliation (or in the case of things that are not protected everywhere, like gender expression or sexual preference) then are we going to say that you’re not entitled to lie even if your employer wouldn’t retaliate? Can a person opt not to share their pregnancy just because they don’t want to?

          To be clear, I think pregnant folks deserve protection against retaliation and are more ethically pure in keeping their situation to themselves. But I have an inherent distrust in the idea that something is a slam-dunk Wrong just because they’re not being fully transparent with an employer while simultaneously delivering what the employer considers adequate results.

    2. Roscoe*

      I mean, I don’t disclose that while I work from home I watch episodes of Squid Game, but that doesn’t make it unethical if I’m still accomplishing what I need to for work.

  107. Me*

    I’m not sure I’m wording this the best but what are the ethics of “taking” a job from someone else? Presumably each company is expecting you are giving them your full attention during work hours. And presumably if they *knew* you were working two jobs they would in fact fire you. But you are also by working two jobs, you are in a way taking a job opportunity – and a lucrative one at that – away from someone else.

    It just feels icky all the way around.

  108. Not your typical admin*

    For me, even if it were ethical, it’s not sustainable long term. If life is great and everything is running smoothly, I could maybe see pulling it off for a little while, but we all know life isn’t always perfect. Maybe it’s just the stage of life I’m in; but between kids, pets, car repairs, house repairs, doctors appointment, and other every day stuff, it seems like every week there’s something extra that needs to be done. Just this week, I had 4 extra kids at my house for two days because one of my good friend’s husband had surgery. It wasn’t supposed to take that long, but it was delayed, and then when she got him home he was extremely nauseous so the kids stayed overnight to give them both the chance to rest. I made it work, but I definitely wasn’t at my most productive, and will have to catch up some the rest of the week. If I was trying to do two jobs, everything would have collapsed.

  109. PolicyProhibitions?*

    What about corporate policies regarding secondary employment or conflicts? Almost every job I’ve ever had has had either one or both of those things, and at a minimum, I’d be required to disclose the other job.

  110. BlueDijon*

    For me the main ethical consideration is what this would do to the co-workers, particularly if OP is expecting them to be able to pick up part of the slack when there is a crunch time. It sort of seemed like they were counting on their co-workers to be resources for making the timing work, and like yeah collaboration is how it should be, but I’d personally be pretty pissed off if I found out that someone asking me to pick up their slack was doing it because they were working a second director-level job rather than doing it to survive. If I need to pitch in because someone has a second job because of financial reasons, or for personal reasons, 100% I am there. If you’re making $200k in two places and have people who make LESS than you doing more work so you can do that, that’s a different story.

  111. Chairman of the Bored*

    I don’t see the “deception” bit here. These orgs hired LW to get a job done. As long as she gets the job done there’s no deception.

    For salaried workers “40 hours” is arbitrary and largely meaningless – employers don’t expect you to stop working at 40.1 hours if there is still work to be done, right?

    The actual expectation is “do what you have to to get your work done well”.

    If my senior-level employees are meeting that standard then I don’t care how many hours they work or what else they do with their time. Why would I?

    If I agree to pay somebody $100 to mow my lawn it doesn’t matter to me how long it takes or how many other lawns they mow that week. As long as my grass gets cut for the agreed-upon rate I’m happy.

    If I expect the mowing will take 2 hours and then it actually takes one hour and they use the second hour to mow somebody else’s lawn, my response is not “ZOMG deception!”

    1. Me*

      I know my employer expects a minimum of 40 hours of my time a week at salary. Sometimes I have to work more, but they are very much not ok with me working less unless I’m taking leave. Especially at salary level there is an expectation that if you are done your specific tasks, you will find other work related things to do.

      And to put it simply, if it wasn’t a deception than the OP should have no problem disclosing to their employers and their employers will be just fine with it, right? Do you really think that’s what would happen?

      In a way it’s related to the question that appears periodically of why do I have to pay for childcare to work from home – because your employer has an an expectation of you being available to them during your working hours.

      1. Chairman of the Bored*

        “And to put it simply, if it wasn’t a deception than the OP should have no problem disclosing to their employers and their employers will be just fine with it, right? Do you really think that’s what would happen?”

        There are many things that employers aren’t “fine with”. That doesn’t mean these things are wrong or that employees are honor-bound to disclose them.

        By this logic, looking for another job at all is a “deception”. After all, I don’t want to tell my current employer when I’m job searching and I don’t expect that they would be fine with that.

        I suggest that we should not use the preferences of a self-interested for-profit company as the arbiter of truth and morality.

        1. Me*

          Apples and oranges. Now if you wanted to compare job searching during the hours your employer is paying you then that’s an apt comparison.

          In this instance someone was hired to work full time and is not. They are performing a second job during hours they are being paid to work for one employers. Take the other job out of the equation. Think the employer would be cool with the employee putting in part time hours because they feel like it?

    2. Pikachu*

      I don’t think the mowing analogy fits. You’re describing a freelance scenario. OP didn’t get hired to complete a task. OP got hired as a Director of Landscaping with a full time commitment. It’ll probably be fine, until the neighborhood kids toilet paper your house and pour bleach in your flowerbeds and he can’t come clean it up because he’s busy being Director of Teapot Painting that day.

      Someone’s gonna feel deceived.

      1. Chairman of the Bored*

        To clarify, this may well be a terrible idea on the part of LW.

        I just think it’s a practical concern rather than a moral one.

        In your example, the problem only arises when the Director of Landscaping is unable to maintain the grounds to standard. That is, the issue is still failure to provide good work results rather than actual total hours spent laboring.

        The thing that matters here is “will LW be able to do all her work well?” rather than “how, specifically, is LW managing her time and responsibilities?”

        If LW can’t do both jobs well under these circumstances, the employer(s) will notice and solve that problem. If she can do a good job and neither employer is unsatisfied with her work, then there is no problem.

    3. Cat Lover*

      I’m salaried and I am required to work 40 hours a week. I can flex hours slightly (I’m in person, not work from home), but I definitely can’t work another job during my 40 hours.

    4. Mike*

      Ugh this.
      ” Your company thinks they’re getting your full focus for 40 hours a week” really bothers me.

      We need to move beyond the “hours of work” mentality and transition to “getting things done”. I am paid for my contributions to the success of the business, not how many hours it takes me.

      1. Me*

        Eh as a salaried employee the expectation that I need to put in 40 hours of work a week minimum doesn’t bother me. My job is such that there’s always more work and I will never be “done”. I don’t think having a benchmark for the amount of time working my employer would like my to achieve as a baseline is inherently problematic. My overall work performance is still judged upon my work product not my hours.

        Getting things done is just as prone to abuse. What if your employers level of “getting things done” results in you having to put in crazy hours?

        A crappy employer is a crappy employer.

      2. Middle Manager*

        But what about the flip side of this? What if we make the standard “get stuff done” detached from hours and then the list of “stuff” takes 75 hours instead of 25? If we remove time from the calculation all together, how are we defining what a reasonable workload anymore?

        1. Chairman of the Bored*

          “What if we make the standard “get stuff done” detached from hours and then the list of “stuff” takes 75 hours instead of 25?”

          I have some bad news for you: many many employers have already done this.

          That horse has long since left the barn.

          I don’t see anything wrong with employees working the same dynamic in their favor if they can swing it.

          1. Curious*

            But, based on the comments, some employers have not — and it is folks working for those employers who are considering taking multiple “full-time” jobs. So, employees with good employers should “work the same dynamic in their favor” to spite the bad employers? That doesn’t work — and would logically lead to the conclusion that the good employers are suckers who should increase the workload of their employees.

      3. Anonymous Hippo*

        “getting things done” isn’t what happens at a director level position, so it is hard to separate the two. Yeah, maybe this person is a genius that can do just as well at both jobs in the same time it would take two regular people to do it, but from the tone of the letter I don’t think that’s the case.

    5. Colette*

      What if you hire someone as a nanny and they take a job mowing the neighbour’s lawn while the kids nap? Is that OK?

  112. cactus lady*

    I wrote this above, but I think it’s so interesting how for many years it’s been the norm for employers to base exempt employee’s salaries on 40 hours a week (or 37.5 or whatever), but then expect them to work 50-60. I actually have a peer whose VP has explicitly stated this to her – less than that was unacceptable, even though her salary is based off of a 40-hour work week. This seems like that logic being turned back on the employer – but now it’s upsetting because an individual is benefitting instead of a company? I disagree that it’s unethical, I think employers created this standard a long time ago and now that workers are more empowered, they are using it to their advantage.

    1. Eldritch Office Worker*

      I think that’s part of why the 200k part is throwing people. At that salary level you’re not really getting paid for 40 hours a week, you’re getting paid with the expectation of doing considerably more, being available, and producing at a high level. If OP was juggling mid-level jobs I think the comments would be more generous.

      1. cactus lady*

        The idea that “doing considerably more” is the norm is the part I find interesting and that I think is really coming into question. I work around the same level as the OP, and my pay stub definitely states that my salary is based off of a 40-hour work week. Why did we agree that that’s just for funsies and we actually sold our souls to be available all the time? Think of how much less your time is worth if you are paid for 40 hours and actually work 60 on a regular basis.

    2. Paris Geller*

      I (mostly) agree. It’s a lot like the trend Alison’s written about employees ghosting employers — the employers set the rules of the game, and now employees have the advantage.

      The only reason I’m saying I mostly agree and not fully is I worry about the impact of OP’s actions on their colleagues. If their colleagues are having to pick up their slack, that’s not OK.

  113. I'm A Little Teapot*

    To me, what OP is doing is unethical. I can understand all the excuses people are giving, but that doesn’t change the underlying fact of the situation. OP is lying. Consistently, daily, they are demonstrating their ethics to me. And it’s not a good look.

    Now, I’m well aware that my sense of ethics and right and wrong is pretty rigid and doesn’t line up with how things work in the real world – but that mostly tells me that the real world has a lot of unethical behavior in it. Just because everyone is doing it doesn’t make it right.

    2. Myrin*

      Yeah, I think that’s most in line with where I fall.

      I’m reminded of the question from a few weeks ago about job candidates ghosting employers; I can understand, logically, why people said they’re just doing to employers what employers have been doing to them for forever etc. etc. but for me personally… well it’s just not right. Like you, I have pretty strict moral standards but I absolutely hold myself to them, too.

      I’m actually really glad that the scenario in this letter would be basically unthinkable where I am – for tax reasons alone (but actually also for very simple law-related reasons), any second job would absolutely have to be reported to the first job and I very strongly do NOT want to imagine what the revenue office would have to say about this. So this is basically just a thought experiment for me. But I just… I can’t help but feel slightly icky anyway.

    3. Sparkles McFadden*

      The OP must know this too because she specifically said she deleted her LinkedIn account and thus is trying to hide what’s going on. She even stated in the comments that she’s put up with sexual harassment etc. in the past so it’s her “turn to stick it to them.” OP knows it’s wrong but has been working hard to convince herself it’s OK…and, sadly, has found plenty of support for that here. This “it’s my turn” and “I’m owed this” entitlement mentality is a large part of what’s wrong in the world.

      Lots of people who engage in unethical behavior explain away the “hiding it” part by saying they’re just ahead of conventional thinking. They’re not doing anything wrong, but the rest of us just won’t understand. The whole letter reads like that to me, and the OP’s dotted line reports are probably getting screwed over. The “stick it to the man” folks seem to be ignoring that part.

      1. OP*

        Thanks for your comment! I am not doing this to stick it to the man… in my mind that’s kind of a side benefit. Maybe it’s making excuses because I’m obviously benefitting financially here.. but I’d like to think I do get paid for the value I bring the company, not how many hours it takes to provide that value. And I’m
        still not convinced this is straight up unethical … though it’s true I need to hide it in order to prevent consequences… but I’m not even sure what those consequences would be or if the consequences would be just/fair.

        1. Sparkles McFadden*

          Thanks for your response! This is a really thought-provoking question. What I found interesting was that, had you said you took both jobs simultaneously to see which was the better fit, I would have had less of a problem with it. That, of course, made me wonder why that would be my response when it’s basically the same situation. I’m still thinking about that…and that’s a good thing.

          I think you may find down the line that it really is too much and you’ll choose one place over the other. I hope you will check back in with AAM to update us.

  114. SometimesALurker*

    One question on my mind is whether the salary for each of the jobs is really considered the value of the person in that role’s expertise,* or whether the salary is in part intended to be compensation for the person’s time. If one person can do the job in ~25 hours a week, would they be paid comparably for the same expertise given as a consultant? Or for serving in that role part-time? I know that in many big corporations, no one high-level is part time, but in my field, there are lots of small orgs with c-level positions that are part time.

    I think that if the salary is intended to be compensation for the employee’s time, then doing this is gaming the system, not just skirting arbitrary policies. Whether it matters, ethically, whether you game the system is a question, of course. If a giant corporation cut down a director-level position to part time and only paid $100k, I doubt the amount that they’d save would then go into the wages of their lowest earning workers.

    *The value to that company, in the market it exists in, of course. The question of whether different types of expertise are appropriately valued and compensated in general is out of scope here!

    1. Don*

      Another thing that makes it interesting, to me, is that there’s another determining factor you didn’t list: what would it cost them to get someone else to do it? Because that should always be on the mind of a well-run organization. “What’s market rate for this job?” is important for employee retention and satisfaction. “What will it cost us to put a new person in this role?” is important in absolute dollars and the productivity issues involved in onboarding someone new.

      If the letter writer was in a position that both jobs would each expect to have to pay $400,000 annually to someone else do to that job, does it suddenly become completely ethical? If replacement cost was $250,000 each? If one job would have to pay $400,000 to replace LW but the other one could find someone for $175,000?

      Love this question soooooo much.

      1. Software Dev*

        Also what if the next person they brought in after firing OP was only half as competent? Would having OP working part-time but completing much higher quality of work be a better “deal” for the company?

  115. AngryOwl*

    If you’re truly achieving the objectives at both jobs (which I honestly doubt, but for the sake of argument) then I don’t consider it unethical. I wouldn’t do it myself, but no one is getting hurt.

    1. Eldritch Office Worker*

      That’s my quarrel. I don’t know that no one is getting hurt when “I don’t have any direct reports, but have awesome teammates who dotted-line report to me and who I can rely on to accomplish day-to-day activities.” Those people sound like they’re getting taken advantage of.

      1. Me*

        And arguably the second choice candidates for those jobs.
        And the people that need to juggle things on their plate/schedule because the op need to only be available at certain times for each job.
        The op isn’t working in a bubble.

      2. Falling Diphthong*

        I am curious how OP would respond if he learned that one of those dotted-line reports couldn’t handle some new task and sent it back to OP because it was a busy week at report’s second full-time job.

      3. Don*

        It certainly seems like they are, but are they handling delegated stuff with everyone’s full knowledge? If that’s so then presumably that means the company thinks it’s entirely ethical for those folks to be doing that work. So another person in this role who isn’t doing a second job might delegate to them anyway.

        Are they being more or less taken advantage of because LW is doing a second job rather than playing solitaire and waiting for emails/calls?

    2. Loredena Frisealach*

      I think there are two pieces
      The thought experiment – truly achieving the objectives of both – not unethical, go you.
      This specific use case – are the OP’s dotted lines doing work they wouldn’t need to do if she was working fully at just one? Then not ethical. If their work wouldn’t change, no one is suffering, than back to not unethical.

      {I’m more or less neutral good}

  116. Random Internet Stranger*

    My one job consumes my entire brain. Remember the question about dreaming about work from yesterday? That’s me in a nutshell. The idea of juggling two jobs makes my brain ache.

    And I am not saying I always put in 40 hours per week, but only doing 25 would make me feel pretty guilty. Sure, some weeks I only put in 25, but some weeks I put in 50 and I like to imagine it comes out in the wash eventually.

      1. Don*

        Compared to CEOs who pull 10M+ a year and millions more in bonuses someone at 200k is the Man’s caddy. Entergy, who I pick since LA storms have had them in the news, has director salaries in the 90k to 200k range according to Glassdoor. Their CEO gets 11M a year and at least 4 presidents and VPs get 3M+ according to salary.com

        1. Salsa Verde*

          Yes, I think of “the man” as owners vs. employees, regardless of the amount of salary an employee is pulling in. If the employee stops working, their salary/income stops. The owner has capital that they do not have to actively work for.

      3. successor state*

        Thank you, was hoping to see more comments like this. Wild to frame this story as a capitalism clapback victory.

  118. MrPotPuffer*

    I definitely think there are jobs where this would be possible- in the short term anyway. My first job out of college (around 5 years ago), I had an entry level role with barely anything to do 90% of the time. We were busy one week a month, and I still had less than 6 hours of work those days. I sat at my desk and browsed the internet all day for $18/hour. If I were working from home then, I could make double my salary at a similar job (or one that required more of my time, but the other I had nothing to do). Eventually they assigned me more work but I still work quickly.

    Now I have a position that actually challenges me and I wouldn’t likely have the time for a second job. Still, I wonder occasionally if I could handle an entry level role on top of my current job and make an extra 30-40k… its certainly possible.

    1. MrPotPuffer*

      And is this unethical? Somewhat, but for someone who works quickly & efficiently, and who needs the money I certainly wouldn’t take a huge issue with it. Especially for a low level role, is it more ethical to do nothing like I did? (and yes I asked for more work but they just didn’t have anything to give me. Maybe that position itself was unnecessary but I disgress)

  119. ENFP in Texas*

    When it comes to ethical questions, I’ve always gone with “if you have to ask if it’s okay, it probably isn’t” and “if you feel you have to hide what you’re doing, you probably shouldn’t be doing it”. At some level your gut is telling you it’s not right.

    On a practical level, does the OP’s terms of employment have any say about it? Some places do.

    But if you’re asking “Is it okay to receive a full-time salary when I’m only working part-time even though my employer doesn’t know it”… ask your employer. After all, if there’s nothing wrong with it, they won’t have a problem with it.

    1. len*

      This is a pretty childish approach to ethics and cedes a lot of power to the employers’ side, which already has the upper hand here.

    2. generic_username*

      I mean, given the option her employer would happily lower her salary…. then she’d be underpaid compared to her coworkers, who might also only work 25 hours a week, but who didn’t say anything and are using the spare time to do whatever else.

  120. EngineerMom*

    My husband just quit a strategy job where he made $230k because of the negative impact on his health and our family life, though he was working 70 hours a week to meet expectations.

    I don’t know that I feel it’s unethical exactly but I highly doubt you are that great. At the very least not having one job well established before starting this nonsense seems unwise.

    I don’t not see either employer being happy in the long run.

  121. Quaremie*

    Honestly, this makes me so angry! I am sure it is because I am a director who is also making about 200 K, but I work my butt off at 60 or 70 hours a week and life is so hectic between parenting and other necessities of being an adult. It upsets me to think of how easy this guy has it. I know that’s on me and the possibly poor choices I have made, but it’s not hard to imagine him being my coworker and me having to pick up his slack.

    Honestly, I think he’s getting away with it because he’s so new to both jobs that they’re still easing him in. Things will get busy soon and then I think it will be much harder to manage.

      1. Quaremie*

        I know.. and I am! I know it’s on me and my choices, not this guy and his choices… maybe it just makes me feel like a sucker! But if he were my coworker, I would be livid.

  122. PrairieEffingDawn*

    As many here have said, I don’t think LW will be able to sustain this in the long term. What I think could be interesting and make this a little less immoral feeling, would be if LW gave themself 2 more months of juggling both jobs and then picking the one they like best. Then they can resign from the other job but offer to keep working on a contracting/consulting basis. Then, they’d have the potential to keep working for the company they resigned from and they can keep both companies on their resume.

    In some ways I think being able to “try out” jobs like that would be awesome for everyone.

  123. Robin Ellacott*

    For reasons that are not entirely clear to me, I feel like this is less excusable with 2 senior and well-paid jobs than for the type of worker who is often exploited and expected to commit far more than is reasonable to their jobs. I’m not sure if that’s because I think their employers likely treat them quite well and this is not necessarily treating the employers well, or whether it’s because it doesn’t seem to be based on NEEDING two jobs, or some combination of both.

    It certainly wouldn’t be ok at my work, and it would feel like bad faith based on the idea we all had when responding to the person who was upset their employee forcefully demanded being paid: if we are trading work for pay, they have to pay what was agreed and employees have to work what was agreed. If all that matters is productivity and that is consistent with others and with expectations, maybe there is no ethical issue, but if they have a peer getting more done or working on the office it feels unfair to them too. We don’t all do our best, and ability varies, but we also mostly don’t deliberately set ourselves up in a situation where our best is basically impossible.

    Perhaps this is also a risk to reputation if it is the kind of industry where that carries weight. Also if there was some kind of signed employee agreement I’d want to take a hard look at whether this is a violation of it.

  124. Lady Jane*

    I’m impressed, but I might be biased since I pulled something similar. I took a ton of freelance projects on and worked on them during business hours. It’s easy enough to beg off of meetings because most people have no clue if your other meeting actually exists or not. There’s a ton of autonomy in many white collar jobs, and no one notices if you actually continue to produce at a certain level. And there are plenty of people who are just plain mediocre at their jobs (even when they only have a single one to focus on), so you can still be seen as a mid-level to top performer even if you have other demands on your time.

