• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    401 year ago

    Huh? If the job can be done this fast and the contract says, you get this money for doing that, why should that be wrong, meaning why should anyone be unhappy?

    Except companies are just in for the money and would rather pay you less … Hmmm

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      61 year ago

      All I can say is I agree with you; however, lots of contracts have you agree that you only work for that company while you’re employed by them

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          131 year ago

          That’s the point of the clause; to fire people who tell them they’re working a second full-time job. When required to be in office everywhere it becomes quite obvious very quickly. They’re upset they can’t tell if you’re two-timing or not if you work from home, so they want to make sure you come in and work for them

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            151 year ago

            Petty tactics from petty people. If someone is doing the job they are paid for, why bother? It’s like the employers are entitled to the 40 hours or something, even if all the work is done.

            • phillaholic
              link
              fedilink
              English
              01 year ago

              If someone is doing the job they are paid for,

              They aren’t if they aren’t available because they are working the second job. I question how many people saying this are actually salaried workers who’ve read their employment agreements.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      21 year ago

      and the contract says, you get this money for doing that

      Almost certainly the contract doesn’t say this tho.