As the news of Soham Parekh, the software engineer accused of working for several silicon valley startups simultaneously spreads on social networks, bosses have expressed his suspicions about his own remote workers.
Your instincts may not be wrong. Postpandey remote work has silently created a breach that many, like Parekh, have explored to keep multiple jobs at the same time.
A 2023 Paychex survey revealed that impressive 40% of workers were reconciling two jobs. But the [os nascido entre 1995 e 2010] It was the most prolific in “Polytirabalhos”, with 93% of the younger generation dividing their time among multiple employers.
Continues after advertising
Compared, only 28% of baby boomers [os nascidos entre meados dos anos 1940 e 1960] and 23% of generation x [a partir de meados dos 60s até os 80s] admitted to maintain three or more jobs.
For workers, this can mean wages in the tire of thousands of dollars, the ability to maximize their potential for gains while they are young and childless (not yet replaced by AI), and retire early. A Reddit user said he had just achieved a fifth simultaneous employment, raising his income to more than $ 3,000 a day.
But employers complain about low quality work, ignored meetings and the feeling of being “deceived.”
Continues after advertising
What the US law says about keeping multiple jobs
Unfortunately for dissatisfied bosses, employment experts say there is no law explicitly forbid to keep several jobs at the same time – at least not in the US or the United Kingdom.
Nicolas Lakeland, Laytons Labor Law Partner, told the Fortune“It depends on what the employment contract says, but most full -time job contracts have a clause that says the employee should devote ‘all his time and attention’ to work and have no other job outside it.”
The reason for this, he adds, is usually to prevent employees from working for competitors. “But they also want their employees to appear on Monday morning and can work productively.”
Continues after advertising
Therefore, the burden is mainly employers to protect themselves. And with “over-unemployment” being a very new question, they will need to check the scope of restrictions on their contracts-and oversee them.
“In short, it’s cool to do this in the US,” confirms Peter Rahbar, a labor lawyer, a workplace expert and founder of The Rahbar Group. “The key consideration for employees is whether the employer has a policy, or if there is a clause in the letter of offer or the employment contract that prohibits maintaining another job.”
Before accepting secret parallel jobs, Rahbar says employees should check if they “have a conflict of interest, or are competitors of the main employment.” If the answer is yes, he would “strongly advise the employee not to proceed, as this can lead to additional legal problems.”
Continues after advertising
For employers, Rahbar recommends parallel labor policies – and explicitly banning “another job” in contracts. But at a more human level, he suggests paying employees well. “Most employees pick up other jobs for money, not intellectual curiosity,” he adds.
Like Parekh, the software engineer who started the vault debate, told the TBPN technology program: “No one really likes to work 140 hours a week, I had to do it out of necessity.”
“Finally, managers should often communicate with their employees, not only helps build confidence and achieve team goals, but reduces the opportunity to do other work,” adds Rahbar.
Consequences
Even if the over -unemployment is technically legal, it does not mean that there will be no consequences
Just as there is no federal law that prevents workers from keeping various jobs, there is no law that protects this right. “It wouldn’t be illegal for an employer to disperse the employee if he found out,” says Labor lawyer Tom Spiggle of The Spiggle Law Firm.
Where workers can have legal problems is whether to share confidential information from one company with another, or work for a competitor.
“In this situation, the employee may be legally responsible in some states for interfering with the business of the initial employer,” explains Spiggle. “The sophisticated legal term is ‘interference with prospective commercial advantage.’”
There are also more rigid legal restrictions for those who work for the federal government and some government contractors, especially in the defense area. But in most cases, he says workers would simply be violating their contract, and although they may be “subject to monetary damage,” the most likely scenario is to be fired.
Lewis Maleh, CEO of the Bentley Lewis Executive Recruitment Agency, says he has seen several workers dismissed for this exact reason. “If someone is doing a full time work full time and being paid for it, he should not be doing another full time work less than the company is in agreement,” he says. “I don’t think it’s ethical and it will be expensive if it’s discovered.”
And apparently, the chances of being caught are quite high. Maleh says workers were exhibited by LinkedIn activities, tax record checks, antecedent checking companies and even an accident when a customer was in an interview at Zoom for another job.
Even if the work is being done, Maleh says employers are concerned because:
- Creates confidence problems: If you are hiding this, what else are you hiding?
- Tax implications
- Confidentiality Risks: Sharing or reuse sensitive information between companies – intentionally or not – can lead to legal problems
- Availability concerns: You may not be available in emergencies, meetings or necessary trips
- Intellectual Property Disputes: Anything created at the time of the company can become a gray area if you are sharing hours between employers.
“It’s short -term financial gain and possible long -term career suicide,” he concluded. “Always be honest … The world of recruitment is small, especially in senior positions, and this can impact references for years.”
If this second or third job is really important for your livelihood, the safest bet is to talk about it with your employer immediately.
As Lakeland says, “Nothing prevents an employee from negotiating a change in the contract, but that means being open, honest and direct about what they want to do and ask for permission from the employer.”
This article was originally published on Fortune.com
2025 Fortune Media IP Limited