    1. Eldritch Office Worker*

      Oh I’m also super impressed. Ethical question aside, it’s impressive on many levels.

    2. Roscoe*

      I was thinking the same. I’ve worked with people, in the office, who were present more time than I was, and they were pretty damn medicore. If someone was doing their job adequately in less time, why should I care?

  125. AdequateAdmin*

    I’ve had an ethical struggle over something very similar, but with a few key differences. I WFH as an admin for a tea pot company. It’s a full time position, with required hours, and has some daily tasks. But a considerable portion of it is also basically being on-call and available during those given hours whenever someone needs something. Since swapping to WFH I’m much more efficient at my daily tasks and regularly complete them in half the time I did in-office.

    I also work for another company in my chosen field, llama grooming, writing grooming reports on a part time basis. Sometimes our clients want the reports very soon after we finish grooming their llamas (2 wks vs the average 1 month) and I’ve struggled with whether or not it’s ok to be writing those reports while work is slow with tea pots. Personally I’ve come down on the side that I would feel a little icky doing it, since I’m essentially double-dipping on work hours, but I can see where it would be an ok thing to do. Also note my llama job knows about the teapots, but my teapots don’t know about llamas (I didn’t want them to think I was ready to bail at the drop of a hat).

    That being said in both of my roles I’m not very high up, I have no direct reports, and the most managing I do is chasing down other people for invoice approvals for teapot orders. The managing people part, especially when full-time at both, is where it gets ethically dubious in my opinion. There are so many moving parts there, how can you know you’re keeping up? And like other have said, at 1 month you still have training wheels on. At an entry level or on-call position I don’t see much difference between deep cleaning your dishwasher versus doing work for another job, as long as it’s something you can drop and pick up in at a moments notice. But more responsibility makes it less ok.

    1. Eldritch Office Worker*

      I think your scenario is fine. You’re available, you might otherwise be reading a book or whatever. You aren’t facing many of the conflicts OP is and you’re not offloading on anyone else.

    2. Sparkles McFadden*

      I don’t think this is the same situation as the letter in question. I also think it’s OK if you do a little report writing for your second gig when things are slow as long as you stop what you’re doing as soon as job #1 needs you. (I am also assuming job #1 doesn’t have a policy where you have to have any side jobs vetted by the company.)

      I’d still feel weird about it myself because I would want to keep the jobs separate in my mind (which is why I don’t get why the OP would even want to do two full time jobs)…but I also don’t get how people can do online shopping while at work.

  126. JustKnope*

    LW, can we please get an update in 6 months to see how you’re feeling as you get acclimated and both jobs ramp up?

  127. That One Person*

    As long as they both stay WFH status it could work well. It was interesting as one of my drivers talked about how he was basically done with his work day by noon or 1pm. The thing that used to help elongate the day was being constantly interrupted and asked questions or expected to train (when that wasn’t really his job, but he was there so people would ask). The fact that there’s now a wait time for answers via chat program or email versus in-person, and the fact that people can put them off more since there isn’t a lingering and physical presence, has definitely affected some folks’ work flow in interesting ways. I wish I could remember what he does exactly as it did sound like there was otherwise dead air time, or he had to space things out to basically fill the day out if he wasn’t allowed to do other things during that time.

  128. Anonymousaurus Rex*

    I wonder if Alison’s answer here changes at all if both positions are not salaried. I have one full time salaried position, and I do some freelance consulting work that is paid hourly. Both are work from home, not in the same industry or competitors. Most of the time my freelance work is minimal hours (under 10 per week) and I do the bulk of this work after hours and on weekends, with the occasional “lunch” meeting–meaning I use what would be my lunch break time to have a meeting at my other job. (I rarely actually take a lunch break). However I did recently take on a project where I was averaging more than 20 hours a week for a few months, and I did end up doing some work for my freelance job during normal business hours. My regular job didn’t suffer at all, and in fact I just got a promotion at my salaried job. Is there anything unethical about this?

  129. stuck at work*

    It’s not “taking a job from anyone else” (and while job markets can be iffy right now I doubt someone working 2-3 lower paying jobs is eligible for a single 200k with benefits director level job) if they got hired by their own merits and work—which they did. I can see some issues from an employer’s standpoint but why is it so wrong to work multiple high paying jobs if you can juggle both? People have their own side hustles all the time, even people with already high paying jobs. How is this different just because it’s a salary?

    I work low hour weeks and high hour weeks depending on what needs to be done because I’m salaried & exempt. I get my work done no problem—I’m not as high of a level as letter writer but my role sometimes does involve a lot of waiting or relaying information between parties, so sometimes I just fire off emails and have to wait a day so I’ll fit in some personal projects during downtime on slow weeks.

    Getting upset with letter writer and calling them greedy for… having multiple jobs???… isn’t very conducive to anything. The focus should be on ethical employment practices as a whole, which is at the employer level, not the employee.

    1. stuck at work*

      nesting fail, oops! But still standing behind this as its own argument in response to several threads on here.

    2. Me*

      I mean but they are unless they were the only candidates for those jobs. There would have most likely been a second choice candidate for those jobs. The employers hired them on the basis they were hiring a full time employee and are getting a part-time employee. They are at least lying by omission. If they didn’t take the job it would have gone to someone else. And I don’t think anyone is under the impression that if the employer knew that the employer wouldn’t fire this person.

      I don’t know that they are “greedy” but I do think they are approaching the ethics of this as if their decision only affects them – and it really doesn’t.

  131. EleanorShellstrop*

    It may be because I work in a regulated industry, but our company policy requires we disclose any outside business activity. Not disclosing a second job would be an automatic termination at minimum. Beyond the ethical discussion, did the OP check the company handbook?

    1. Eleanor Shellstrop (the other one!)*

      Woah, just replying because I never knew that someone else on this site used the name Eleanor Shellstrop until I saw BOTH of us in this post’s comments! Hi!!! Good name choice :)

  132. Roscoe*

    What is interesting is that is seems a lot of people have a line of where this would and wouldn’t be ok. It seems that 200k is far over that line for many people, but I’m curious where they would be ok. 75k? 50k? And if you have that line where you’d be ok with it, is it REALLY unethical, or do you just not like it when people of certain means do this?

    1. WulfInTheForest*

      I think it’s just more like, the less you make, the more we understand it/have sympathy for it because you’re doing it to make ends meet usually. It’s not that it excuses the behavior, but more like it explains it. 200k is a lot higher than the poverty line.

      1. quill*

        The court of public opinion tends to have more sympathy for situations where there isn’t a good choice than situations where you make a potentially damaging choice for funsies.

    2. Anonymous Hippo*

      I think whether it is ethical or not somewhat hinges on the motives…so survival would be less unethical than “sticking it to the man”.

    3. Salsa Verde*

      Yes, that is very interesting to me as well. I understand making that amount of money is outside of the realm of possibility and even understanding of many people (including myself!), but I am just coming down on the side of – it’s either ok at any price or it’s not, and I think it’s fine if you can get your work done without negatively impacting others.
      I do think OP might not be able to pull it off long-term, and there is a possibility she is not doing as great a job as she thinks, but overall, I’m not mad at this.

  133. Mary*

    Is it unethical or just an extreme form of an acceptable behaviour. There are so many companies out there that expect more than the standard 40 hr week. Your boss asking you to attend a meeting during lunch. Being expected to stay late to finish time crucial work. Expected to come in early to set up for the very important event. Being asked to travel for multiple days on the companies time and expense but not being compensated for it. Doing a favour for your boss or co-workers but still putting in more than the 40 hour week. There are so many ways that companies get employees to work more hours than they are paid for it is almost as if we expect this to be the norm. But it is unethical on the companies side to pay 200K for 40 hr of work and then expect 50-60. So on the other side someone gets the job done in less hours and can take home 200K. Why is it unethical for him to spend another 25 hrs for another employee for another 200K. It is like universities paying someone 100 to lecture for an hour. Then they relaise people need to prep so they pay them 50 to prep for a hour beforehand. And what if the lecturer was already prepped from last year, they still deliver a high quality lecture but worked an hour less. Should they get 150 or 100.

    I don’t think it is unethical, I think it is an extreme example of what is possible. But I would love if he came back in 6 or 12 months and tells us how he got on.

  134. Sick of the Pandemic*

    It doesn’t sound unethical in a vacuum until I think about the fact that you’re being sneaky so that you can make $400k a year instead of $200k a year. Maybe not unethical, but definitely greedy.

      1. Sick of the Pandemic*

        No, it’s okay to do when you have to do it to put food on the table or to make sure your family can clothe themselves and have some presents at Christmas.
        $200,000/ year puts you in the 91st percentile for wages in the US. $400,000 means you’re earning more than 99% of all americans. If you’re working hard for that money and that’s what the market has determined it’s worth, I wouldn’t call it greedy, though I’d hope you’d be making lots of contributions to charity. If you’re halfassing two jobs so you can be in the top 1%??? That’s greedy.

  135. starsaphire*

    I actually have a friend who does this, and has been for years. The difference is: she is employed by just one company at any given time, and does consulting for the others.

    She’s also in tech, director level, and all companies involved are fully aware. And she gives full hours to her “real” job. She spends her leisure time doing the consulting.

    I’m not sure I see much difference, other than the fact the companies are aware and on board with the whole thing. If she can do this at director level, why can’t the OP?

      1. starsaphire*

        Effectively she’s functioning as a director at both companies simultaneously, fwiw. Just that one is hiring her as a consultant and one as an employee – the duties don’t change one whit. Not to be pedantic. :)

        My point was more that at least one person, anecdotally, besides the OP can do director-level work at two businesses simultaneously for the long term and do it well.

    2. Colette*

      If the OP is open with both companies that she’s working two jobs and they’re on board, there’s no issue. But she’s not.

    3. ENFP in Texas*

      If the companies are aware and don’t have an issue with it, there’s no ethical quandary.

      So the OP just needs to check with the employers and make sure they’re okay with it, then there’s no issue with it being above board or not.

  136. twocents*

    factoring in the reality that employers frequently haven’t upheld their own obligations to employees

    This honestly. I work for a really large company and historically managers have had the freedom to decide if you have to come in, if you can work remote, or if it’s a hybrid schedule. My company switched to a standard schedule across the enterprise, which is a good thing in the sense that you know what the rules are but I don’t think it would be overstating things to say that people who accepted a position thinking it was fully remote to have it changed on them feel betrayed. I use this example because its current but I don’t think that’s unusual. People sign up under the understanding of getting certain perks only to have the company change their mind and take that away, or even legally require things are not always as consistently offered and enforced. But when you need to pay your rent, you may accept the fact that you don’t get your paid breaks (or whatever) that you should get.

    I don’t know if I’m comfortable with what OP is doing, but I find it hard to be mad about it either.

  138. WulfInTheForest*

    I hope OP does this for a few years and then just simply retires early, from either one or both jobs. Just take the extra pay and walk away from it all.

  139. kiki*

    I don’t know if it’s unethical, but it seems like a headache waiting to happen! If both jobs are expecting you to be working during similar times of day, there will inevitably be some sort of conflict or a week where both jobs need you to work more than you usually do. And if you get found out, there’s potential your reputation will take a hit, making it harder to get similarly-leveled positions in the future. $400k/ year is a lot of money, though, so maybe it’s worth the headache and potential risks to LW.

    On the ethics side, I don’t know if it’s necessarily unethical to have multiple full-time jobs at once if you genuinely feel you are capable of fulfilling responsibilities fully for each role, are sure there won’t be conflicts, and don’t think working another job will detract from your capabilities at the other. I just feel like, from experience and observation, people often go into situations like this and find out the balancing act is much more difficult in practice than in theory.

  140. Kay*

    I’m a civil servant and two of my coworkers (in other divisions) have been fired for this recently. The government frowns upon people working other jobs while being paid by the government and on government time. Both of them are being investigated for time fraud and this will affect their careers in the future.

  141. RudeRabbit*

    I recently found out one of my direct reports, who was primarily WFH, did this. It was a 6-figure role that had both strategy and on-the-spot/front-facing work associated while working for my company, she would have been fired for wage theft since this is a full-time role, and the expectations were as such. It’s not worth the legal hassle, but I had noticed her work dramatically slip about the time she started the other job. Not only myself, but my entire team rallied behind her to support her when her work was slipping to help in any way we could since we didn’t know this was the reason.

    The biggest thing is ethics here. It is deception, and burned a bridge with our company.

    1. Me*

      Ah yes, thank you for brining up wage theft. We fired someone for that not even because they were working two jobs, but because they were simply fudging their hours on the timesheet.

      It is a big deal.

      1. ecnaseener*

        Fudging a timesheet actually seems way more clear-cut to me as wage theft. Working on another job while still being available to the first job is (arguably) no different from taking excessive breaks from your job to write a book or take a nap. It’s bad behavior, but is it wage theft if the job isn’t one where you’re “on the clock” at specific times?

    2. DD*

      Just out of curiosity, what if her work hadn’t slipped and you were completely happy with her performance and found out about the double jobs? Would you have fired her?

  142. Student*

    It sounds very much like you have a BS job. If you are actually capable of performing two $200k day jobs in half a day each, those are poorly structured jobs that aren’t there to accomplish anything meaningful that most folks would pay you $200k for. There are some really interesting articles about BS jobs as a new category of work. Basically, adult full-time busywork! No one expects any accomplishments, just pleasant noise and a butt in a seat! Essentially, the court jester; a pawn in some bigger corporate game.

    So here are the reasons I ran from my BS job, for your consideration. It’s a short-term gain that sacrifices long term career growth. It’s a nice scam, as you’ve figured out, where you can get by with little real work and no accountability. However, the fact that you can get away with this scam now is an indicator that the company is not healthy. I guarantee you that you are not the only seat-warmer at either business. The more a business invests in this kind of busywork position, the less money they have to keep the actual work alive that brings in money to pay you for not working much. Meaning, this scam has a shelf-life that will expire. Eventually, your patrons will fall out of power, your company will hit financial hardship, or your job will get restructured out of existence.

    Once the job expires, you will be left in a difficult position, career-wise. You won’t have anything concrete to point to in order to convince somebody to hire you. Your skills will stagnate. You’ll have to either land another BS job based mainly on personal connections and luck, or suffer a major career setback when no one else buys your BS. Right now, the labor market is in favor of workers – but that only goes so far in helping you! Less hands available means that the dead weight is much easier for everyone to spot.

    In essence, you’ve fallen into the classic hooker’s dilemma (or sports player’s dilemma, if you prefer). This job may have amazing pay right now, but it is a very limited time offer and it will expire. It doesn’t get you any transferable skills you can use easily in a new career. The longer you stay, the harder it’ll be when you need to leave. Work out a clear exit plan and put a lot of that money towards savings.

    1. Pikachu*

      Open hypothetical question for employment lawyers: How does wage theft come into play exactly?

      It’s obvious for hourly wages of course, but let’s say OP’s offer letter only specifically spelled out $X salary per year to serve in the Director role with X, Y, and Z responsibilities.

      Salaried positions are assumed to require 40 hours, but if the employer doesn’t outright state that they expect 40 hours minimum, is it wage theft if OP gets the work done even though they do other things within standard business hours?

      Could the argument be made that OP fulfilled their terms of the contract by accomplishing said responsibilities and that an assumption/expectation of hours worked doesn’t mean it’s a requirement?

      2. ecnaseener*

        OP’s said above that the “hours” requirement is explicitly “however many it takes to get the work done.” No expectation of a minimum 40.

        1. Pikachu*

          My question was from a generic legal perspective, not OP’s situation specifically.

          Let’s say my employer tried to sue me for wage theft because I was hired on for X role at X salary, but they found out I also worked a second job during normal business hours.

          If the actual concrete 40 hour requirement or expectation was not written into the offer/contract, does that mean I stole wages if I fulfill the responsibilities of the role to everyone’s satisfaction in fewer than 40 hours and used the rest of those hours for something else?

          I know the general assumption is that salaried roles are 40 hours, but in a lawsuit assumptions are not contracts. Tbh I know nothing about this, I’m just wondering how it all might play out.

          1. ecnaseener*

            My personal non-legal-expert opinion would be no, that’s not wage theft. If I substitute “second job” for “cleaning the house” or “writing a book” or even “taking a nap,” it doesn’t feel like wage theft.

            1. generic_username*

              Lol, those things are literally wage theft though…. if you’re doing personal business on company time, that’s wage theft.

              1. Software Dev*

                Not in real life, it isn’t? I mean, that’s so far from how life works for salaried employees that it’s a silly thing to claim. I’m not “stealing” wages from my employer if I take my dog for a walk on company time, I’m an adult who is expected to manage my own time and get my work done to the level required of me.

              2. ecnaseener*

                As Software Dev said, we’re talking about a salaried employee who isn’t “on company time” during any particular hours.

  143. CaliCali*

    I think the ethical question is actually not even “is it ethical to have two full-time jobs” because, if it were shift work, no one would bat an eye — people have two jobs all the time. But I think it’s the working two jobs presumably at the same TIME, and the real question, to me, is: is it ethical to your coworkers? Because here’s the thing — as a director, you’ll likely need to sign off on things, have input into hiring decisions, set strategic direction, and frankly often probably be a deliberate bottleneck for people to move things along and get things done. Anyone who’s worked with a subpar director at a company (who’s presumably just working one job) knows how much of a thorn in the side they can be, and cause them so many headaches, stresses, sleepless nights trying to make something happen. Going in that KNOWINGLY you’re going to likely cause issues at either company due to skating by is a short-sighted strategy at best, and professionally harmful to the people around you at worst. That’s the true ethical question in my mind.

  144. Lies, damn lies and...*

    What if you’re traveling for job A and a critical thing happens for job B? An “I have to take this zoom call emergency” – how will you feel handling this situation? What would you tell the colleagues you’re with at the moment?

  145. Former Mailroom Clerk*

    Although the 2 companies are not competitors of each other, it’s possible that they would have clients in common. (Purely hypothetical example – Company A sells door knobs, and Company B sells industrial mopping machines). What would you do if Boss A said “Hey, I need you to go (or zoom) talk to Customer X about what features they’d like to see added to our new line of doorknobs”, and Boss B asked a similar question (same customer) about mopping machines? Although the decision makers could be different people, it’s possible you’d have to work with the same people in the procurement or legal departments, and get questions like “Weren’t you just in here talking about doorknobs the other day?”

  146. Rachel in NYC*

    I had a friend who considered doing this- he ended up choosing not to but did get a second job that was advising a company during the hiring process. But it wasn’t a second fulltime job.

    I advised him to let his employer know about the second job. My employer explicitly that we have permission to work a second job- even if the second job has NOTHING to do with our first job. Your first job is designing widgets and you want to get a second job coaching high school basketball in the evenings? At my employer, you need to get permission even though there is no correlation between the jobs.

    This just seems like a great way to make extra money in the short-run but to guarantee you make less money in the long-run.

  147. Consulting is where it’s at*

    Sounds like OP should consider setting up her own consulting firm! That’s how I have worked with 2-3 big companies at a time on large, highly visible projects paying me twice what I made as in nonprofit senior leadership. I’m providing strategic advice, program design, systems analyses, and I’m likely working 50 hour weeks as well, all without the fear of employers finding out about each other, the risk of underperforming, or the ethical concern of whether I’m honoring the commitments defined by my salary.

    Alternately, many companies have formal policies in place for gaining approval to work a second job. Why not look into that so everything is on the up and up? She may be getting away with it now, but these things have a way of getting out, especially in specialized industries/industry areas. It’d be really embarrassing to have to answer for this because of a zoom meeting screenshot someone posts of a productive team moment, for instance.

    1. Filosofickle*

      I agree! If they are really this good (and this fast), they could earn similar money without the deception.

  148. Greige*

    What are you doing for benefits? A lot of places can’t offer benefits to people who don’t work a certain number of hours. If you’re getting benefits but aren’t supposed to be, I’d worry about whether that jeopardizes your employers’ insurance plans.

    1. ecnaseener*

      I’m not an expert on this, but I can’t imagine it matters for a full-time salaried employee. If OP was at one job, spending a few hours working and the rest of the week goofing off, that wouldn’t make her ineligible for insurance. She’d still be on the books as full-time.

      1. Jamie Starr*

        It matters – whether you’re salaried or not is irrelevant. Insurance companies go by hours worked, not rate of pay. The company tells the insurance company the minimum number of hours required for employees to be eligible for coverage. If the minimum is 30 hrs/week, for example, the company probably assumes OP is working at least 30 hours. I would think it would be a problem for the company if the insurance company found out… seems like insurance fraud to me.

    2. Don*

      To be pedantic (and for a change it actually matters here): a lot of places DON’T offer benefits to people who don’t work a certain number of hours. I am unaware of any regulation that would prevent an employer from choosing to offer benefits to employees who work fewer hours. The Affordable Care Act set a level based on worked hours and company size where health care benefits were /required/ but did not say you couldn’t offer them to anyone at a lower level.

