moonlighting

[cellio]

Disclaimer: this has nothing to do with my employment. If it did, I wouldn't be posting it for the world to see. :-)

Recently I was talking with someone about moonlighting, and the question came up: what exactly is wrong with moonlighting, anyway? In trying to sort out my answer to that question, I've concluded that it's "it depends".

One issue is conflict of interest. If you're the CTO of Google and you pick up a job as lead programmer for an up-and-coming search-engine company on the side, I'd argue that you have a problem there. At the other end of the spectrum, if you're working shifts at both McDonalds and K-Mart, or even if you're the CTO of Google and you're also working at a local restaurant, who cares?

But quite aside from that are the questions of the type of work and your own abilities. Specifically, if you have a job that requires some sort of creative energy (Google yes, McDonalds no), then you have to ask if the second job is drawing effort you "owe" to the first. I'm not saying an employer owns you 24x7, of course, but if you're, say, a salaried lead programmer, you're probably thinking about architecture, algorithms, and your particular problem domain at times other than when you're billing your time. That's a good thing; personally, I have some of my best ideas either in the shower or while driving in to work. (And sometimes Shabbat afternoon, but if I find work thoughts popping up then I try to banish them.) So if you're a full-time programmer with another gig on the side, do you have enough creative juice to go around so that you're giving them both the level of effort that you would have otherwise given the one? For some people the answer is yes and for some it's no; you have to know yourself here. (And in some ways you can benefit from re-use; yes for architecture and no for specific domains.)

If you are the sort of person who can manage that, then there's still the issue of appearances. Often appearance is more important than reality in the professional world; if your peers or employers think you're shortchanging them, it's going to be a whole lot of hassle to convince them otherwise. So you have to decide if it's worth it.

I've been couching this in terms of employment, but it can apply in other areas too. The consequences are less severe in a volunteer or low-pay millieu; if I sing in a congregational choir and play dance music once a week for the SCA and play blues every Saturday night in a club (to choose three things I'm not currently doing), it may be that I'm spending less time rehearsing any one sort of music than I would otherwise, but so long as I'm meeting the minimum obligations no one's going to argue that I should be kicked out. On the other hand, if it appears that I'm shorting the dance band because I'm hoping my blues career will take off, that could engender bad feelings even if it's not true.

So if being a lay leader at two different congregations (in two different movements) is moonlighting -- a question I haven't actually addressed -- then is that a problem? On the one hand, I'm serving both competently. On the other hand, it's two different liturgies and maybe I'd know one of them better if the other weren't distracting me. On the third hand, it's a volunteer activity and not a major time sink. On the fourth hand, one could argue the appearance of a conflict of interest because I'm trying to do the same sort of thing for two organizations that wouldn't normally cooperate in that way.

I don't think it's a problem or I wouldn't be doing it, but I am also mindful of the appearance. And that's why I wanted to know if my rabbi sees a problem with this.

Comments

[nsingman.livejournal.com]

I'd probably look at it strictly in terms of commitments made. Appearance issues may suggest that those watching have a different view of the commitments than we do, and that's worth discussing.

Sometimes it's very clear. Most of my employers have made it clear that any outside employment must be approved by management. I did some part-time teaching when I was employed with Chase from '90 to '94, and my current employer was willing to allow me to continue that (I decided against it).

[geekosaur]

With respect to employment, there's a more immediate and practical ramification: back when I was consulting with TekSystems, the employment agreement discussed moonlighting and sleeping on the job in the same (short) section. I don't that translates too well to your situation, though. :)

BTW, off topic: a friend pointed me at http://www.honorablemenschen.org/sound.html
, in particular http://www.honorablemenschen.org/samples/hine_ma_tov-in-da-jungle-baby.mp3. Oooooookaaaaaaayyyy....

[cafemusique.livejournal.com]

Specifically, if you have a job that requires some sort of creative energy (Google yes, McDonalds no), then you have to ask if the second job is drawing effort you "owe" to the first. I'm not saying an employer owns you 24x7, of course, but if you're, say, a salaried lead programmer, you're probably thinking about architecture, algorithms, and your particular problem domain at times other than when you're billing your time. That's a good thing; personally, I have some of my best ideas either in the shower or while driving in to work.

I have a lot of problems with this section. Because it does seem to tread so close to an employer being able to expect your thought outside of work...and I don't think that's fair.

It's obviously a situation that resonates with my situation, where I'm employed with a permanent creative job, and I also have a number of regular creative commitments I'm hired for. Perhaps because my employment is part-time (average of 14 hours per week), I'm more sensitive to "you're entitled to what you pay for" than if I was working 40 hours a week.

That said, I find the brain can work on all sorts of things, often when I'm not conscious it's doing so...and while a second job could diminish the opportunities to pay attention to it, so could any number of other things. Heck, I could expend creative energy on date ideas, if I had a girlfriend...and it wouldn't be reasonable for a job to prohibit that.

My take is, as long as there isn't conflict-of-interest, if I'm still able to devote the energy the job requires while you're paying me, you shouldn't have reason to complain. If I end up short of sleep or drained of energy and am there in body but not wholly there in mind, yeah, you've got a point.

Maybe the analogy could be to drinking. It wouldn't be fair for an employer to say "You can't drink alcohol when you're at home." But it is reasonable for the employer to be concerned if you a) come in to work drunk or b) are overtired because you're staying out too late at the bar every night.

[estherchaya.livejournal.com]

On the other hand, it's two different liturgies and maybe I'd know one of them better if the other weren't distracting me.

By two different liturgies are you pointing to the differences in Reform vs. Conservative liturgies or the fact that it's weekday shacharis vs. shabbos shacharis?

Because if it's the latter, that's not an issue. And frankly, I don't think the former is an issue because of the latter. (I am not, however, certain that made any sense).

You are doing weekay shacharis for a Conservative congregation. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you would not have the opportunity to do that same service with your Reform Congregation, correct? Therefore, I think it's a non-issue that there are differences in the Conservative vs. Reform liturgy. And it's good for you to be able to daven the weekday service in addition to the shabbos and yom tov service. That is building your skill set, not negating it.

Hmmm.

[siderea]

I think I was the person who asked. Everything you've written boils down to "don't fail to meet a previous commitment, including in matters of appearance."

Which leaves hanging the question of moonlighting. I'm completely willing to grant an employer has a right to expect terms of employment to be met; the notion that they have a right to say what you do with yourself outside of those terms makes no sense to me at all.

Abstracted: they're allowed to make requirements upon results, such as "you must not appear to be short changing us" or "you must turn in adequate work", but not make requirements about external means, such as "you must not visit your mom because that makes you cranky at meetings the next day".

The idea of not requiring employees not to compete with an employer also makes some sense -- but not total sense. Why should an employer be allowed to restrain trade that way? Is it conventional or legal for a widget buying company to insist that their widget vendor sign an exclusive contract to only vend to them? Replace "widget" with "labor/hour" in the previous sentence. I suppose there's no reason it can't be done, but it hardly seems typical -- except where labor is concerned.