      Some benefits like 401k plans require a certain participation level among lower wage employees so they’re not turned into executive compensation packages. But to the best of my knowledge there’s no necessary number of hours required before you could offer those benefits to someone. There’s contribution limits based on that person’s salary but if you paid them $2000 an hour and they worked 2 hours a week they could max our their $19,500 annual contribution.

      The fact that there’s two tiers of employment at most places is a choice, not a requirement.

  149. Serenity*

    The deception is enough to make this unethical.

    In addition, each employer is investing in training you. That takes time on their end. You are not a fully functioning team member yet. When they have invested enough to expect you to pull the full weight of your job (at a director level, 50-60 hours) and you drop one, because TWO 50-60 hour jobs at the same time is not sustainable, you will be doubly unethical for knowingly having stolen this time from them that they could have been using to train someone who might have stayed.

    I know people leave jobs and that’s part of doing business. This is not that. The deception changes the equation.

  150. Chris*

    Generally, I’m into this as I think a lot of time at work is wasted in chit chat and un necessary meetings. However, I do have a little bit of concern about the part where LW says they rely on their dotted line team mates to handle day to day activities. I’d be really interested in hearing more about that. I wonder what their perspective is on LWs work load or availability? They may think they are successful, but they are biased in that view.

  151. HA2HA2*

    I thought about this one for a while, and realized eventually that, in my mind, a lot of the discussion here is missing the point.

    This is at the end, just an example of the capitalist power structure – bosses get to do whatever they want, peasants get screwed. A low-level employee tries working two jobs at the same time – they’re micromanaged, fired, overloaded with work, good luck. A boss does 20 hours of “work” while pretending it takes them 40 – sure, go for it, take 200k! This is the same as those stories from reddit or not-always-right about the retail employee who’s running around for 50 hours a week while being paid for 40 while their manager sits in their office, tells them to work harder, while tooling around on their phone and taking credit for all their work.

    Yes, of course it’s unethical! Why is that even a question! I think for two main reasons – because companies are so routinely unethical that nobody cares anymore if somebody steals from a corporation, and because the post is worded in such a way that it doesn’t SEEM like a lower-level employee is left holding the bag and picking up all the work that the higher-up isn’t doing.

    2. successor state*

      Agreed. This situation is what produces the type of boss that so many other letters here complain about. That one person who should be keeping an eye on certain projects or initiatives but is often unavailable or only offers up the bare minimum yes/no type responses. They let problems fester until they become impossible to avoid, and then try to do cleanup. They’re so removed from the goings on that they can’t really form important relationships with their peers, reports and organizational culture/values. And after only a month, there’s no way LW has a full view of their performance. It’ll almost certainly end up affecting someone lower on the org chart in a negative way. And like you say, *that* is capitalism at work, it’s the opposite of a “win” for the little guy.

  152. MissElizaTudor*

    If you can pull this off without causing problems for the people who work under you, then this is based af. It will be interesting to see how long you can pull this off, but if you perform decently at both jobs while keeping these hours, then it will serve as a clear example of what a BS job is. And I don’t mean that as a pejorative, more as a descriptor.

  153. Melonhead*

    Hmm. If the LW thinks this is so ok, how about telling both employers and seeing how they feel about it?

    The deception is inherently unethical.

    2. MissElizaTudor*

      Deception is not inherently unethical, though. There are situations in which deception is the most ethical choice. The question is which kind of situation this one is.

      1. Colette*

        I disagree. Deceiving someone who is entitled to the truth is unethical.

        You can tell your uber driver you’re flying to Denver on business when you’re actually going fishing in Minnesota without there being an ethical issue. If you tell your spouse you’re flying to Denver on business when you’re actually going fishing in Minnesota, that’s an issue.

      2. Cthulhu's Librarian*

        The most ethical choice? Pray tell.

        There are situations where deception can be ethically justified, yes. I have yet to ever see a convincing analysis that said deception was the MOST ethical choice in a situation, unless the scenario was artifically constrained in some way.

        1. Software Dev*

          My boss directly asks if I am looking for a new job. I am (I’m not actually, but in the scenario). What is my most ethical action?

        2. scribblingTiresias*

          Okay, here’s one, not even difficult.

          Your best friend told you they’re transgender, but they’re in the closet. They live with their parents, who would become abusive if your friend’s gender came to light.

          In this scenario, is it *really* less ethical to deceive your friend’s parents?

    3. not that kind of Doctor*

      This is my position. The deception makes it unethical whether you can pull it off or not. If you can do it, and no one finds out, you’re talented and lucky but that doesn’t make it ethical. If someone does find out it trashes the job and the reputation; is it worth it?

      It’s true I’d give a lot more leeway to someone with fewer choices, but at $200k/yr you can choose to be a better person.

  154. bluephone*

    ALSO…I know/get that the tide is shifting as far as employees pushing back against crappy behavior from employers and god knows that reckoning was a long time coming. But I don’t know that just because employers run roughshod over employees means that what’s OP is doing is totally okay and should be encouraged. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

  155. Gabby*

    It seems about as unethical as a company hiring someone for a 40 hour a week job and then demanding they work 50, 60, 80+ hours without increasing compensation.

    The “expectation” of a 40 hour a week job should go both ways, no?

    As for the struggle this person may experience keeping up with 2 jobs worth of work, doesn’t seem that different than what the coworkers of those overworked employees with more projects than they can handle experience. Except this persons making a ton more money and can drop a job if it feels overwhelming. So many employees are stuck working overtime for the same crappy pay because they can’t exactly drop projects their manager assigned them.

    I think this kind of thing needs to happen to highlight the double standard applied to employers vs employees. What if the roles were reversed, as they are here? Maybe it will be the wake up call we need. After all, America isn’t just capitalist to the people who are currently benefitting the most from it.

    1. TiredMama*

      I commented just below you and I get everything you are saying but still struggle to wrap my head around it.

  156. TiredMama*

    The idea itself does not seem crazy, basically what a contractor with multiple clients does. But it does seem dishonest because both jobs are paying you as salaried, full-time (if I read correctly LW is working 50 hours per week total, not 80 hours per week total) and I cannot get passed my own expectation that that means you work exclusively for them. And I am surprised there is not something in an employee handbook or contract or something that says you have to get approval for other work. My SO and I are in different industries with totally different skills (but both professional level) and have employment contracts that require approval before taking other work. Also, did you take health benefits from one or the other?

  157. JSPA*

    I have seen people do something roughly comparable in academe by overlapping old and new jobs, e.g. when close to being vested in their retirement at old job (which has actual financial consequences for oldjob!) or for something as prosaic as, “it’s useful to have the parking pass for a couple of months as I move.”

    (Only roughly comparable for multiple reasons: it’s generally for a short time, because job #1 has already gotten full value for several years, and because it’s generally done during an intrinsically flexible part of the academic calendar, and sometimes with the unofficial blessing of the department chair.)

    As to the monetary hit, having vestiture drag out for years and years is a crock…and I’ve seen the same academic workplaces cut adjuncts or instructors off a month or two before being vested. So I’m willing to presume that the two sorts of bad behavior roughly balance out, both in terms of finances and in terms of Karma (even though firing someone who lacks legal protections just before they vest is legal, while pretending to still be present while absent, isn’t).

  158. Lobsterman*

    The higher I’ve gone in my career, the more explicitly nonexistent expectations were. I would absolutely do this if given the opportunity.

  159. Laney Boggs*

    Now I’m second guessing NOT deciding to take a second, fully remote job i could have juggled…

  160. school of hard knowcs*

    Oddly enough, a friend works days at a warehouse and just started nights Friday – Tuesday at another warehouse. I am not sure how long it is sustainable. (NOT WFH)

  161. Kate R.*

    I can’t help but feel skeptical about this because I had a project manager who was working two jobs and thought he was acing the balance, and I assure you, he was not. So even though OP says she doesn’t have any direct reports, I couldn’t help but wonder what the level of reliance on the other teammates is.

    But say OP really is killing it at both jobs, I still wonder what this looks like going forward. Even if the quality of work is great, the deception could result in a firing and a bridge burned. Even if only one job is listed on a resume, people can find out your job history through other channels (professional networks and whatnot), and while I do think the employer/employee relationship is changing right now, I’m feel like people would be more understanding of a junior-level employee working two jobs making making 5-figures each than a director-level making $200K each. Not that I don’t think anyone wouldn’t be OK with that, but it feel like something you’d negotiate ahead of time, which is why my aforementioned project manager did.

    1. Eleanor Shellstrop*

      This is what I was thinking, too – ethical questions aside, how in the world are you going to list this time period on your resume? At that high of a level in your career, you can’t exactly afford to have however many years you spend doing this just be a black box/unverifiable. I’m just thinking about how awkward and difficult this would make professional networking, too – they already had to delete their LinkedIn to keep this up, how would they handle even casual questions from people with mutual acquaintances at one or both of these companies??

      1. ecnaseener*

        I must say, I’m disappointed to see Eleanor Shellstrop of all people setting aside the ethical question! :D

        OP answered this above, but basically she’ll just list one job on her resume. Maybe tech is a big enough field that she can keep her two networks separate, but I agree that feels like a time bomb.

        1. Eleanor Shellstrop*

          When I came back to check replies to my question I realized there are apparently TWO Eleanor Shellstrops commenting on this post about ethical quandaries!! Feels appropriate!

  162. AVP*

    I think ultimately there’s nothing wrong with this ethically, it just feels like you’re taking advantage of the social contract somehow.

    In a year where the social contract is fraying in a million directions, some people are happy to see it tilting back in a “getting one over on the boss” direction, others are like “oh here’s another norm gone, now I have to worry about this, too?”

  163. Nanani*

    Is it really deceptive if neither job asked for exclusivity? Maybe they did – the letter doesn’t specify (or I missed it), or it might implied like “you’re expected to be available for calls during these hours” sort of thing, but if its really just “do the work” and not “do the hours” then I’m not sure deception is an applicable concept.

    I’m a freelancer. I have a lot of clients who do not know about each other (and can’t because of NDAs in most cases).
    My work is fully remote and always has been, and has deadlines but not synchronous availability requirements – I’m not expected to reply immediately to anyone or answer calls or anything like that.

    If I wanted to work 80 hours for two big clients, I could.
    So, why is it okay for me to do that as a freelancer but not for LW?
    Pinpointing the reason should be the key to answering the question

    To be clear I’m not arguing that it’s 100% ok and ethical, just trying to illustrate a thought process for figuring it out.

    Buuut ethics aside, LW is going to burn out sooner rather than later. 80 hours a week is not sustainable in the long term, and when neither job knows about the other 40 hours you can’t reasonably say you’re recovering from an unusually heavy load.
    I can tell a client I’m not available for a given project, but how is LW going to handle logistics?

    1. Colette*

      As a freelancer, there is an assumption that you have more than one client. There’s no such assumption if you are working at a full-time job. (Of course people can have a full-time job as well as another job, provided they are up-front about it; the default assumption is that you’re working for one company only and available during business hours.)

      1. Nanani*

        I’m aware. I’m asking -why- is this the case, though.
        Is it just a default that isn’t actually true when you look close enough? Is there a real reason?

        “This is how it is” isn’t helpful in answering an ethics question. We need to look at why and how. Which is why I brought up freelancing as a contrast.

        1. Colette*

          It’s the case because when you’re freelancing, you are paid by the specific piece of work, not for your time. Obviously, employees also need to deliver work – but they are paid for their time as well. (Spend an entire day in a training course? You’ll get paid for that. Spend the day too sick to get much done? You’ll get paid for that.) So freelancers need to have multiple clients, because there’s no guarantee of ongoing work, and they only get paid for the work they do. Being an employee carries the underlying assumption of continued employment in a way a freelancer doesn’t – even though employees can be fired or laid off.

          1. Nanani*

            In general, that is true.
            However, OP states they have a salaried job that isn’t about number of hours but about the work completed.
            Does that mean that the norm about being paid for time only applies for jobs where specific hours are billed or availability is expected?
            If there really isn’t an expected set of available hours, does the norm about not apply?

            IF OP is correct that the specific number of hours isn’t a problem, then they aren’t being paid for their time, but for their work, same as a freelancer.
            I think this norm doesn’t then apply, at least not to the extent that breaking it would make their actions unethical.

            (Of course it is a very big IF)

            1. Colette*

              I’d be very surprised if the OP’s companies don’t expect her to be available during most if not all business hours. It’s not about being paid by the hour, it’s that the company is paying, in part, for the OP to be available for meetings and to answer questions, even if she’s not actively working on something (which generally, they will expect her to be doing). And she’s not, because she’s working somewhere else. A lot of jobs include the assumption that, if you’re not busy, you’ll find something else to do – not that you’ll go work somewhere else.

              If she worked at the front desk of a hotel, no one would say that it would be OK for them to be an Uber driver whenever there’s no one at the desk.

              1. Nanani*

                Yes but according to OP she’s not subject to that kind of expectation. Both jobs are fully remote and dont have on call hours or anything. We are supposed to take people at their word.

                IF the only problem is availability, then IF OP is correct that there’s no confection, it should be okay? That is what I’m getting from you.

                To be clear I’m not trying to disprove you, Colette, just trying to drill down to what the problem really is. So far, norms about hours are not convincing, largely because of OPs claim that they can do all the work in half the usual time and are not subject to hourly constraints.

                1. Colette*

                  “Can theoretically manage your own schedule” and “there is no expectation that you’ll be available during business hours” are not the same thing. I understand she’s not covering a help line or on call; that doesn’t mean that her employers don’t expect her to be working during business hours. I get the the OP thinks it’s OK; I disagree that her employers think it’s OK. (But if they do, the solution is easy – tell them what she’s doing and get them to agree. If they do, there’s no problem.)

                  The thing is, a lot of white collar jobs aren’t about set tasks. There are set tasks, but you can’t be a director and say “I went to 5 meetings and made 2 decisions, my job is done, see you next week.” You’re expected to do things that you have to define yourself; you’re expected to be involved in the work and work-social activities of your team; you’re expected to be available if someone needs input or a decision or approval for something.

                2. Nanani*

                  Okay. Last reply to you.
                  You are ignoring the actual letter in favour of talking about norms. Do you think you are they only person who knows what they are? (you aren’t)

                  As I have been trying to say, your only argument seems to concern norms about what is expected regarding hours. None of your replies have any content that would point to an ethics-related conclusion one way or another beyond “this is what’s normal”
                  That is not useful or interesting to discussing the ethics of the actual letter, which is the point of this entire discussion.

                3. Allonge*

                  I never met a job that is called ‘director’ where part of the job is not figuring out how to do things better, cheaper, faster, more (or less, as applicable) – the entire concept is that you don’t wait for work to come to you, you make your own work, propose projects, improvements etc.

    2. Filosofickle*

      I recently signed an employment agreement and was interested to see it spelled out — we expect you to give this company your full time/attention and you can have a side hustle but only if it doesn’t interfere or conflict in any way.

      1. Nanani*

        Interesting! How do they define “not interfering?” Is it strictly about non overlapping hours?

        1. Colette*

          Generally, it means things like:
          – not working at job 2 during the time you’re at job 1
          – not using computer or other equipment from job 1 for work you do for job 2
          – not making decisions at job 1 that will benefit you in job 2
          – making sure there is no overlap in clients or suppliers between jobs 1 and 2

          1. Nanani*

            Colette, please understand I am not asking 101-level “how work works” questions. I am trying to interogate the ethical question that is the basis of this entire discussion.

            Do me the courtesy of imagining I’m an adult who understands what words mean.

      1. Nanani*

        That.s literally the point I’m making.
        What factor(s) in that distinction make it ethical vs not? That’s the interesting part.

        1. ecnaseener*

          Oh. Well, in my mind it’s that when you agree to an employee position, you are agreeing to the things that make it not a contractor position. No inherent universal ethical truths, just a business agreement (and the underlying principle of honoring your commitments)

  164. Red*

    Is this a trick question? Of course it’s unethical.

    If OP thinks it’s ethical and so great then surely they will have no trouble calling up their manager and HR for each position to disclose their other role. Better yet, set up one Zoom call for everyone.

    1. ecnaseener*

      Employers aren’t the arbiter of what’s ethical. I’m with you to an extent, but that can’t be the entire litmus test. For example, most people agree that calling out sick for the occasional mental health day is not unethical, but you wouldn’t tell your boss or HR about it.

  165. Skytext*

    This bothers me in a lot of ways. First, in general if someone can do a full time job in only 20-25 hours a week, it probably doesn’t need to be a full time job. But that’s neither here nor there. What bothers me is that OP is shortchanging both companies in a lot of ways, that they wouldn’t be if they were devoting 40-50 hours to just one. Prioritizing crises for one company at the expense of the other? Inconveniencing coworkers by rescheduling meetings due to conflicts with the OTHER company? Not doing expected/required travel (a clearly defined requirement of the job that was known prior to hire) and doing Zoom instead? Yeah, their not actually doing the job, they are doing less than the full job and disguising it because there are plausible excuses for it, even though those aren’t the real reasons.

  167. Catty Wampus*

    I have found that it’s hard to have a single, global idea of what is or isn’t ethical, because to some extent it’s a subjective concept. One discussion I’ve had with a lot of people on this centers on the question of harm. If X behavior is generally frowned on in society but I know for sure I can get by with it and no one will be hurt, is it unethical? Opinions are pretty evenly split on that question in my group, with rational arguments both ways. Add to that the fact that the meaning of “harm” can be a bit subjective as well and it gets more interesting.
    Honesty is another concept often associated with ethics. I generally lean toward the idea that if something is dishonest it is also unethical, but I know I don’t apply that uniformly because in some cases being truthful isn’t the best option. So there isn’t necessarily an all right or all wrong answer. But I do think that, in general, if you know you need to keep what you’re doing hidden then it likely isn’t honest and in the vast majority of cases also isn’t ethical. So, OP, how about that future resume people have asked about? Do you believe that you could make a case for keeping both jobs to a hypothetical future employer? Could you convince them that this is okay? If you think you can, great. But if not, it might be a sign that you need to rethink things if you are concerned about ethics or optics.

    1. Remote Worker and Dog Lover*

      Yes! This is how I am thinking about this too. Honesty can be an important part of ethical behavior, depending on the context.

  168. CorpPara*

    I work in tech in Silicon Valley. My experience has often been that with the exception of C-level, the higher up the chain of command you go, the less “work” you do. Higher-ups are paid for ideas, strategic guidance, educated decisions, etc.

    Ideas can, and with the dedicated ones does, take place at all hours. In other words they’re working even when not technically at work.

    I’ve reported to director level managers (ie they report to C-level) or C-level most of my career. Several of them worked MUCH less than 25 hours per week. Two in particular literally did not work at all. (I didn’t care – none of my business really)

    I recently worked for a much lower-level manager. The expectation was that I’d work 60+ hours per week on salary (I left). That manager didn’t do much work either, and I definitely “felt” it more at the lower level.

    1. Lotus*

      This is interesting context. I mean, if her two jobs did amount to 40 hrs per week and no more, I wouldn’t have an issue with this since idgaf about non-competes. But I have trouble believing it? I have a feeling her responsibilities will catch up to her eventually. If she feels underutilized she should just try and get another job?

  169. Seeking Second Childhood*

    Sorry, this time I cannot agree with Alison. If you were hourly or if you were working a day and a night job? Go for it. But you are not Doctor Who and you cannot be two people in two places at one time.
    If I were your board of directors and found out about this, you’d be canned. Since I’m not, I can still say please don’t do this. This is the kind of thing that could get work from home taken off the board again for everybody who is honestly doing work outside of the office.

  170. Marketing Mama*

    Honestly, before I read this post my gut reaction was “in no way is that ethical” but now I’m kind of like “well… why not?”

    It falls under the same category as the hiring post from a few days ago where businesses are wringing their hands over essentially the same treatment that they’ve been dishing out for years. For years businesses have had most, if not all, of the power over when we work, where we work, how we do it, for how long, etc. They’ve also had the power to lay people off or fire them at the drop of a hat with next to no cause. Almost everyone I know has experienced job insecurity at some point, and probably within the last two years (myself included).

    With all of that in mind, OF COURSE my generation (I’m 32) and those younger than me are asking lots of questions about what have been considered workplace norms. After all, most of those norms were developed by businesses and they keep most of the power with businesses, not employees. Now that employees can command more of the power, it’s about time things changed at least a little bit in my opinion.

    Still not sure where I land in terms of if this is ethical or not. I agree with Allison that the fact that it’s under the table is not great, but the larger question to me is whether employers *should* have feelings about this if OP is getting the work done, doing it well, and they can’t tell anyway. If they can’t tell, why should it matter? Why *should* they care? I know in my job (more on the strategic end, like OPs) I have lots of control over my own schedule, when I complete tasks, etc. within reason. I’m often left with lots of extra time, and I’ve always felt like I needed to either do more (obviously not for extra pay, but often outside of my job description) OR I just leave it and go for a run/do laundry. Neither one feels particularly great to me. With the first option, I’m giving more of my labor for the same amount of money. Sometimes, with good bosses and employers, that’s resulted in eventually getting raises and promotions, but not always. In the second, it feels like taking advantage of the company, which I don’t like either.

    Anyway, I guess what I’m saying is I’m excited that we’re asking these questions and I hope we keep asking them and questioning the norms. I hope that in 20 years when my kids are hitting the workforce that the norms are more equitable than they are now.

    1. Nanani*

      I’m in the same place as you. I’m leaning toward “Good for her!” (insert Lucille Bluth) but can’t really articulate why it’s okay.
      A lot does hinge on whether OP is correct that they can do two full time jobs in the number of hours usually expected for one, to a high enough standard, for an unspecified length of time.

      Hypothetically it seems like there isn’t a real reason it’s not okay – “violates the norm” certainly doesn’t cut it for me. But I also can’t convince myself 100% that it is okay and here’s why. I don’t know why.

      Tangentially, I’m only a little bit older than you and going for extra work within the expected hours never resulted in promotions and raises , back when I worked in companies – and now I’m freelance so hustling harder directly translates to getting paid *because* I can bill for the work I did.

      1. Salsa Verde*

        I mean, I think it’s ok because of the things that are discussed here frequently: work is not a family, work is a transaction. If OP can get her work done to her employer’s satisfaction, and she is in a salaried position where hours are not counted, what does it matter what she does during the time she is not working for that employer? Even though lots of commenters are mentioning that she makes too much money, that she must be shortchanging her employers, others must be picking up her slack as reasons this is unethical, I do not agree.
        If it’s not unethical if the salaries were lower, than salary is not a good measure of ethics.
        She says she’s meeting expectations for her employers, and that she is not asking others to pick up slack, so those are not reasons that this is unethical (even if commenters do not believe her).
        The fact that she is lying is seen as unethical, but then there have been multiple comments pointing out that lying is not always unethical.

        I just think that maybe it feels wrong because we have been so conditioned to see the employer in a certain role, but really, if no one else is being hurt, and we cannot prove anyone is, then this does not seem unethical to me.

  172. excel is compiling*

    I am really curious as to how you’re going to put these jobs on your resume, when the dates overlap.

  173. Lowly tech researcher*

    Giving my 2 cents as a person at a tech company who reports to a director.

    I’m wondering how the fact that that OP is stretching between the 2 jobs impacts those who report to the OP. At my company, being a director means setting a path for a team to follow, being there for direct reports when they need support, and seeking opportunities for direct reports to develop THEIR skills.

    OP says the position is focused on strategy, and I certainly hope that’s true – that they aren’t bringing any direct reports into this. Because this decision doesn’t only impact OP – it impacts their employees and their growth opportunities. For example, if my boss’s schedule was packed to the brim, I wouldn’t be able to reach out to her for impromptu questions or concerns, or I would think twice before doing that. Think about if a direct report is a caregiver – they might need more flexibility in their schedule compared to someone who isn’t a caregiver. The time thing would impact those employees in a disproportional way. As a manager, if I was juggling so many priorities, I might cut out meetings with my direct reports, and then lose the opportunity to get to know them well and their strengths so I could better support them. There are only 24 hours in a day — something’s got to give.

    I don’t know OP’s KPIs, but I’m sure they could reach them and exceed them with 2 jobs in tech. But everything else – the soft skills part of the job that doesn’t get measured, the human part, the looking out for your employees part – idk, I feel like realistically, that would take a hit.

    I wish you well, OP. But if my director that I reported to was doing this, I wouldn’t be thrilled, because I’d be thinking about the missed opportunities to improve our working conditions and to grow the skillset of the team.

    1. Filosofickle*

      The good news is they said they don’t have direct reports. Not sure what the needs of the “dotted line” folks are.

  174. HR Anon*

    We catch people doing this all the time. Except in my industry they are working for competitors.

    Inevitably, their performance starts to suffer. They just can’t keep it up for more than a few months. Usually the person is fired from both jobs once caught.

    If you are in a role where reputation and networking is important (and at $200k, this is likely) it’s not worth the damage your reputation will suffer.

    1. Software Dev*

      Yeah, I don’t think this is even a little bit sustainable–I’ve moonlighted before (with company permission) and eventually had to drop the second job because it was impacting my work at first job, because I was tired and still thinking about stuff from moonlighting job. I have real doubts OP is capable of giving two companies the attention she would give one company and I think it will eventually show in her work (but I hope she proves me wrong).

    2. ecnaseener*

      The obvious question though is, how many do you not catch? Maybe it’s not inevitable that their performance suffers, you just never find out about the ones who can swing it.

    3. BeenThere*

      I’m wondering which Bay Area companies don’t have a moonlighting clause, I absolutely know I have one however if there was a company that didn’t I’d be super tempted.

  175. Lotus*

    I’m a super antiwork/pro worker leftist. From that perspective, I have to point out that there is nothing leftist or pro worker if your spreading yourself too thin is adding to the workload of your direct reports. That is unethical.

    2. rl09*

      Yeah the comments here about “sticking it to the man” are nonsensical to me. This person is attempting to make 400k per year, by exploiting the labor of his own teammates. He is “the man.”

      1. Software Dev*

        How is she exploiting their labor? It sounds like they would do the work they’re doing for anyone who was in her position, not just her, not like they’re doing her job.

        1. rl09*

          When Allison asked what the LW would do if time sensitive issues come up, the LW responded: “I don’t have any direct reports, but have awesome teammates who dotted-line report to me and who I can rely on to accomplish day-to-day activities.”

          That sounds like she’s planning to lean on these “dotted-line” reports quite a bit in order to balance working at both jobs, despite the fact that she most likely will out earn these teammates and will be working less hours than them. That’s pretty gross.

          1. ecnaseener*

            I’ll copy OP’s comment about that from above, since there’s so many it’s hard to find:

            My meaning here was relying on others for the things they do in the course of their job, like data they crunch and provide so that I can make decisions based on that. Not pawning my work off on them.

            1. Neptune*

              I think that that claim is a useful piece of self-delusion on the OP’s part. I mean, really – as was laid out by someone else in a comment above, how likely is it that the OP has found not one but TWO director-level jobs in the same industry paying $200k apiece which genuinely require no more than 25 hours of work a week? And how much more likely is it that a lot of that workload is being invisibly picked up by others, much like in countless letters from people reporting to absent/inattentive managers in this blog’s archive?

              1. rl09*

                Exactly. I just find it extremely difficult to believe that two companies had a full-time job openings, that they are willing to pay $200k for, that really only requires 25 hours of work per week. There’s either parts of the job that LW is neglecting (which will cause major problems for herself and her team down the line), or some one else is having to pick up her slack.

  176. Not My Money*

    As someone who was burned when a direct report did this to me, I would have to say it all depends on whether or not you’re fulfilling the duties of both jobs. My person emphatically was not but with the newness of remote work I didn’t catch it until way too late. I’m not a fan but honestly, if he’d been keeping up, then I wouldn’t have cared and he wouldn’t have burned this bridge.

  177. James*

    For me, the question boils down to what they’re paying you for. In some jobs you need to be available 40, 50, or 60 hours a week, but not necessarily working the whole time. I remember one job where my role was to be onsite–I couldn’t do anything, and I was flat-out told that the other person knew the system better than me so I could keep my mouth shut, I simply had to exist on the project site. I got paid to read a book and eat snacks. Working a second job would have been completely ethical, as it would have not been substantively different from me reading a book. I know someone who plays an MMO while waiting for IT tickets to come in, or while waiting for code to compile–he has to be at his desk, but there’s nothing for him to do.

    If, on the other hand, the job requirements do in fact require your attention the full time you’re being paid then obviously working two jobs would be unethical.

    That said, once you get into a managerial position I feel like you should be able to find enough work to keep more or less busy full-time in a job. An executive definitely should. If you’re not, you’re probably not doing your job. It’s not our job to merely enforce compliance; it’s our job to be proactive, foresee potential problems and opportunities, and position our teams to take advantage of them. If I found out an executive was working two jobs I’d lose a lot of respect for that executive (depending on the job, of course–farmers or part-time small-business owner is something else entirely). It means they’re merely involved with the company, while I expect commitment at that level.

  178. Delphine*

    I don’t think it’s ethical. I also don’t care. Someone I know works a “high paying” (low six-figure) job in a very HCOL city at a fairly popular company. The job was billed as 40-hours a week. Guess how many times she gets calls at 8 PM or 10 PM asking for something that her boss needs at 9AM next morning? Or how many times meetings are scheduled for 6/7 AM? Multiple times a week. It’s not a 40-hour a week, 9-5PM job, it’s significantly more, and employers pretend like the salary they pay someone justifies asking them to work 70-80 hours a week when that was never part of the job description. That changes the high hourly rate calculation and at the end of the day, you’re not being paid much more than someone who gets five figures and actually works 40-hours a week. I’m tired of employers stealing wages from employees, overworking them, taking advantage of them, and nothing being done about it. I’m tired of companies crying about how they can’t hire anyone but refusing to increase their wages or improve working conditions. Why would I waste time being upset about LW taking two jobs under the table? More power to her for as long as she can keep it up.

  179. korangeen*

    I’m sort of doing a similar thing at the moment, except both jobs know about each other and pay me as an hourly part-time employee. The similar part being it’s not shift work, it’s white-collar remote work, with things sometimes happening at the same time and it being a little tricky to juggle priorities. I definitely wouldn’t feel comfortable taking two full-time salaries and keeping my employers in the dark about my other jobs. It’s not ethical, but I suppose in the grand scheme of unethical things, this is far from the worst thing in the world, especially if you’re legitimately doing good work for both. The fact that you’re making so much money from this doesn’t gain any sympathy for your case though.

  180. Minerva*

    At the director level, there’s about zero chance you don’t have some kind of employment agreement that would define this as a conflict of interest. You might get away with this but it will be by pawing off work on lesser paid subordinates, and you might just torpedo your chance of ever getting another equivalent job, because you can’t have a clear work history because directors have names known by many people who might handle your application.

    You are playing with fire by deliberately underperforming at two jobs that have a huge level of autonomy but are likely to have huge long term expectations. The first time you have to travel for one job or have conflicting high profile meetings you are likely to be suspected of something.

    I just don’t have the same view of yay get the big corporations when someone is bringing in that kind of salary for a job where you don’t get assigned discrete tasks.

  181. Kshoosh*

    I actually know someone who did this very thing for nearly a year, a few years ago– before COVID. He tends to work quickly (and carefully, just quickly) and so found himself regularly with downtime in his main job– even after asking for more work and streamlining processes. He had an interesting offer from another company in a different industry and realized he could put the downtime to use.

    During the 9-10 months of double-duty, he completed all his work, received multiple accolades and recognition awards from each company, and both managers were pleased with his output. It slowed his work down for the primary job to a regular pace, relieving some of that hassle too. There were a few hairy times of simultaneously scheduled meetings, but he rarely ever had to present so he kept tabs on both and made that piece work as best he could.

    He realized over time, though, that while it was 100% possible and both companies were happy, doing 2 jobs meant he wasn’t giving *his best* to either one. He was doing everything well enough for his employers standards, but he knew it wasn’t his best work, and eventually that wore on him. He decided he wanted to be proud of his work. He quit the 2nd job, very amicably, they offered to bring him back to consult anytime he wanted, and he’ll just leave it completely off his resume.

  182. SpEd Teacher*

    Do I think this will work long term? No. Do I think it’s ethical? Sure.

    Workplaces have the responsibility to have set expectations of work and then take action if employees are not meeting those expectations. Either he will meet them for a while or forever at both jobs and great! He’s doing the work the employer wants and getting paid what they think that work is worth. Or he won’t be meeting those expectations in one or more job, be put on some sort of PIP, and then he can choose to concentrate on one job or the other. Or he’s fired from one or both jobs.

    I think the trick will be quitting one job before it all gets found out. As long as you leave one job before you’re found out, I think he’ll be mostly ok.

    He is getting paid to meet their expectations. If he is able to do that at two places, fine by me!

    (The whole capitalistic system has many unethical elements that can be discussed in relationship to how he is being compensated while others are working so much harder for so much less money, but this guy taking two jobs doesn’t make that better or worse for minimum wage employees.)
    I would not inflate my lifestyle assuming a $400k salary for the long term. But, by all means, play the game. Hate the game, not the player.

    1. Name Required*

      This is the best answer that I’ve read. So far all of the answers saying this is unethical strike me as just … jealous? Angry? It’s reasonable and normal to be angry at capitalism and the suffering of other humans! But this specific person is not the cause of the job market. They aren’t the cause of poverty. They aren’t Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk.

      This person lives in the US. We have no guaranteed healthcare. We have very few social safety nets. While some places in the US have more robust worker protections than others, this country is mostly anti-worker. This OP has likely no contract, no guaranteed job for any amount of time. They could be fired on a dime. The logistics seem like a nightmare, so I wish them luck in being successful at this endeavor … but I simply can’t find myself getting mad or finding it a conflict of morality. I’m impressed and hope they succeed.

  183. Economist*

    This situation would create problems if either company submitted a proposal for a Federal contract or grant. The OP would have to report both companies so that conflicts of interest and resource capacity could be evaluated. In addition, since this is the tech industry, any foreign investment in either company would need to be considered in determining whether or not to award. Failure to report both employer companies could easily lead to termination of the contract, grant, or other type of funding.

    1. Economist*

      Likewise, if the OP applied for a Federal job or needed Federal clearance for a project, both current jobs would have to be reported. If one were left off that would constitute a fraudulent application.

  184. WhatTheWhat*

    As a person who works about 20 hours per week and is a superstar in my department, I do think there are people who can do excellent work in half the time it takes others. If I needed the money, I’d be up for a 2nd job. But I work quickly in exchange for free time. If I took on another job, I think I’d tire of being sneaky and that would wear on me. But to each their own.

  185. Soup of the Day*

    Honest question, and maybe it’s been said upthread: is there really such thing as a job where there’s ONLY a certain amount of work to do each week? In every job I’ve ever had, even if I have main objectives, there’s always more to be done. I might not actually be working 40 hours a week, because I get distracted like everyone else, but there’s pretty much an infinite amount of work to do, so I can’t imagine ever being able to do 25 hours of work and call it a week.

    I would think the assumption in any job is that if you finish your tasks for the week, you find more work to do until you hit 40 hours – but am I just working the wrong kind of job??

    1. CheeryO*

      Sure, there are plenty of people in more reactive roles, or who work on a project basis and don’t have much to do between active projects. There are also plenty of jobs where people don’t push themselves to find work to fill their hours since they can get away with not doing so, either because they’re already meeting their goals on fewer hours or because their managers aren’t super on top of things or don’t know how to get the most out of their staff.

    2. I Wrote This in the Bathroom*

      Not any director-level job that I’ve heard of, for sure.

      Even in my job, which is the lowest level on the org chart, the assumption is that the workload will contract and expand based on the business needs; and that we will find ways to fill the downtime productively (self-training, helping/mentoring colleagues, etc). I honestly suspect that OP is right now being given a lot of space and lower expectations because they’re new. No one expects a new director to hit the ground running. But, at any place where my acquaintances and I have worked, a year or so down the road, a director’s duties tend to expand to way beyond the 40 hrs/week. Imagine both OP’s employers’ surprise when OP is physically unable to fulfill their responsibilities at both jobs, because they add up to more than 16 hours a day. Or when both places are suddenly in firefighting mode at the same time, everyone is looking for OP, but OP can only be logged into one place at once. Makes for great comedic musical (look up Truffaldino/The Servant of Two Masters), doesn’t play out as well in real life.

      I do not see this ending well. Sorry, OP. I just don’t.

    3. Software Dev*

      I mean, if there’s infinite amount of work, how would someone tell how many hours you’re working? If Employee A works 40 hours and does X amount of work and Employee B does 20 hours and does the same amount of work, they’re both doing the same ‘amount’ of work. Employee B could potentially be doubling the amount of work they do, but the question is, do you owe your employer your maximum capability or should you just meet your goals and enjoy not having to work as much?

      1. Soup of the Day*

        For sure, and I don’t think anyone should be burning themselves out. I just mean there’s always more to do, so if Employee B accomplished the same amount of work in 20 hours as Employee A did in 40, Employee B would still be expected to do another 20 hours of work to equal 40 hours. And someone could work 100 hours and still have work left over (don’t do this!).

        I would just think a manager would be shocked if an employee finished all of their work in 20 hours and just stopped for the week instead of just doing more work somehow, like preparing for future tasks, seeing if anyone else needs help with a project, or continuing education.

        We’re all in the office, so it would be obvious if someone was only working 20 hours per week in my case. I guess I’m just wondering if there are jobs where it actually is okay to work that way. I would love if my manager just gave me a list of tasks every week and I could stop when I was done with them and get paid the same salary – I imagine I would be way more efficient! But since the work is endless I just kind of go at a pace I can maintain forever without burning out, even if it’s not my fastest work.

        1. Soup of the Day*

          Yeesh, how many times can I use the word “just” in one post? It’s a Monday of a Wednesday, forgive me.

  186. Confused Canadian*

    I’m Canadian and everyone employment agreement I have signed for a full-time job has a clause that I cannot hold another full-time or part-time job that will interfere with my work at that company. Is that not common for American companies? Otherwise, I’d say by holding 2 full-time jobs, you’re in violation of that.

    1. Sola Lingua Bona Lingua Mortua Est*

      It’s been a common clause everywhere I’ve been employed full time, but it’s also one of those things where it’s not an automatic dismissal and can be hard to prove without the employee’s cooperation. The policy would seem to be more for deterrence than consequences.

    2. generic_username*

      Most employees in the US don’t sign contracts. But I have seen clauses like that in employee handbooks (which you have to follow or risk being terminated)

    3. Lobsterman*

      If employees in the US signed contracts, that would mean that employers would have to follow them, and they don’t want that.

  187. Gloucesterina*

    I really want to know how one puts oneself in the position to receive an offer for one (1) high paying job with no supervisory duties. Is there an AAM column or other resource folks would recommend for learning about this?

    I imagine it’s very field specific and I’m interested in hearing different stories!

    2. BBQHonk*

      I work in semiconductors as an individual contributor. Base salary is $175k, bonus around $25k, and an RSU package around $80k. Total package just under $300k. I’m on the technical staff and this is typical (maybe even a bit low) for someone of my experience.

      And no, I don’t work in Silicon Valley. I work somewhere where $300k goes a long way.

    3. 54354*

      Get a professional qualification or other in-demand skill. Lawyer, engineer, programmer, psychiatrist, consultant come to mind.

      1. James*

        Pretty sure some of our specialists make that much. Knowing how to handle hazardous waste is very profitable. And you don’t have to deal with underlings–you just have to deal with people calling you up going “So we have this roll-off box that’s leaking F-listed haz waste into a local wetland. Is that bad?” Oh, and jail time if you screw up.

  188. Techadjacent*

    Keep in mind the tech world is highly intertwined. My husband and many friends are in tech. A friend started a new job and has two team mates that she’s worked with in other tech companies. If you work similar job functions in both, someone is going to figure it out, by talking about their teams to tech friends, or moving from company a to company b and seeing you at both. This is not going to stay secret.

    1. Loredena Frisealach*

      eh, Tech is a huge area though! I’m a technical consultant, and I’ve worked for 4 different consulting firms of varying sizes (two boutique, 1 third tier, current 2nd tier) as well as a couple of non-consulting firms and I’ve yet to have a team mate I’ve worked with at a different firm even accounting for clients. If the OP isn’t working in a niche area she could easily avoid overlap.

  189. Pascall*

    I do a 15-hour max a week freelance job for a local nonprofit and some ad-hoc work for some other nonprofits in the area, but I can’t imagine doing two full time jobs at the same time…

    But then again, I’m in the office for my actual FT work, so it would be a lot harder for me to pull off. Honestly, I don’t think it’s unethical, but definitely a HUGE burnout risk and you have to consider other people on your team if you were to be caught and removed- this may result in your work being placed on other people as a result.

    Nice work for managing it so far, but I can’t see it being sustainable, long-term. Someone will find out eventually.

  190. generic_username*

    I’ve been so tempted to do this. I probably only do like 2-3 hours of real work in each work day. And it’d be nice to get the extra money

  191. Econobiker*

    I want one job working from home that pays $200k. Are these flake title new economy jobs? What companies are stupid to pay that much for someone unless it’s programming?

  192. Oh Come On*

    Well this confirms my opinion of what directors do all day– jack shit!

    I am sure that the junior employees at this organization could not get away with spending 20 hours a week on their jobs. If I found out my boss was skipping out on half her job that would be incredibly demoralizing. And in fact, I left an organization when I was asked to do dramatically more work than my supervisor who managed a strict 9-5 while I worked every weekend.

  193. SM*

    I’ve done something similar in the past, but critically with full disclosure to both organisations and with a limited window to close it out.

    One organisation that I was employed by was in the midst of concluding a sale of our business unit. Meanwhile, another organisation that I’d worked with before (in another country) had a sudden opening for a C-level position and the board wanted me back for a nearly immediate start.

    Both boards and both CEOs knew me well enough to trust that I would manage things and specifically granted me authorisation to work both jobs for up to 12 months. It was crazy for a while as I had to wind one job down and ramp up in the other (lots of red-eye flights and lost weekends) but everything worked out well in the end. The key however was the disclosure. If I had tried to do something behind their backs and was caught out, it would have basically been the end of my career at that level as word gets out fast about people like that.

    OP may get away with it for a while, but they will either burn out or get caught out in the end. Either way, it ends in tears.

  194. BBQHonk*

    Unethical. Case closed. I don’t care if employers have been getting over on the workforce forever; we’re talking about one isolated anecdote here.

    The fact that OP isn’t being forthcoming to his employers is evidence that he knows this is unethical. Regardless of how well he thinks he’s doing his job, there is a person out there who could do it better by actually working a full week’s worth of work.

    Of course, if both employers are aware of the situation and sign off on it then congrats, but we know that’s not the case here. OP is being occupying a job that someone else needs. Of course, I personally believe that lying is never acceptable and ultimately makes difficult situations worse in the future.

  195. not that kind of Doctor*

    The OP asks “is this ethical?” when they already know it isn’t and the real question is “am I a bad person for doing it anyway?” The answer to the second question is the one that varies.

    For me, the answer is yes. At $200k/yr, you can afford to behave ethically. Someone making $30k/yr maybe couldn’t; maybe they have to lie about their second gig just to keep their head above water, and I wouldn’t say they were a bad person for doing what they had to do to survive.

    The OP, like many privileged people, has a choice. Maybe their behavior doesn’t actually hurt anyone, maybe it won’t have consequences down the line, but that doesn’t make it the right thing to do.

    1. Detective Amy Santiago*

      The OP, like many privileged people, has a choice. Maybe their behavior doesn’t actually hurt anyone, maybe it won’t have consequences down the line, but that doesn’t make it the right thing to do.

      I think this is the best summation of this situation I’ve seen so far.

    2. Salsa Verde*

      I guess the question is though, if it doesn’t hurt anyone and doesn’t have consequences down the line, why is it wrong?
      Or are you saying that just the possibility of it hurting someone or having consequences makes it wrong?

  196. katie*

    Even if you are “finishing” your work in less than the 40 hours allotted, I think that you’re supposed to be researching new things, reading business literature, mentoring new hires, professional development, etc.

    1. Soup of the Day*

      Yeah, I agree. I think “finishing” probably means the OP is doing the bare minimum in 25 hours but making it seem like it took 40, even just by omission because the boss is assuming an average of 40 hours of work per week, and getting away with it because the boss doesn’t know how long tasks are supposed to take. I can’t really be mad at the OP for trying, but I think at most jobs there’s usually more to be done. Upthread the OP says there’s no specification of 40 hours a week though, just “as long as it takes to do the work,” so who knows in this case? Maybe there is a set list of tasks to do each week and nothing more.

  197. Leela*

    I wonder how much of you being able to do this is because of people below you who are paid less but are busting ass, honestly

    4. I Wrote This in the Bathroom*

      Yep. The awesome teammates, who are peers, but are also dotted-line reports, so may feel like they *have* to pick up OP’s work, because they don’t report to OP, but then also kind of do. Where’s their second salary?

  198. Elm*

    You know those old sitcom episodes where someone goes on two dates at the same time and ends up wearing the wrong jacket or using the wrong name, then both dates dump them because that little slip made the situation clear?

  199. Elps*

    Ethics don’t enter into this, because capitalism is inherently unethical and based on exploitation. LW entered an agreement to trade their labor for a specific amount of compensation. If LW is providing the labor that was agreed upon, to both companies, then nope, not unethical. LW is fulfilling their agreement.

    Now, does this mean LW is exempt from consequences? No, of course not. They could get fired for this. Other people (as seen in these comments) could be salty that they’re making a huge amount of money working 50 hours a week. It could ruin their reputation. That’s all entirely plausible!

    But unethical? No.

    2. Lotus*

      I think it’s one of those situations where something can be simultaneously ethical and not a good idea. (Although I make reasons in my original comment that there are ethical implications to this.)

      There is definitely a larger question here about how we compensate labor (strange inverse relationship between how much work one does vs how much they get compensated). But OP can’t do anything about that.

    3. rl09*

      “capitalism is inherently unethical and based on exploitation”

      Even if you believe this is true, that doesn’t make it okay for LW to exploit their teammates who “dotted-line report” to them and will inevitably have to pick up the slack.

      “If LW is providing the labor that was agreed upon, to both companies”

      LW will almost certainly not be doing that in just 25 hours per week.

      1. BBQHonk*

        I made it clear below that I believe OP’s actions are clearly unethical. I was referring to the ridiculous assertion that capitalism is inherently unethical.

  200. Anonymous Hippo*

    My concern with this arrangement is you are only 1 month in. Nobody is expected to be at peak performance at 1 month, honestly once barely expects adequacy that early. The expectation in the roles will likely increase significantly over time. I can’t imagine any two jobs being done well in half the expected time…the fact you are at 50 hours this early indicates that this won’t be sustainable, and you’ll have to drop one job eventually. Which sucks for that company. Granted, companies don’t usually get a lot of my sympathy, but in this instance they aren’t the ones operating in bad faith. Of course I’m also the person that goes to their boss and demands more work when they have free time so maybe I have a warped attitude.

  201. Stina*

    The question I didn’t see asked was about multi-tasking which is what LW is essentially doing at a massive level. Since both jobs are apparently in the same region (time zone/work times), I assume there is frequent jumping between the needs of Job 2 and Job 2 during each day – how are you keeping focused as needed on the completely different details and ensuring ‘cross-contamination’ won’t happen? Multi-tasking can be a big concern as more and more studies are showing that those who multi-task constantly really don’t do as well at either task (more errors, lesser quality overall) vs giving the needed work full focus.

  202. Cheeky Librarian*

    This is part that confuses me about working two remote jobs: In many employees contracts is it not explicit that you dedicate 40 hours to this company? Usually it’s a set time such as 9-5. If they have evidence that you’re doing another company’s work during that time, wouldn’t you be in trouble? Wouldn’t the legal department be able to trace it and bill you for the hours you spent working on another company’s work?

    I say this as someone who is a public librarian and could never be fully remote unless I did a major job change, which I am considering. But Yeah, that part I’m stuck on. I’m excited to see what’s going to come out of the Great Resignation but I’m genuinely interested if there’s going to be a major legal case that will change in within the next few years.

    1. CAA*

      No, in the U.S, it’s very unusual for Director level positions to be required to work 9 to 5, especially in tech where there are lots of remote employees in various time zones. Tech jobs that have set hours tend to be on site jobs like receptionists, payroll, sometimes HR/benefits work; or shift work like tech support, network ops, release management.

  203. Manchmal*

    I don’t have a strong feeling about the ethics of the situation, but if I were the OP I would worry about the repercussions of being found out, which I believe will almost certainly happen. I think you risk the possibility of damaging, if not completely trashing, your reputation, making it difficult to find the job after this. When you are found out, you will certainly be fired, and I think you would risk possible legal action if the company seeks to recuperate some of what they paid you. For me those risks alone would make it not worth it. Could you be prosecuted for fraud?? For the peace of mind alone, I would consult an attorney to see what your criminal and civil liability might be. You certainly have the funds to do so!
    Good luck, I hope I’m wrong! I hope that you can do this for as long as you want, retire early, and live it up. I fear this does not have a happy ending, though.

  204. Clancy*

    Just have a clear get out plan for when this all comes out and you lose both jobs, your reputation is trashed, and you can’t get hired in your area/field again. Because sooner or later it will. All it takes is for someone who works at one of your employers to move to the other one, notice you work there, ask a confused question or two and then tell everyone what’s going on and boom, you’re fired. Or any of the dozens of scenarios I can imagine where this comes out with very little effort.

    Start figuring out how to bombproof your reputation against that inevitability while you have the luxury of being able to, or your career is gonna be toast.

  205. books books books*

    In past columns, Allison has often said that employers should be much more forgiving during the pandemic. e.g., give people a lot of flexibility, not expect them to be productive as they were pre-pandemic, be understanding of distractions, etc.

    I’m having trouble reconciling that past advice with this post. She’s saying “managers should be more flexible on their expectations” but also “it’s OK to exploit that flexibility when you don’t really need it.” This feels like it sets up a bad dynamic.

  206. First time listener, long time caller*

    I’m sorry: no. These are not “two full-time jobs.” OP is working about 50 hours per week. Either OP has two part-time jobs or OP is not doing at least one of the jobs properly.

    I mean, I get that he was hired “full-time” for both jobs. But if he can do at least one of the jobs in 25 hours or less per week, then they aren’t both actually full-time jobs.

    This should be obvious and really takes most of the oompf out of this letter.

    1. Semiresponsive*

      In some ways, I think this can be dependent on the worker themselves. If two employees accomplish the same amount and quality of work but it takes one 40 hours and it takes the other 25 hours, and if the employer is paying not hourly but for outcome, then “full time” doesn’t really have the same meaning.

      1. Roscoe*

        Exactly. From now through the end of the year, I’ll likely have around 20-25 hours of real work. Does that mean I’m not full time to this person?

  208. MyGoingConcern*

    I’m with Allison where this doesn’t feel quite right but also I’m over employees being expected to show more loyalty to employers than they receive.

    That said… I do think the specific roles matter somewhat. Doing this is in a position where the role is duplicated many times over in a company and thus workloads & performance measures are standardized is one thing. You can honestly point to peers and say “I’m doing the same work as Tony for comparable pay, but it takes me 25 hours to his 40 so I’m doing it at two companies.” But at a lot of companies director-level positions are unique and companies may rely on their holders to help define the role & its responsibilities because others may not have extensive knowledge about how much time & effort go into its tasks & outputs. So I’d ask if either company has a way of knowing that the role as currently defined is only taking 25 hours & half capacity? If no and they found out that they’re paying you a full time salary on a part-time position do you think they would leave it as is or make adjustments? In other words, are you capitalizing on your own efficiency or just an absence of oversight?

    1. MyGoingConcern*

      Other similar/factors that would matter to me in this question are whether you have any people underneath you at either position and whether the role is directly tied to revenue in a way that allows you to say “I’m worth $x to the company and pay is based on that, not time.”

  209. Semiresponsive*

    This is something of a tangent, and not entirely applicable due to this being two director-level positions, but I find it absolutely fascinating how as a society we have absolutely no problem telling people working in low/entry-level jobs that it’s okay to work 50-80 hours if that’s what you have to do to make ends meet but that we hold different standards for things we generally consider “real” or high-level jobs. If we stop thinking of jobs as being hours worked in exchange for a paycheck and a job done in exchange for a paychect (which is often what we’re talking about in higher-level positons), then it shouldn’t much matter if someone has a single job or six – so long as the employers are getting what they paid for.

    I too am really interested in what happens when you have to kick into crisis mode, though. Unlike a lower-level position where a crisis is handled by management finding more labor or working through issues above the paygrade of an hourly employee, if management is often being pulled in two different directions… who leads the troops, so to speak?

    This is just a really interesting issue that also twigged as a weird double standard.

  210. Lanie*

    As someone whose own director virtually never responds to emails or attends meetings and regularly sends employees one or two levels below her requests to “take care of this” when it’s actually something that she needs to be responding to herself, I’m finding this letter frustrating on a personal level.

    1. Alexis Rosay*

      Exactly. I don’t care about companies being ‘scammed’ by someone working another job, but I do wonder about is OP’s direct reports. What kind of hours are they working? If their workloads allow them to also get by on 25 hours / week, that’s great. If they’re busting their asses so OP can look good, that’s really crappy.

    2. ecnaseener*

      Very true. This whole thing is making me wonder about a grandboss who just “left” abruptly after months of near-zero responsiveness…maybe this is what she was doing.

  211. Despachito*

    For me, it basically boils down to this:

    Can you guarantee that

    1) neither of your jobs will suffer,
    2) you will be always available to both
    3) you will be always able to handle emergencies
    4) you will pull your own weight in both jobs and not burden others with your slack?

    If the answers to all the above are “yes”, you’d be ethically off the hook, as far as I am concerned.

    The legal and other repercussions may be a different thing, and may harm you along the process. However, I am aware that some of these may be “just because” with no real standing, and I’d like to see a future in which we are able to distinguish what is really relevant for the job and what isn’t.

    1. Nanani*

      Hey, this is a really good distillation of the issue.
      I’ve been trying to boil it down and you did a better job than my brain did. +1 internet stranger points

      1. Despachito*

        Thank you.

        I definitely can imagine jobs where this is possible. If many people manage to have two jobs, it must be in principle doable. Is it OP’s case? And will OP really be able to distinguish whether they really are pulling their weight all the time?

        1. Nanani*

          Realistically, I think they will burn out and have to drop one of the jobs to focus on the other before they lose both for underperforming, but in the idealized world where they can really do both jobs to a high enough standard indefinitely, I really can’t find a problem.

          I think that’s where I’ve come down after an extra day to think.

    2. Loredena Frisealach*

      This is excellent! I think it’s where I land too — I don’t object/think it inherently unethical *in principle*. In practice though? I personally would not be able to meet all of 1-4 consistently and am dubious that the OP can do so long term (more power to her if she can though!)

  212. NerdBoss*

    There are already so many comments on this but I wanted to share my opinion on why I think this is ultimately not a good idea (although it may be technically possible right now!). The main reason is that you do not exist in a bubble and even if you CAN excel at both jobs, there will be ramifications to your reputation/how you’re perceived by others as well as the relationship you have with your team(s)

    1. Decision making responsibility: A director level position is responsible for making decisions related to the future of the company/division/project. This will mean making tough choices sometimes. For example, if one company was downsizing and you had to cut certain areas, I could see it being a conflict of interest to make decisions while having insider knowledge about the future of another organization (even though you mention these are not competing companies, I still am curious about this)
    2. Subordinate perception of leader serving two organizations in a leadership role and erosion of trust with your team: if I found out my director was the director of two organizations, I would seriously question their commitment to *me* as an employee and how much they are looking out for the future of our team. I would feel like since they already have a fall-back job, maybe they wouldn’t be as invested in the success of our project. I would also wonder why I’m working so hard when they’re coasting on 25 hours a week (or what level of attention they’re giving me). I would be constantly wondering any time they were in a Zoom meeting and the camera was off, for example, that maybe they were in another meeting for their other job. I would wonder if their reasons for delaying a meeting were related to their other job. Basically I would feel no trust for this leader and I would not be as loyal of an employee, nor would I feel motivated. This would hurt the morale of your team
    3. Challenges with any kind of things that throw you off course: imagine your top performer won the lottery and suddenly quit. You would be expected to help pick up the slack in the interim, correct? How would you navigate this increase in responsibilities? Outside of work, imagine any number of potential distracting challenges that could happen in your life: injury, illness, family member issues, pet issues, house issues, etc. It seems like while this may be working right now under the best possible conditions, any one thing could go wrong and potentially make this situation un-workable.
    4. Competition related to being in the same field: This might not be relevant for you, but what if you work with external contractors or freelancers for, well, anything? I work in public health and there is often overlap of different organizations working together – imagine getting an email from the director of Baby Goat Computing on a contract for software management and then getting an email from the same person who is the director at Little Piglet Software on a contract for code writing! If I were the contractor, I would find this very strange (at the bare minimum). I would also wonder if there was some kind of conflict of interest going on and feel uneasy about this
    5. Next steps: okay, so let’s say that I am totally wrong and everything goes perfectly – you excel in both roles and are an outstanding employee. Your team has a high level of trust in you and you are always available when needed. You work at both places for years. Eventually you’ll move on, right? These jobs are in the same industry – surely people will recognize you in the future! What will you do when someone says “oh, I know Sam, they were the director at Baby Goat Computing for the last few years” and the other person says “no, I believe you’re mistaken, I worked with Sam at Little Piglet Software for the past few years”. How exactly would you navigate that? You mentioned you would leave only the most relevant one on your resume but that does not change the fact that people will still know you. If I found out someone was secretly working at a director level job for two companies in the same field, I would absolutely not hire them or even consider working for them because of how ethically grey that is.

    If I were in your shoes, I would pick the job that is the most aligned with your career goals/pays more/is more fun/whatever is most important to you and quit the other one. Good luck.

  213. Cake Diva*

    I spent most of my 20s and early 30s working low paying, barely above minimum wage, little to no benefits jobs. And in those situations, until very recently the expectation was “work 2 or 3 jobs and a side hustle.” Because it benefitted the employers and allowed them to keep wages low, it was the norm.

    But when it flips and benefits the employee, then there’s suddenly a lot of ethical hand-wringing? That really doesn’t sit with me either.

    If I take OP at their face value, that they are sure there is no conflict of interest, and that they actually can do both jobs satisfactorily, then I’d say go for it. That’s what a lot of society would say if these jobs were paying you 7.25 an hour.

    I’m not sure it’s sustainable. I know it wouldn’t be for me – I get burnout during the couple times a year where I add some part time side work to my main job. But I’m not OP, and maybe they can. Or at the least, work it for as long as they can.

  214. Alton Brown's Evil Twin*

    Grrrr.
    This is another piece of evidence that companies spend way too much on “strategic” stuff.

    Sorry, rant over.

  215. MMB*

    This isn’t just “how the chips landed”. You actively CHOSE to start two new jobs at the same time and my guess is that those co-workers who are handling the “day to day” stuff are actually picking up your slack and they won’t want to do that for long – especially if those co-workers are now being forced to work longer hours.

  216. SongbirdT*

    This comment is so far down, it probably won’t be seen much, but here’s my thought….

    It’s intriguing how many of the comments find the practice unethical because each Company is paying for 40 hours but not getting it.

    But in some career paths, your pay becomes less about X amount of time & productivity. What the company is actually paying you for is your knowledge, experience, and expertise. However many hours that takes.

    In my current role, for example, I have very few deliverables that are expected of me. What I do have to deliver, I have 100% discretion on what deadlines and expectations I set for delivery (within reason). And yet I make a six-fig salary (+ bonuses) because of my deep expertise in the technology product I’ve spent 14 years working on.

    When I first started this role I got all twisted in knots because I felt bad that I spent most of my time waiting for the next meeting where I could spread my knowledge around. Until I came to grips with the fact that my value to this company isn’t what I do, but what I know. This is the best paid, easiest job I’ve ever had and I wish it on everyone.

    Now, I still wouldn’t double dip like OP is doing. I don’t need that headache. But if you back away from owing an employer 40 hrs because that’s what they’re paying for, and switch to owing an employer your expertise because that is what they’re paying for, it becomes a far less binary.

    1. Black Horse Dancing*

      If that is it, then easy fix. OP tells both companies they are working two full time jobs at the same time. See what happens.

      1. SongbirdT*

        But it’s not that simple, right? So many of us have the knee-jerk reaction that this is bad, because it’s just what we’ve been taught about how labor works (at least in the US). But does a bunch of people thinking a thing is wrong make it actually wrong?

        1. Nanani*

          Obviously not – especially since a bunch of people can and do change their minds.
          Not that long ago a lot of people thought it was wrong for women to have both a job and a husband, or for LGBTQ people to be teachers. That didn’t actually make those things -wrong-

          So, wisdom of the crowd and appeals to norms aren’t illuminating.

  217. WorkingThreeJobsToGetBy*

    The one thing I find irksome in OP’s narrative is that there is no acknowledgement that this is only possible at a high-level job – combined income is $400K.
    Lower level employees deal with keystroke tracking software, bosses that demand attention before-and-after hours, providing their own daycare because they can’t afford different, etc.
    The OP is taking advantage of an extremely entitled situation that would never be possible to most.

  218. 444*

    It’s interesting how many commenters criticize the OP for making “too much” money or for being “greedy.” $400k is certainly more than OP needs to live, but why is it viewed as bad to want to make more money? After all, most of us very reasonably plan our careers and make choices in order to maximize our income (among other considerations). Money = freedom.

    Making enough money to support yourself and save is one of the most important things in life, IMO. And being rich does not hurt anyone else (although, as shown by this thread, it might make them jealous).

      1. Paris Geller*

        Being rich does hurt other people, but 400K a year is not on the same level as say, Jeff Bezos. Like, yes, 400K is way more than I’ll see in a year or two or three, but it’s really not on par as with someone who owns multiple private jets.

        1. SongbirdT*

          Agree fully. I just couldn’t let “being rich doesn’t hurt anyone else” slide, because I’m most cases it most certainly does.

        1. SAS*

          The same could be said the other way right? 400k is rich in a world where people are living in poverty.

          1. Nanani*

            having 400k doesn’t create poverty the way owning a billion-dollar corporation that puts its own employees on food stamps does, though

            400k is nowhere near the level where it actually affects global poverty, sour grapes in this thread notwithstaanding

    2. Lotus*

      The issue with being rich isn’t the wealth itself, but the fact that you can’t become wealthy without stepping on other people. While OP is not as rich as Bezos, she is using his tactics – exploiting lower level employees and lying.

        1. Chill out*

          Nanani, sometimes your comments are really insightful, and sometimes they’re really snarky at other commenters and it creates a bad atmosphere.

      2. Despachito*

        How can you tell that OP is exploiting lower level employees?

        And I’d argue the “lying” part as well – how is not revealing that you are working for another company (provided you did not explicitly deny it) lying? (It might require lying somewhere along the process, and then it will be lying, but so far OP did not indicate that they lied)

    3. ecnaseener*

      It definitely helps IMO that OP is putting the extra money towards saving for retirement, which she plans to spend volunteering for charity & advocacy orgs. (That comment from her is about halfway up the page right now, 12:50pm)

  219. Falling Diphthong*

    I think you can break down the problem in different ways.
    • Is it unethical?
    (I’d say yes.)
    • Is that lack of ethics a big problem?
    (I’d say no.)
    • Is it worth the risk?
    (I’d say no, but I’m risk-averse. You could certainly argue that
    this is the sort of bold risk-taking that marks a great executive.)

    How would people, including OP, feel if it comes out–and OP is congratulated by her boss and peers, they love that she put one over, high five, while her dotted line reports making much less for longer hours are like “That’s why I’ve had to work the last five weekends?”

    1. Falling Diphthong*

      On the ethics:
      I prefer being honest and not trying to keep track of lies. As noted upthread, the legit, “I tell everyone what I do” method is to be a consultant. Then the company knows that you are splitting your attention unless they negotiated for it to be fully on them in a certain period, in exchange for a pile of extra money. If we argue that companies should be transparent about things and not try to put one over on their employees, like discussing salary, then I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that openness and accountability are a good thing all around.

      I also don’t think this is some grand crime worthy of its own George Clooney film. It’s skating along the edge of ethics in a way that might eventually crash and burn with some casualties (OP, or one company, or the subordinates taking on work), or might just peter out.

  220. Annoyed*

    Part of me feels like all this does is show how little work and how overpaid the most senior positions of a company are if she can work two of them at the same time and at a level of performance that doesn’t get her fired. Not to mention OP mentions her amazing “teammates” who can get the day-to-day activities done or as I read it do all the work I should be doing, but instead I have to handle juggling two jobs.

    Bottom line for me Allison always comes down on people who lie to employers on their resumes or in job interviews to get jobs. Well OP is lying to her both her employers. They are playing with fire and hopefully they don’t get burned and lose both jobs.

  221. WFH with Cat*

    Simple rule of life when wanting approval/justification for behavior that might not be ethical or fair or right: IF YOU HAVE TO ASK, THE ANSWER IS “NO.”

  222. OregonHR*

    I just cannot see how this wouldn’t crash and burn at some point. Assuming there’s a policy against this (however OP is “interpreting it”, the intent is still the same: communicate if you have a second job so we are both on the same page), the company is most likely aware the job doesn’t take a full 40 hours all of the time. Which is the point of a salary. Sometimes it takes more, sometimes less. So the company knows that at any time, you will rise to the demand of the job and get it done, even if it means 40+ hours. By saying that you prioritize and delegate what you can’t get done, the company would expect that you do this at the 40 hours a week point because that’s what your salary is set on, not 25 hours.
    Let’s also say that your company provides medical benefits at 30+ hours a week (“full time”). Well, technically you are only working 25 hours a week, so you shouldn’t qualify for them, right? So now you’re committing insurance fraud. Same with PTO.
    We had an employee earn his entire master’s degree during COVID while working remotely. Never said a word that he was going to school, and then all of the sudden, he said that he would be needing a reduced schedule in order to start student teaching. While still wanting to keep his salary based on 40 hours a week. It all made sense…he wouldn’t get his projects done on time, or they took way too long to complete. He wasn’t very responsive to calls or emails, and he stopped doing anything beyond the bare minimum. It became known that he wasn’t someone that you could get any help on a project from (this was part of his job). When we denied the request for a reduced schedule, we mutually parted ways. Which was fine, because he wasn’t doing his job anyway. And we will never have another remote person for that role again. The trust is lost. Had he said that he was working on his degree, we would have had a mutual understanding that his work for the company came first and that it would be completed satisfactorily, schoolwork would have been second priority.
    In contrast, I supervise a part-time receptionist for 20 hours a week. I really just have 2 hours a day of work for her, she is free to do what she wants the rest of the time as long as she is available for whatever I need, answers the phone/greets visitors, and she finishes all of her work. She’s 18 and wants to go to school, so I told her that winter term would be a great time to take some classes because she can study at her desk in her downtime. In fact, we will reimburse her tuition for applicable classes.
    Is this a double standard? Maybe. It all comes down to consent and communication.

  223. Douglas (thee/thy)*

    There is nothing inherently wrong about working 2 jobs, even if neither knows about the other…..UNLESS one of them specifically has a “no outside jobs” policy. I worked for a company that had this exact policy. They were serious, too; they fired one guy for having a paper route for a weekly newspaper (took maybe 3-4 hours a week of his time) in addition to his day job.

  224. Hermione Danger*

    The sentence that gives me pause is this one:
    “ I don’t have any direct reports, but have awesome teammates who dotted-line report to me and who I can rely on to accomplish day-to-day activities.”

    In my job, I do design work on multiple projects for multiple clients. Each project has a specific project manager, and I know for a fact (because he told me), that one of our project managers is doing the same thing as the OP. I also suspect that another project manager may be working full-time for someone else right now, because the pattern is identical.

    In both instances, these project managers are frequently unavailable during business hours, disorganized, dropping the ball on important aspects of projects, and making me much more involved in managing the project than my position or workload allows. I’m doing extra work because at least one of these people is working two full-time jobs. It’s not fair on team members if this person if their workloads are going up because OP is doing the same thing.

    1. Falling Diphthong*

      This is an interesting coworker perspective.

      An old letter that stuck with me: OP wanted to take leave to go to rehab, but her work knew nothing about her addiction problem. In the update, it turned out that what she thought was invisible at work was very evident, and she had been fired shortly after writing the first letter. I could see scenarios in which OP’s deception is unnoticed now and for the next 6 months, and scenarios where it’s already evident that something is off but no one is yet asking her questions about it. (It’s only a month in.)

  225. Anonymeece*

    Interestingly, my work literally sent an email out today saying that anyone who wanted to work a second job outside of our company must secure prior approval and turn in a form to HR.

    I wonder how many people are trying this nowadays?

  226. WomanInTech*

    I’m a woman in tech, in a director level strategic role earning a bit more than $200k (worked my way up through the ranks from being a junior software engineer). I am a high performer, I work my ass off, and I do a great job and am fairly rewarded for it.

    Yes, I have experienced my share of harrassment, discrimination etc through my career, but does that give me the ethical high ground to “stick it to the man” and lie – even by omission – to my employer(s) about what I am doing? No it does not, and that goes double or triple when a significant portion of the “man” you are sticking it to is actually your own co-workers.

    One of the interview questions I like to ask senior hires is “what do you do when there’s not enough work on your plate to keep you busy”. Answers like “self-learning in new areas”, “take some well-earned down time because I know the next high-pressure situation will be along soon”, “do the background tasks that otherwise never get done like cleaning up my filing” – those answers are fine for more junior people or people who are new to a strategic role and haven’t quite figured it out yet. (No-one’s ever said “I’d take a second job on the side!) In a highly paid strategic role like yours and mine, the right answer is “there’s no such thing as not enough work” – unless you work for two *extremely* unusual companies, there is always a new initiative that needs leadership and drive, or a strategic issue that needs to be resolved, upcoming changes that need to be planned for or communicated, etc etc etc. Each of your employers expects one highly-paid-strategic-leader’s-worth of work out of you and at the moment that is not what they are getting.

    I think you know perfectly well that what you are doing is not ethical, otherwise you would not have written in to AAM about it. Tell both your employers what is going on, if they’re both happy with it then great, and if not then do the right thing and quit whichever one is not your preferred long term option.

    1. Sola Lingua Bona Lingua Mortua Est*

      “what do you do when there’s not enough work on your plate to keep you busy”
      the right answer is “there’s no such thing as not enough work”

      If the right answer to your interview question involves refuting the premise, it’s a crappy question.

      1. WomanInTech*

        I don’t agree, for two reasons.
        Firstly, in my specific line of work, spotting false premises in unexpected places and refuting them (or probing into whether they are lacking some important context that would make them not false) is quite important and I use a number of interview questions that are designed to test the candidate’s ability to do that.
        Secondly – funnily enough this question isn’t actually one of those, it is actually phrased as “Tell me about a time when you didn’t have enough work on your plate to keep you busy – what did you do and what was the outcome?” and this then sparks a useful discussion. If the candidate says “I was in charge of widget-frobbling and the widget production line got held up, so I did some self-learning while I waited for the line to start up again” I wouldn’t just say “OK fine, you don’t get the job then, sucks to be you!” but I would follow the question up with things like “and what were your normal responsibilities at that time, was it just widget-frobbling that was on your plate? Was the self-learning something specific you needed to do for the job, or more of a side thing? Were there other things you could have done? Looking back, did you feel that that was a good use of your time, or would you do things differently if the same occurred now? How often do you find this kind of situation arises in your current role?” etc etc etc. I just shortened all of that in this post to make the point that in a strategic role, you should never find that you have “not enough to do”.

        1. Sola Lingua Bona Lingua Mortua Est*

          I’ve made a good name for myself kicking the assumptions out from under declarations, but that’s once I actually get to know the context I’m dealing in. Doing so in an interview would be out of arrogance, not confidence nor competence.

          If you asked me the question as originally stated, I would be humble enough to take it at face value and your word that the situation can arise.

          If the interviewee created automation where the workload baseline had been based around none existing, completely catching up and creating an opportunity for idleness isn’t the impossibility you seem to assume it to be.

          1. WomanInTech*

            Right, automating workload is a great example of someone looking beyond the short term to do things that benefit the long term and for a technical hire at any level that would be awesome (although even then I’d still hope that the person would move on to look for the next challenge rather than just sit around twiddling their thumbs). However, that simply isn’t what a senior strategic hire would be expected to do – the strategic hire would be expected to have noticed that automation could be useful, kick off and oversee the effort to get it automated, and be juggling multiple other improvements at the same time.

    2. TechWorker*

      ‘ Each of your employers expects one highly-paid-strategic-leader’s-worth of work out of you and at the moment that is not what they are getting.’

      As another woman in tech – not as highly paid, but who knows, I might get there :p – this is where I come down too.

    3. Littorally*

      Each of your employers expects one highly-paid-strategic-leader’s-worth of work out of you and at the moment that is not what they are getting.

      This phrases it brilliantly. You’ve cut right to the core of the issue.

  227. Positive Mindset*

    The only reason the OP can manage to hide having 2 full time jobs from his employers is because they are both WFH.
    And then we wonder why companies don’t like WFH. Not to mention co-workers who have to do more work that’s not part of their job, like Hermione Danger mentions.

    1. Don*

      Yes, clearly WFH presents a clear and present danger to companies that their bevy of 200k/yr employees will all be getting multiple gigs other places.

      This is so clearly an outlier situation that it makes as much sense to judge WFH based on it as it does to view convertibles as unsafe because Isadora Duncan got her scarf caught in a hubcap.

    2. Detective Amy Santiago*

      OP is like the kid who gets recess canceled for everyone because they keep talking.

      2. ecnaseener*

        If a company ended WFH because of one person’s actions, I agree, that would be just like the teacher canceling recess because of one misbehaving kid — completely unfair to everyone else, misuse of authority, ruins any respect the group may have had for that authority figure.

  228. Birdhouse Gourd*

    OP – this may have been mentioned before, but it’s a matter of “when”, not “if”, you will get caught. I work for a giant company in Silicon Valley as well, and people are highly connected to each other even if they are separated by many degrees. There are lots of networking events and countless other opportunities where people from different companies mix. It’s naive to think that you are protected because you don’t have a Linkedin profile. People talk! You just never know who knows who. You didn’t say anything about this but even if your two companies aren’t competitors, it’s very likely that your companies have a policy around having multiple sources of employment and that this would qualify as misconduct.

  229. TechWorker*

    I wonder if all the people saying this is ethically fine would feel the same way if this was their boss? And if all the times they’d worked around their schedule or taken up slack because the boss was busy were really because boss was working elsewhere…

    1. Tea*

      One of my previous bosses spent his time jetting around between his three homes in SF, Boston, and LA. And golfing. And attending conferences. And wining and dining other rich people. I worked plenty of overtime and took up a lot of slack in that job to accommodate his schedule, and I presume there are many other successful bosses who live similar lives. None of what he did was unethical (annoying, sure, but not unethical.) Would it be different if the reasoning was because he was working a second job, and not because he was tending his three homes/three golf circles/wealthy connections in three cities?

      1. TechWorker*

        Nah I would still be unhappy about working for a boss/manager who slacked off and spent loads of time playing golf whilst being paid a full week. Note I do think there’s a difference between ‘boss’ and ‘owner’ – if the owner wants to slack off *shrugs* it’s their money. Similarly I absolutely do not begrudge anyone downtime if they are usually very busy or their job involves working funny hours which means they have downtime during the day. But if my boss is being paid a lot more than me and very clearly not doing the work to justify that salary? I reserve the right to be unimpressed.

        1. Tea*

          I don’t disagree, but I feel like the point is that the second job isn’t the problem, it’s the slacking off. If my boss were being paid a lot more than me and not doing the work to justify that salary, does it matter if it’s because they’re spending all day watching Kpop videos, vacationing in the Bahamas 24/7, or working job number 3? If OP is able to stay on top of her work at both jobs no problem (and we can see that people regularly do work 80+ hours a week for years at one job, so it’s not inconceivable that this could happen) and not be the slacker boss, is it totally fine and ethical?

          1. TechWorker*

            IMO no. I get that employers shouldn’t own your time, etc etc and fully support leave and not being contacted whilst on leave. But both employers are paying very decent money in this case – and a level of money where I’d say they are expecting OPs full attention in a crisis. If both jobs have a crisis at the same time, what then?

            I don’t think this is devils advocate-y – yes there will always be circumstances in which something else might come before a work crisis (medical issues, family emergency, whatever). But ‘I was working my other full time job’? No.

      1. Falling Diphthong*

        I think this is an interesting distinction.

        Hermione’s point did make me think of when I was working on two parts of one large project for different managers, and one was GREAT about explaining what I should do and responding to emails, and the other… really was not, in a way that made it harder for me to do my job. “Because they were working a second full-time job” would explain a lot…

        (And as noted elsewhere in the thread–it was easy to directly compare here because it was the same project. If OP has colleagues doing the same work, then it’s easy to say “I am performing as well as Joaquin AND Wakeen, according to metrics.”)

    3. Name Required*

      I was only ever bothered by a busy boss when they were ineffective as a boss in general. My last boss and my current boss are absolutely fantastic. I don’t think twice if I need to grab time on their calendar for a more urgent problem later in an afternoon or later in a week. I don’t figure it’s my business to judge the worthiness of how they spend their time as long as I’m getting what I need from them.

  230. Tea*

    Honestly, I’m team OP here. I’ve worked 80 hour weeks for $50k at my salaried job, and if that’s perfectly fine and legal under US labor laws then I can’t conceive of what could be wrong with working ~40 or fewer hours at two jobs for double the pay. Not too long ago we had a letter writer who talked about her 100 hours+ a week job and how that was the norm for everyone everywhere in that industry. Obviously, it’s possible and very much expected for many people to work 80+ hours a week… so why not do it at two jobs and get double the paycheck?

    I do know exceptionally efficient/skilled/industrious people who are able to bang out top quality work for half the time it takes anyone else (alas, I’m not one of them.) Especially in a job where the focus is deliverables and not butt in seat time, if the OP is able to get both jobs done well, then what’s the problem here? And if she isn’t able to get the job done in time and it impacts her coworkers… well, I wouldn’t approve but don’t see it any any different from working with your run-of-the-mill ineffectual, inefficient coworker who eventually gets laid off or disciplined for their lack of work.

    All the hand wringing over her salary and perceived greed and “taking jobs away from the impoverished masses” is silly and intrusive to me. I make less than one tenth of OP’s salary… and her holding two jobs affects me not at all. I couldn’t do her work even if I wanted to. What’s the cutoff here for how “okay” it is based on salary? If she were making 25k at both jobs? 50k? 75k? 100k? At what salary is no longer okay to lie to your place of work? What if she were donating 80% of her income to charity – is it okay then? If she had kids to support versus no children? One kid versus ten kids? If she were buying a yacht and her own private island? Big “I get to determine how you’re ‘properly’ spending your money” vibes all around.

    1. Roscoe*

      Yes, the determination of the proper way to spend your money was what really got me too. People really have a lot of ideas how much people should and shouldn’t make and how they should spend that.

    2. Nanani*

      I agree. I think the greed argument is nonsense and reflects that people who accept low-wage multi-job hustle haven’t actually thought about the ethics of it.

    4. Jennifer*

      For me it’s the fact that someone in that field may be looking for that job. I spent a year and a half during the pandemic looking for work in my field and there were almost no jobs available. I’m sure that wasn’t because everybody was working two of them, but if I found out that I was turned down for a job I really wanted that I was qualified to do and that paid well because it was given to someone who already had an equally good job, I’d be livid. Even more so if I’d ended up having to take a minimum wage job out of desperation, which was my backup plan when the unemployment money ran out.

      1. Tea*

        But… jobs can’t and shouldn’t be going to who “needs” one the most, regardless of how much they pay. By that logic, nobody should be working 2 or more jobs, because someone may be in desperate need of that second or third job being taken up by someone employed. We’d be giving Bob a job because he has two kids to support over Ally who is childless, or Jenna a job over Don because she’s flat broke and he saved up 6 months of expenses.

        1. Roscoe*

          This is exactly it. Employers should not be in the business of determining who “needs” the job more or who could use the money more. Its about who they feel can do the job the best. If OP was better then the other applicants, so be it. Outside circumstances like kids and personal expenses shouldn’t factor in

          Its unfortunate if someone else is struggling to find a job, but OP not taking it doesn’t necessarily guarntee the other person would have been a better fit. Also, jobs are transactional, and they really just want the best person they can find.

  231. TeapotNinja*

    Such a long winded answer when it could’ve just been a simple “yes, it’s unethical”.

    1. Nanani*

      Because everyone has the same ethical framework and there is never any interest in discussing ethics. That’s why people read advice columns after all – a yes/no answer with no context. Yep.
      Nobody likes to read for insight to why the advice giver came to that conclusion.

      (all the sarcasm)

  232. Princess Hylia*

    I’ve got to admit, OP — the deception makes me seriously question your character. I’ve held multiple jobs out of necessity, but I’ve always worked all my assigned hours at both/all of them. When I had 3, one full time and two part time, I was working 80-100 hours a week, for significantly less money than you’re making now! I was honest with all of my employers, and submitted all the required paperwork in a timely manner. In exchange, my supervisors were understanding and flexible — if I had been up past midnight closing at one job, my other boss totally got it if I needed to flex the next morning. If I had lied to any of them, I’d have been insta-fired as soon as they found out. You need to be able to *trust* your employees, and “I secretly have two jobs” is a big breach!

  234. CAA*

    Tech is a small world. If these companies are both big enough to have Director level positions with no direct reports, they are big enough to have some cross-pollination, especially since they’re both based in Silicon Valley and presumably have local on-site staff as well as WFH staff. It won’t be that long before someone you work with at Company A leaves and takes a job at Company B.

    It might be an interesting exercise to create a new LinkedIn account and use the search feature to find all the people who have both A and B on their profiles.

  235. bluephone*

    Also, this only “works” because LW is only a month in and apparently very content to push the majority of their duties (at both jobs?) onto their underlings who are certainly not pulling in $200k. How is that not the definition of exploitation????

    1. Angeline*

      Yeah. Sounds like my partner’s former boss. She was running a full-time business on the side and was totally AWOL. She laid off his teammate right after his paternity leave because she was told that every team had to cut someone. But guess what, she ended up being the ONLY director to lay off someone because she was the only director who didn’t understand company politics and how to advocate for their direct reports. Everyone else protected their team.

      This does have consequences, and the consequences don’t necessarily fall on powerful people like OP.

  236. Jaybeetee*

    I went back and read the older letter Alison linked, and I realized it still hit me differently from this one – I think because the person in that letter (not OP) actively planned on using time and resources from Job A to work at Job B. As in, would claim to be working Job A tasks while actually working on Job B. It seemed more explicitly fraudulent.

    Whereas with director-level positions with self-determined scheduling (that could have you theoretically putting out fires at 2am and answering emails at 11pm, but no set “on” or “off” times), that doesn’t seem like a factor for this OP. She’s working at A or B, but if neither job has a set schedule she has to adhere to, it gets muddier whether or not she’s even “lying”, let alone “stealing time” from either. She just does tasks for both as needed.

    I think what makes this an interesting question is OP is leveraging a number of accepted workplace norms that are not normally combined into one situation:

    – We know that many people work multiple jobs.
    – We know those jobs *shouldn’t* incur on each other – but that the occasional incursion is inevitable.
    – We know that many people aren’t putting full-time hours into full-time jobs.
    – We know that many “knowledge economy” jobs, especially with wfh, have shifted to flexible scheduling where you may not be “on” or “off” at defined times, but returning to work throughout the day and in between other things.

    In that sense… it’s hard to tell if OP is even being particularly unethical, in the sense that all of the above is acceptable by current workplace norms. OP simply has two jobs with flexible schedules and lightish workloads, and isn’t necessarily “stealing” from either. She isn’t necessarily “punched in” at one while working the other.

    Now, I can see it getting *unsustainable* if the workload at one or both picks up. If work starts falling through the cracks (or falling onto colleagues and reports), that’s a different conversation. But the mere fact of working two jobs on a flexible schedule isn’t necessarily unethical.

    1. ecnaseener*

      That’s a good point, the employee in the previous letter was explicitly lying, pretty frequently. And the lie was intended to take advantage of the boss’s sympathy. If OP can pull this off without lying (much), that helps.

  237. Alex*

    Hear hear! I completely agree that as long as you never sacrifice one job for another, you are ethically in the clear.

    I’m so sick of the argument that your employer owns you for 40 hours a week no matter what because they have purchased your time and attention. That does not focus on the work output. What if one person accomplishes in 20 hours what another person can do in 40? Why does that first person owe the company another 20 hours just because they work faster? THAT is way more unfair, in my opinion.

    1. Soup of the Day*

      Totally! And the end result is employees working way below their capabilities because they know they’re not getting paid for extra effort, and if they set the bar too high for themselves they’ll burn out. I don’t think what the OP is doing is any less ethical than an employee who’s expected to work for 40 hours a week but only actually works a few hours each day, as many of us do. That could be classified as wage theft too, right? But it’s not socially acceptable for us to work another job on the clock, so we twiddle our thumbs or read Ask a Manager or whatever other distractions we like to do.

      It’s kind of a double-edged sword that we get paid in terms of hours and not in terms of objectives accomplished.

  238. Elizabeth West*

    I just can’t. I cannot handle two jobs. This would not work for me. Even if I didn’t prioritize writing on my own time, which is in essence a second job even though I don’t get paid for it until the work is done, I can’t do this. I tried it once and mentally, it was too much.

    So I desperately need to find ONE VERY GOOD job. But this animal seems to be extinct. Or, perhaps someone else has that job in addition to another and is keeping me from getting it. :'(

    1. Jacey*

      I feel your second paragraph very strongly! As someone desperately searching for that one good job, in a low-paying field focused on helping the community, I’m just irritated that someone making twice what I’ll ever make in one job is working half the hours I will… and so decided to just get another high-paying job. For fun!

      I don’t think the OP or anyone else in a similar situation is a villain, but I do think they’re so privileged it makes my teeth hurt.

  239. Evonon*

    Ethics aside, if both these positions are director levels and if you can do them simultaneously, that must mean these are huge companies. So…theoretically wouldn’t the director position for both of these companies be easy to find via these companies directories/websites? I feel like that is where OP could get caught especially if someone googled them and found their name at another company

  240. DJ*

    I’d be fine if the LW was on low to average wages. But earning $200K PA for each position. Leave one for someone else.

    1. DJ*

      Actually I’ve rethought that. Two full time jobs is only OK if you really do need the income which sadly so many low paid US employees do.

    2. Nanani*

      I dont think the number on their salary is relevant.
      Wealth inequality won’t be solved by LW taking or not taking a job. It’s a strawman.

      1. MCMonkeyBean*

        I agree–the high salary does make it feel a bit ickier, but it’s either okay or it’s not. Now if you want to say “it’s not okay, but I would understand someone doing it because they really need the money” then that seems like a fair assessment. I don’t think that’s my personal take, I’m honestly not sure how I feel lol.

      2. Littorally*

        Nah, disagree. A person making $30k and taking two jobs in a questionably ethical way in order to survive would be more understandable than the OP taking two jobs paying $200k because they wanna get an extra $200k and think they can do the same work in about half the expected time.

        I will look the other way at a starving person stealing bread, but not at a rich person stealing PS5s. Big different.

        1. LinesInTheSand*

          For the sake of argument, what if OP had 2 jobs for 5 years but then retired 10 years early, thereby freeing up “job years” for others overall?

  241. Angeline*

    Reminds me of my partner’s former boss. She was working a second job running a legal marijuana business, and even admitted it to him. She was…totally AWOL.

    My partner didn’t actually suffer much under her, but his coworker did. Because Boss didn’t know how to play company politics, when she heard that every team had to cut someone, she laid off a guy from their team right after his paternity leave. No other department cut anyone because every other director knew how to work the system and protect their employees.

    Bad management does have consequences, whether because of double dipping or just incompetence. And the consequences are not likely to fall on powerful people like OP.

  242. leeapeea*

    I’m going to add my voice to the chorus of “this is fine.” It sounds like OP’s work doesn’t affect the health and safety of living things (operating heavy machinery, practicing medicine, or overseeing similar work), so the downtime outside of working hours is not as crucial as it would be in those cases. If there’s no conflict of interest, no clause that the employee can’t hold another job, then double dip away. At WORST OP might work some 90 hour weeks? Which… they seem fine with? Plenty of jobs make you do that for just one employer (see the investment banker’s letter from a few days ago).The worst part about this letter is that it proves that middle managers are over paid and under worked.

  243. DrSalty*

    Capitalism sux etc etc but I know if I found out I had a coworker who was doing this, I would be very angry. The reality is you’re going to halfass both jobs and your coworkers (or worse, your REPORTS) will pick up all the slack. For less than you get paid, I’m sure. It’s shitty behavior. You’re making $200k a year at either job, you’re not an oppressed sweatshop worker.

  244. kimpossible*

    You can debate the ethics of various individual elements of this situation, but the most significant question to determine whether *overall* it’s a shady thing to do is: does it rely on only a small portion of people doing this to make it sustainable? And, the answer here is yes. Imagine if everyone working from home decided to accept multiple full-time jobs, misleading their employers, all the while never performing either job above “satisfactory” (I guess that’s what we’re calling half-ass now?), and leaving their single-job cohorts to clean up the rest. That’s nice for the people who got in on the bottom floor here, because the more employers get wind of this trend, it’ll be right back to the office we go.

    PS – I’m a huge fan of WFH, but some of these “yeah, I get my work done in 2 hours and then use the rest of the day to knit!” type comments are making me side-eye. The value of working from home is supposed to be that employees are able to be just as productive, if not more so, while being in a more flexible and comfortable environment. If I truly completed my tasks early in the office, I would be expected to use that extra time to get a head start on future deadlines, push a new project forward, revisit items that may be on the backburner, etc…. not crawl under my desk to nap and call it a day.

    1. Nanani*

      By that standard I actually think the answer is no.
      Taking the LW at their word, they are able to do the work twice as fast as “normal” and if more people really did that, there wouldn’t be a problem.

      IF they really are that high a performer that they can do two jobs in the time of one to a satisfactory level, then it’s okay. Big IF, especially in the long term, but by this metric it is actually fine.

      I don’t think it automatically implies a return to the office (where does that even come from?) or that satisfactory equals slacking.
      If anything, people being paid for one job but expected to do the work of three are the inverse situation, and should absolutely be able to either go back to doing just the one job they signed up for, or be paid for three jobs.

      The inverse situations happens a lot but people in them have less power and must tolerate it. I don’t think that’s okay either.

      1. kimpossible*

        It comes from the fact that the only people are able to do this is by… working from home? You don’t see the potential for push back from employers if this type of gaming the WFH system becomes commonplace? Ok. Performance doesn’t matter – hypothetically, if the majority of workers started snapping up 2-3 full-time gigs, many people would be left out of work. So again, it’s a situation that relies on a small group of people doing it (and benefitting from it) for it to work… not cool.

        On the flip side, I do agree with your point that individual employees given the workload of multiple workers should absolutely be able to say “no thanks, one job is enough for me.”

        1. Despachito*

          “if the majority of workers started snapping up 2-3 full-time gigs, many people would be left out of work.”

          Or not – many people on these pages or elsewhere complain of being overworked, working insane hours a week… I can definitely see a wiggle room there.

    2. Despachito*

      “yeah, I get my work done in 2 hours and then use the rest of the day to knit!”

      But this can as well be the problem of the employer – if they either do not notice or do not mind that they are paying a full-timer for 2 actual hours of work, it is absolutely not the fault of the employee.

      Were it at work, the employee would be probably forced to pretend they are working the remaining 6 hours. If they can spend it at home, they can at least do something productive/beneficial to them.

      As long as they are pulling their weight, this one is on the employer, and his lack of planning of the workload is not the employee’s problem. If someone is willing to pay me basically for twiddling my thumbs, is it really my duty to prevent him doing so?

      1. kimpossible*

        Uh…… a complete lack of initiative is absolutely the employee’s problem. Managers are not responsible for your work ethic, your ambition, or your achievements. Assuming someone else owns your growth inevitably creates frustration for both parties. Comments like this illustrate how micro managers are made.

        1. Despachito*

          But not everyone is interested in growth, and not all jobs allow growth and development. If your attitude is “I am working because I have to live but it is not the most interesting thing in my life and I am not willing to overwork myself “just because”… why? Because the right thing is work myself to the bone? No, thank you.

          If I am flipping hamburgers at McDonalds, I’d feel absolutely no guilt if the requirement is to flip 10 hamburgers an hour, and I do exactly that – not 9 but I’d also not be striving to flip 12 or 15, because my goal is to meet the given goals and breathe, not become the employee of the month and be overworked.

          Re work ethic – if the deliverable is X and the employee is delivering X, I do not see any problem.
          Re ambition and achievement – you have no obligation to be ambitious or overachieving. It will definitely have repercussions on your remuneration, promotions etc., but not everyone wants this/sees this as wortwhile.

          It is true though that OP is in a high position in which some ambition is already supposed – yet there is no inherent crime in being average manager (which OP is claiming is basically their goal). A lot of people are average or subpar even with one employment.

          Again – the dealbreaker to me would be – will OP really be able to always flip their “10 hamburgers” an hour?

          1. kimpossible*

            Well, that’s why we shouldn’t compare flipping burgers at McDonalds to a $200K/year directors job in the tech sector. If you’re employed full-time and only putting in 2 hours a day, or 25 hours a week, etc. you are literally the opposite of overworked, which is my point. This situation relies on everyone being satisfied with the absolute bare minimum… so again, is that sustainable long term, for everyone?

  245. Rae*

    I think its interesting how up in arms a lot of comments are about only spending 25 hours a week on work that are posting on a blog during business hours. I’ll bet a lot of our regulars aren’t putting in a full 40 hours a week at their jobs either.

    1. Nupalie*

      I’m curious about benefits. My employers health insuror requires every employee to disclose ANY entity who “could possibly” also provide health insurance (VA, Medicare,spousal employer etc) and will drop coverage on employees who have ins elsewhere. Also there’s the matter of annual limits on 401k or IRA contributions if 2 employers are matching. Have these issues come up?

      1. MCMonkeyBean*

        That’s a good point and could be what pushes this into actual fraud territory… although maybe they did make all those disclosures appropriately! I think what I’ve seen in the past they wouldn’t drop your coverage, but you would have to pay more. If you’re getting an extra $200k per year then the extra cost of insurance is more than covered.

  246. Loredena Frisealach*

    I’m curious about what the Director level work entails/is measured on here. I know a lot of commentators are assuming big picture/strategic level work, but I’ve definitely worked for consulting firms where Director is still below VP/executive level. Further the OP says she has no direct reports, which could mean it’s a cross between an individual contributor role with some other layers – participating in sales calls, or running long-term planning sessions, or being the final layer for pricing. There’s just a tremendous gray area in terms of how impactful # of hours is, and whether or not this is negatively impacting peers or dotted line reports.

  248. MCMonkeyBean*

    It’s interesting to see Alison how your answer on this has evolved a little. I think that I too find it a little harder to articulate why this should be Clearly Wrong than I used to.

    Like others here have mentioned, I’m very curious to know whether they are able to maintain this once they get a little past the new employee stage. I know my first few months with my current company I barely had anything to do, and then about 5 months later there was a crisis period where I was working well over 80 hours per week for a couple of months. I hope OP will come back and update in a year or so and tell us how they feel about the situation then!

  249. Nupalie*

    What does everyone think of this analogy
    I’m full time faculty teaching 12 semester hours online for one college.. and also on faculty at another college teaching 12 hours there. 6 of these hours are freshman math using the same textbook at both schools. Would I be unethical to not volunteer I’m full time employed at both colleges?

  250. Strong Independent Acid Snake*

    I’m sorry if this is a stupid question, or has been asked already (I searched through the comments and didn’t find it) But how on earth does PTO and other benefits work?? I’m assuming you need to submit 2 requests- 1 to each job- and hope they both get approved. What happens if 1 job approves a weeks vacation but the other doesn’t?

    Ultimately I am too disorganized to ever attempt anything like this. I would blow my cover within 1 week because I would totally send an email meant for Jan to Jon or something.

    1. SongbirdT*

      Eh, willing to bet that OP doesn’t need anyone’s approval for time off for either job. It probably more like telling people she’ll be out for a week at the end of the month, and planning accordingly.

  251. RaisedEyebrow*

    There’s 2 broad areas of responsibility for high-level positions:
    1) strategic decision-making
    2) managing your team
    I fully believe that OP is doing the first one well, for both companies. But they have completely handwaved the second away with “well sure, I have reports, but not like, *report*-reports.” Those are weasel words. Unfortunately this is hardly a problem unique to people with entire second fulltime jobs.

    I’m now imagining a scenario where people on both teams figure their boss isn’t really paying attention to what they do anyway, think maybe they can pull off this 2-jobs thing people keep writing about, apply to a similar position at an unrelated company, show up for an interview only to find…OP!

  252. ThePear8*

    I don’t know if it’s been mentioned already but this reminds me a lot of a Reddit post someone linked to in a group chat I’m in of current and former STEM students where someone was claiming to be cruising by with 10 remote full time engineering jobs. They were doing it more as a social experiment to see how much they could keep it up than to actually get by, but it sure did spark a lot of discussion…

  253. makeitso*

    I’m working two “part-time” jobs that have full-time hours but don’t provide benefits. I work a minimum of 60 hours a week; I work 6 days a week with a minimum of 8 hours a day (usually 12). All in-person. I’m going to be honest, I don’t really see what the big ethical dilemma with the OP’s situation is. If you’re able to do both jobs effectively, at the end of the day who really cares? Get paid! It’s nice to know that someone out there is actually reaping a financial reward for working this hard.

    But then I suppose my employment situation has made me just a tiny bit bitter. ;)

  254. Midwest Teacher*

    Good for you I guess, but it’s really disheartening that wages are so unbelievably unbalanced that you can work less than 25 hours/week for each job and get paid 200k, while other people in professional positions are working 50-60+ hour weeks for peanuts. That doesn’t even mention people working multiple minimum wage jobs who still need government assistance just to survive. Society is so messed up.

    1. Jacey*

      This is exactly where I land! I think the OP isn’t necessarily doing something unethical, but the fact that one person is being paid $400k for 50 hours of work while others are earning a fraction for twice as many hours is unethical. I’m especially bothered by it because many of the jobs that pay peanuts are the ones that make running our society possible, whereas most for-profit tech jobs are not in that category.

      1. Midwest Teacher*

        Right, I’m a teacher making 50k/year (relatively good for K-12 ed). I definitely work more than this, but absolutely nowhere near as much as many teachers, and I’m lucky to be itinerant, so I don’t have to deal with all the additional work that goes along with having my own classroom. It’s no wonder educators are leaving the profession in droves right now. We are so incredibly undervalued and underappreciated in the US.

        1. Jacey*

          Yes, I come from a family with a number of teachers, and they were very much on my mind when I wrote my comment! I’m in the library field, which shares some of the same issues.

  255. chewingle*

    I’m not actually sure how I feel here, but I DO want OP to continue this experiment and report back to satisfy my own curiosity.

    I feel like the friend in a rom com who lets the protagonist schedule 2 competing dates with 2 different people, despite their better judgement, just to see what happens.

  256. Wally1121*

    I know someone who installed 3 rooms of hardwood flooring WHILE attending Zoom meetings from home.
    He logged onto zoom, displayed a still picture (everyone was doing that), and inserted his Bluetooth earphones. He listened to the meeting and commented when necessary (which wasn’t often), and proceeded to get some WORK done during the Zoom “time-waster”.
    I call that GREAT time management, and his employer wasn’t deprived of anything.

    1. Despachito*

      Kudos to him!

      It reminds me of Hermione Granger’s time turner, and I cannot see why this could not be done. Meeting time can be awfully unproductive, and I hope there will be more WFH and more possibilities for us to lay our flooring.

    2. Midwest Teacher*

      I always multitask during Zoom meetings. I look forward to them so I can be productive and get things done! Maybe it’s just my ADHD brain, but I can focus much better via Zoom when I am keeping my hands busy than when I had to be in the office sitting still for an 8 hour professional development day.

    3. LizM*

      I mean… I don’t know this person or their job, but I do want to gently push back that in general this doesn’t deprive his employer of anything.

      It stinks when you’re trying to hold an online meeting and half the participants aren’t participating because they’re multitasking. And it’s actually one of the main reasons my employer is starting to push for in person meetings again. We do get better participation and interaction when everyone is in the room. I feel like stories like these are part of why employers are so reluctant to go to full remote work.

      I don’t know, maybe this person was the exception and could fully engage while working on flooring, but I know a lot of people who think their multitasking is a lot less noticeable than it is.

      1. SongbirdT*

        The real problem with multitasking is when the competing tasks are occupying the same part of your brain. You can’t read an email and listen to a conversation, for example, because both things require language processing. But if you’re doing a manual repetitive task – like flooring or weeding a garden – and listening to a call, many people would be able to do that just fine. Same concept as listening to a podcast while you’re dusting or whatever.

        1. Loredena Frisealach*

          I used to sit at my spinning wheel and make yarn during very long meetings that I had to be present for, but wasn’t speaking or taking notes. I was actually more focused than I would have been sitting at my desk!

          The physical activity let my brain listen – if I’d been at my computer I would have been distracted by emails, or IMs.

  257. Pragmatic*

    Although an interesting debate, I don’t think it really matters whether you think its ethical or not, or indeed what we think about it. The only important question to ask yourself going forward is what your employers would think if they knew. I’d be fairly confident they wouldn’t be happy (and I think you know that considering you haven’t told them) and I’m worried that this could really harm your career and reputation. Even if you had the moral high ground (and I’m not sure you do) your employers get to decide the rules here. Another point to consider, is the reality of how women in technical fields are often treated, as I’m sure you’re very aware. We’re held to a much higher (unfair) standard and therefore I think it’s less likely you would be allowed to get away with it. That’s not fair, but I think you have to consider the reality of things here rather than debating ethics. Things might be changing, but I don’t think they’ve changed enough. I want more women in in technical fields, especially at your level so please don’t damage your career unnecessarily. Good luck!

  258. WHAT THE*

    Wouldn’t both simultaneous jobs show up in a background check down the road? What happens if OP were to leave both jobs behind in the future for a new one?

  259. LinesInTheSand*

    I can come up with two scenarios where this would be actually, concretely unethical. Whether either applies to you, I don’t know.

    1. The employee handbook has language to the effect that “all your professional efforts will be devoted to .” Mine does, and I have to sign an attestation every year saying I’ve read the handbook and agree to abide by it. If I were then to go out and find a second job, I’d be lying to my first employer. Whether their provision is ethical is a different question, but I’d be lying, and that’s unethical.

    2. It sounds like you’re in two salaried jobs, both with a Results focused work ethos. So, in theory, as long as all your work gets done, who cares, right? Well, there’s often an expectation that you’ll grow with the role. So what start out as full time responsibilities diminish over time as you learn to do them more effectively, and the expectation is you’ll take more on as you can. So what starts out taking 40 hours per week ends up taking 10 and you gradually assume more responsibility and more tasks. If you can’t grow your remit within the role because of the time the other job is taking, I’d argue that veers into unethical territory. Managing 5 people at first? Soon it will be 12, with 12 one on one schedules and 12 performance reviews, etc. And managing really is where this gets hairy. We’ve all worked for terrible managers. If you don’t have time to perform that job will, that can ruin a lot of professional careers.

  260. Rachael*

    If it’s a job where you set your own hours, I don’t see anything unethical about it. How is this any different than than getting off work and driving for uber waiting tables on the weekend? I don’t see it as deceptive. What you do in your off hours isn’t really your boss’s business as long as it doesn’t go against your employment contract and isn’t illegal.

  261. LizM*

    I think where I’m struggling with the ethics is that it seems like once you hit a certain level in an organization, you’re really left to set your own hours, but there is still an implicit expectation (at least in my experience), that you’re working a full time job, and if you run out of tasks, you need to spend your time productively. Sometimes that’s professional development, sometimes it’s tackling a challenge that has been on everyone’s backburner for years and no one has had the bandwidth to deal with it, sometimes it’s spending time on business development. But I feel like that’s the trade off – less micromanagement, but more responsibility to figure out how to fill your time in line with the company’s expectations.

    I suspect that, a few months in, OP’s boss’s aren’t giving them more than 25 hours a week because they assume either (a) it’s taking 40 hours a week to accomplish what they’re accomplishing, or (b) they assume that OP is spending the other 15 hours a week on professional development or getting to know the company. I also suspect those expectations will change. I hire people who are experts in their field, and part of our discussions around goals includes feedback from them about how long their work takes. I don’t always know if I’m asking for a 2 hour project, or a 20 hour project, and it would violate my trust if an employee knew I was assuming something would take 20 hours, it actually took 2, and they worked for someone else for the other 18 hours. (On the flip side, I like to think we have open enough communication that if I assume something is a 2 hour project and it’s actually 20, they’ll tell me that too so I can help them adjust their workload or adjust my expectations.)

    So my expectation with a new employee at that level would be if they were running out of things to do and couldn’t come up with something else to fill their time, they would tell me. If I said, “well, you’re getting everything done I need, so don’t worry about it!” then at that point, I would think OP is in the clear. But if they find they’re actively working to hide the fact that they’re only doing 25 hours of work a week, or they know their boss thinks this is a full time job, then that crosses the line to unethical for me.

  262. Lilred*

    I actually had an employee that did this. Both roles were primarily remote. He made it work for nine months before we caught on. What finally outed him was when he had conflicting high-priority meetings with executives or clients from both sides, as the junior person he couldn’t impact the schedule, and eventually it came out. Our HR called their HR to confirm his current employment. He ended up being fired from both jobs. As the manager I had zero influence on the decision and performance was irrelevant, HR made the call.

    My concern is when the deception comes out (and you have to assume it will) it would seriously undermine your company’s ability to trust you, especially in a leadership role (as a Director you are a leader regardless of direct reports). Also, how you think they SHOULD react may not be at all how they do react. If the worst (and not unlikely) thing happens and you get outed and fired from both roles, what’s the backup plan? How will you address this history with future employers?

    Ethics aside, make sure you have thought seriously about the risks and are willing to accept all potential outcomes.

    1. CorpPara*

      But why? They were obviously doing a good job if this is the only reason they were fired.

      Was it an hourly employee who was lying about hours? If so, the “2 jobs” thing is irrelevant – lying about hours is fire-able, period.

      If they were exempt, that’s just wrong – unless it was in the employment agreement that they were required to work no more or less than 40 hours per week?

      Or is the expectation that they are exempt but only when it benefits the employer – ie they’re expected to work 40 hours but don’t get paid more when they work more.

      I’m truly having a hard time understanding how anyone could justify firing someone over this. If anyone’s to blame it’s the person who didn’t scope the job properly.

      As a side question, what will HR think if their replacement works 40 hours but gets less done or the quality is lower – will they still think they made the right decision?

      1. TechWorker*

        Doing a good enough job to not raise suspicions that you are working elsewhere (I mean that’s pretty damn uncommon) is not the same as ‘doing a good job’?

        And IMO the meeting clashes are a perfectly valid reason to fire someone. You hired them to be available to work (how is that controversial…). If they are sick or using other agreed leave, obviously fine. If they cannot attend a required meeting cos they are working elsewhere then they can’t do the job ;)

  263. KP*

    I’m really jealous of all these people who don’t work full days. I’ve been at 50-60 hours a week for awhile now….

  264. McS*

    Is it not common to have language in your contract requiring employees to notify their employer of other paid work? I am not sure about any implicit promise of 40 hours a week, but if you are explicitly violating your contract that is lying to your employer, not just withholding information. And it is the kind of thing that will make even a standard call to HR to check your work history reveal misconduct on your record after your employer finds out.

  265. Nodramalama*

    I think it is problematic you’re doing this without the knowledge or consent of both employers. Conflicts of interest are not meant to be identified and managed by the person in the centre in isolation of everyone else. Of course you don’t consider there’s an actual conflict- what about perceived conflicts of interest and potential conflicts? This is such a minefield.

  266. Caroline*

    I’m all for sticking it to the corporate overlords, but I can’t believe the response didn’t bring up that this is almost definitely *illegal.* Don’t you have to certify your time and attendance? You’re going to lie to two companies at once? And chances are you won’t audited by the IRS but boy are you risking a huge problem if you do. It would be one thing if they didn’t both think you’re working full-time and it was just freelance consultant work. Maybe that’s a better fit for you. I’d also hate to be one of your lower level employees when there’s a time sensitive project.

  267. Maleficent2024*

    I’m not really understanding the outrage on this. Is it because this is considered a “corporate” job? I worked 2 full time jobs for 2 years when I was saving up for my wedding, and this was the early 2000s. Each job got my attention for 40 hours a week, and each workplace knew I had another job. Would there be the same outrage against OP if she only had 1 job, but still managed to complete her workload in 25-30 hours a week? Should she use the other 15 hours a week to knit? After all, she’s still “available” 40 hours a week.

    1. Leenie*

      “Each job got my attention for 40 hours a week, and each workplace knew I had another job.”

      So your situation was completely different. The LW is deceiving both workplaces, and only giving them about 25 hours each. And she’s not “available” for 40 hours to each of them.

  268. raida7*

    Ethically… both companies should be informed that it is not a 40hr a week job, but a 25hr a week job, and drop the salary down a *bit* but not enough to not be able to attract or retain people for that level.
    And you’d be able to do both, with scheduled days for both.

    Realistically, a lot of places would see this as “I want to work three days a week” and worry that the job won’t get done, or see this as “I have spare time, give me more work.”

    So, if you genuinely thought that both or either company would be capable of logically and rationally seeing the maths here, changing the role and still paying for the outcomes, not hours spent, I’d suggest bringing it up. It’s valuable information for them, and potentially a start to having not 5-days-a-week roles in their organisations.
    If you don’t reckon they’d actually use this information practically, then I’d say you should track your time spent, review how you feel about each role assuming you’ll have to pick just one to do, and save save save that money you’re getting for now.

    1. Overeducated*

      What is confusing to me is the idea that someone in a director level position has to be saying “give me more work” or accepting that their job will never fill up the time. Every organization I have ever worked for expects professional staff who are not in clearly limited operational roles (e.g. customer service, maintenance) to be using their 40 hours a week not just to do the minimum assigned, but to help reach or define broader goals and improvements. That’s the “strategic” part – thinking for yourself and with others about what you can do differently, given your resources, to do better. When you have that level of control over your work time, I think that using it to do the minimum and do another job is taking money dishonestly.

  269. -chris*

    I think my biggest issue here is the director level and 200k salary – Alison, you’ve said that the Csuite works hard for their money and deserves this type of salary but this type of letter makes me wonder if that is indeed so. 200k on one job is no joke, and so far out of range of the average person. People are working a full 40 hours, on site, stocking your groceries, cooking your meals, folding your clothes. I guess it makes me angry because it falls under that “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” mentality and that’s not the reality for most people. Feels dishonest. On the other hand, I also work a bs job that doesn’t take all my time. I don’t really know what would allow me, or stop me, from doing this. I guess it just makes me feel bad. At a director level you stand on all the backs of the people below you, and they are there, on site, making so much less. Maybe it’s my own guilt, but I think it is very distasteful. The answer, of course, is a livable minimum wage, and corporate salaries within some x% of the lowest paid person. Your value to the corporation at a director level fails if no one wants to clean the toilets in your stores.

  270. Jennifer*

    The part I take HUGE issue with is “it’s not like there’s a shortage of jobs right now.” That’s true for the crappy jobs no one wants. Do you seriously need $400k when someone else who’s qualified could be earning $200k?

  271. Oh Behave!*

    Is there no concern that LW is unconvincing coworkers by changing meeting times? If these are meetings with those under them, these people may not feel they can push back. Employers are expecting a certain number of hours per week. I consider it grossly dishonest to work two full time jobs. I’m almost certain LW is NOT putting in 80 hours a week. It’s quite the scam to make $400K for 40 hours of work. You can argue that as long as you’re hitting targets, it’s ok. I just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I also think exceeding goals will not happen at either job with this LW.

  272. AnAlchemist*

    I actually did something very similar to this. I worked two full-time jobs for 10 months in 2017-2018. The only difference was that I got outstanding performance reviews at both. It’s entirely doable. If I knew that one job was going to have a really intense day (or days) I just took paid time off from the other job. Occasionally, I listened to two meetings at once (which people sometimes do with only one). It’s entirely doable. Each job thought I was giving 110%. I wasn’t giving 110% by my standards but I was by theirs. So,, I think the real question is why is it so doable? How can you get outstanding performance reviews at two full-time contemporaneous jobs? The issue is really how companies monetize people’s time. If, at your current job, you really did the work of two people (or three, or more) would that company ever pay you twice your salary? Almost certainly not. What they do is have person A who is doing 2, 3, 4 times what they should and person B doing about what they should, and person C doing a third of what they should and person A makes only 30% more than person C even though person A is doing at least 6 times the work. So, eventually person A says “You know how I can get paid what I’m worth, instead of doing twice what I should at one company, do exactly what I should at two companies.” The person who figured this out is not person A or C, it’s person B. If companies paid high performers what they were really due, this wouldn’t be necessary. But pay gets so detached from actual output and productivity that the situations we’re seeing here are a natural result.
    I’ll lastly add that once I stopped working two jobs I was able to focus so completely on the job I kept that I began to really establish a lasting impact. I got paid less overall, but my impact was greater. I went from getting outstanding performance reviews to outstanding performance reviews with a promotion and stock options and an extra bonus, etc. So there’s little doubt that doing two jobs means lower quality at both. But is it a lower quality that anyone will notice? Is it a lower quality that you can conscientiously live with?

  274. nnn*

    I’m idly pondering the point at which this becomes deception.

    If OP had a second job that’s vastly different – say they were a dog-walker – I think we’d be less inclined to see it as deception. Even if they were walking dogs for 40 hours a week.

    If OP were working two jobs simultaneously but one was vastly different and somehow not incompatible – say they were a house-sitter – we’d be less inclined to see it as deception.

    There’s a sort of spectrum where the more similar the jobs are, the more deceptive having two jobs feels, and I can’t tell at what point it actually becomes deception.

    There’s also the fact that they haven’t disclosed it, but non-disclosure is a spectrum, ranging from “we just met a second ago and there literally hasn’t been time to disclose it” to “engaged in epic acts of subterfuge to prevent you from finding out”, with a sizeable chunk of “not actually your business” in the middle. Even if you’re not in violation of any laws or policies, this feels more like deception than failing to mention – or even actively endeavouring to hide – something non-work-related (e.g. you have a brother) or other ways your might violate the spirit of your implicit agreement with your employer (e.g. napping during your workday) or even working a drastically different job like dog-walking.

    So yeah, I don’t know the answer, but there’s an interesting intersection of spectrums here that make this feel deceptive when other situations that should be morally comparable somehow don’t feel deceptive.

  275. whyblue*

    I can’t help it – to me this feel like double dipping… And especially bad because someone with a director’s role and salary is doing something that someone in a more operational (generally lower-paying role) wouldn’t get away with. Plus, in case there is a crises with time conflicts, it will be the lower level people who will bear the brunt of it.

  276. Puppet*

    “ I don’t have any direct reports, but have awesome teammates who dotted-line report to me and who I can rely on to accomplish day-to-day activities.”

    That should be enough to tell everybody that LW isn’t one of the exploited workers, she is the one who’s exploiting others. And if Alison would be ok with that as long as the work was done, well, that’s also very telling. There is more uproar from her when a person copies one of the cover letters published on this blog than when they contribute to the exploitation and toxicity.

  277. RebelwithMouseyHair*

    If I were a colleague of OP’s, and had fought tooth and nail to WFH and then when OP’s subterfuge came to light and the boss decided right everybody back in the office because it’s obvious that we can’t trust anyone when they WFH, I’d be livid.

    I don’t believe that there won’t ever be a crunch moment when both employers need OP to be right there right now.

    There are people posting here about writing a book or their thesis during work hours. If they’re getting their work done, and exceeding expectations, no complaints from their manager, that’s fine. Any time a crisis flairs up at work, they can put it to one side. I used to do do my volunteer work. If I couldn’t get it done at work, I’d do it after work, no big deal.

  278. Nina Bee*

    His coworkers at either job may start to feel something isn’t right after a while. We’ve all had coworkers where you wonder what they do all day because their output vs time spent don’t seem to match up somehow.. something feels off. Even if they’re hitting targets. Some truly unethical people can get away with it but the letter writer says they’re conscientious.. hmmm. They’d need to be very careful but I see this falling apart eventually. It’s not helping the argument that CEO/high level pay is massively overblown while working class people are exploited!

  279. Roscoe*

    I’ve found the debate on this fascinating, so I’m still posting on it the next day.

    One thing I wanted to bring up though. I’ve seen so many people make comments about how the OP isn’t “sticking it to the man”, but that is not something she ever suggested. In no place did she say “I’ve been screwed over so now this is revenge”. Like where are so many people getting the idea that she is claiming to do this? Am I not seeing something?

    1. Lanie*

      At least some people are probably reacting to one of the OP’s comments (sorry, don’t know how to link to it, but it was posted at November 3 at 12:20 pm):

      “She/her pronouns, and yeah, as a woman in tech who has gone through her fair share of sexual harassment and discrimination and wage gaps, part of me feels like it’s my turn to stick it to them.”

      1. Roscoe*

        Ok, thanks for that. I didn’t see that (there are so many comments!). That does make a bit more sense.

  280. Jedi Sentinel Bird*

    Having two full-time jobs puts more power back with the employee. I’m not sure if I would do this myself but I can see the perspective. If a company starts to treat the employee poorly, this person can immediately leave and doesn’t have to worry financially. Basically that employee is not tethered by a specific company. A lot of times the employer has power over the employee in that sometimes an employee feels they have to stay in a toxic environment in order to put food on the table. Much like some of the people who write into this advice column. As long as OP is getting work done doing all their assignments and stuff satisfactorily,OP is fulfilling work obligation. Far worse things have been done by companies than by somebody who decided they wanted to have two jobs so they can make more money. The only thing I could see as iffy is if employee was working at a competitor and had to sign some type of non-compete agreement and was still working for competitor. That wouldn’t be a wise thing to do.

  282. Lore*

    I’m in a somewhat similar situation. Once student loans come due again in January, my full-time salary just won’t cut it to keep me alive. I’ve taken a freelance gig for weekends and a few hours two evenings each week day. No more than 15 or so hours a week and non-competing, but still, I feel bad about it and wonder if I should inform my current work.

    Regardless, I don’t understand how companies can demand we live in expensive cities and pay us less than rural teachers. Something’s gotta change and fast.

  283. SleepyWolverine*

    This feels gross to me, not because of the deception, but because it seems like yet another instance of greed and excess. One $200k a year job isn’t enough, this person needs to double up on crazy high salaried positions when so many people are struggling and looking for work?

  284. Nom*

    The main problem i see is that it seems she’s working only 25 hours a week at both jobs instead of 40 unless i misunderstood the letter. To me, that’s not okay… a good company could get so much more out of her if she were actually working full time.

  285. Thin Mints didn't make me thin*

    In the job I just accepted, the policy manual actually has a provision against outside employment. I asked for an exception for a long-running part-time side gig I have (max 10 hours a month, easy to finish outside of a standard workday) and got it, but the intent was clearly to prevent what this person is doing.

  286. caseykay68*

    Fascinating comments and while I’m late to the game I just wanted to share a couple thoughts. On the comments that are like “get your bag OP” sure okay I can see that. But (and I did see a couple other similar comments). This is someone who is holding director level positions. As a director they are being asked to think strategically about their division and how it performs, not just make widgets. As a director would they have the same feeling if one of their staff was giving them 50% attention for the full salary or hourly rate they were paying that employee? I’m a director (but at a non profit so my compensation is nowhere near the OPs for even one job) and I do have some side gig/consulting work. It is in my same level of expertise, but I have been up front with my employer that I do some consulting and I do not tend to do it during “regular” business hours.

    I have to wonder why the impulse was to take both jobs as full time vs. taking one full time and setting up some kind of consulting arrangement (and approaching each employer in an upfront method). There are lots of things in life where it just because you can do that thing, doesn’t mean you should and I think that this is clearly one of them.

  287. Erin*

    Shoutout to anyone who can work two Director level full time jobs at once, and do it well.

    Since there’s no conflict of interest and you aren’t violating your terms of employment, why not? Companies have had 1 employee doing the workload of multiple employees for years. This isn’t much different.

    I salute you!

  289. Satellite*

    Alison, I’m a bit shocked by your tepid response to the deception here when you so frequently advise others that an employee who lies (by omission or otherwise) or deceives their employer, in many cases should be fired because you know they can’t be trusted and it usually permanently taints the working relationship. What is the distinction here? OP is asking if what she’s doing is unethical. She clearly knows it’s not or she wouldn’t be writing to you, she’d be acting in an honest and professional manner and disclosing this situation to the companies paying her in good faith for these jobs. The argument about the skewed balance of power between employers and employees overall in the working world doesn’t hold water here since she’s new to both companies and neither has treated her badly or done anything to her to merit being deceived by their director or used to game the system. OP is seemingly grasping at every straw to try and justify what she’s doing, but in the end, it most likely won’t turn out well for her. Lying by omission is still lying, she IS being dishonest, even to the point of having to delete her LinkedIn account. Why was that necessary if what she’s doing is okay? I’ve also noticed OP replying to many of the comments supporting her stance, but not so much the ones strongly challenging her deceptive practices, which seems like she asked the question but can’t take the heat from those that do find this behavior unethical. Don’t ask if you can’t handle the answer you don’t want to hear.

    1. OP*

      I’ve tried to respond to both sides. Am truly looking for opinions, not to justify actions. I am still not sure where I fall on the ethics of it. All the comments are making me consider what to do next. Thanks for your perspective!

      1. Anon for the nonce*

        Ethics aside, what you should do is resign one of these jobs immediately. When your employers find out what you’re up to – and they will – you’ll immediately be fired from both jobs and likely blacklisted from your industry.

  290. Chicken Situation*

    I’m probably biased as someone who is putting in more than 40 hours per week at a job with a lower salary than the OP’s, so I admit that. However, they are getting paid for 40 hours per week by each company and only contributing 25 hours each (62.5%). Most companies would want to know that and give the OP more work to fill their time, given that they are paying for it. It feels like theft to me. The OP’s availability to handle crises and to travel is not the same as it would be with 1 job.

    Honestly, if I found out one of my staff were doing this, I’d fire them.

  291. Jacob*

    I’m very surprised at this answer. At least in jobs where your work product is intellectual property, and I would say that most silicon valley white collar jobs fit the bill, working a full-time job is very different from illegal perspective than just working a part-time job twice. In particular, your employer owns the work-related contents of your brain! If you think of an idea that benefits your employer in your off hours, it belongs to them even if you weren’t on the clock.

    What this means is that working two jobs where it is possible for the same good idea to apply to both is both dishonest and legally dubious. If this comes to light, for instance, it could throw into question each of your employers’ ownership of the work that you did for them. This could have consequences, especially if your employer were involved in a merger or acquisition, in which case they’d have to represent to their counterparty that they have full legal ownership of “their” IP.

    The people who worry about this most are programmers, writers, and other sorts of creative workers, but even if you are producing slide decks for both companies with strategic ideas, I personally would be scared of getting sued or indeed criminally prosecuted if I were in your situation. If I were your employer and discovered this, I would definitely consider suing you mainly to cover my butt when it comes to the IP ownership agreements I discussed above.

  292. Anne*

    I have no problem with anyone working two full time jobs making however much a year as long as both employers are aware of the situation. All the rest — can you be giving your best to both companies, do you “owe” them 40 hours a week, what to do if there’s a crisis occurring in each job at the same time, etc. — are things that can be addressed by one or both of the employers as they feel is necessary.

    But if someone is working two full time jobs and are actively hiding it from one or both of the employers, the reason probably is that they know that their employers might/would have a problem with it. Ethically that makes it wrong, IMO.

  293. Gayathri Suresh*

    How will you ever do your resume in future? For the same date periods you cannot say you worked in both. You either have to forget your work in one of them or risk being exposed at some point through your IRS returns. Scary, thin ice if you ask me!

  294. Leenie*

    I’m guessing no one will ever see this because it’s been a couple of days and the comment section here has a pretty short life cycle. But I’d fire the OP immediately. And I think our HR Department, which usually tries to work with us on PIP’s and such, would let me. It’s not that I don’t understand that capitalism has the deck stacked against individuals. Or that companies have been taking advantage of employees and it must be tempting to respond in kind. But it’s not a theoretical or philosophical question if this is someone who is reporting to you. I wouldn’t be able to keep someone on my team who was comfortable actively deceiving their coworkers and me for an extended period of time over something that is material. And in this case, there’s no goodwill built up to try to mitigate that deception. There’s just someone who’s been misleading me about why they can’t go to Boston or need to move that meeting since the day they started the job. Maybe someone has the time and patience to try to rehabilitate that relationship, but I wouldn’t.

  295. Margaret*

    Kind of low-key offended by and/or jealous of OP. Because I struggle to get my one full-time job done every day, and make significantly less money. I’m a nurse.

Comments are closed.