![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
moonlighting
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.
no subject
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).
no subject
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....
no subject
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.
no subject
There's also the possibility that a different job could cause creativity at the current one. Many of us have experienced the "brilliant work idea in the shower" thing. There are some things that just have to be mulled over in the background. I used to take regular afternoon walks to allow some of these things to percolate.
Any line cook can tell you that scheduling algorithms are relevant to their job (though most wouldn't admit to knowing the word "algorithms"). Any waitress can tell you about path planning, I/O bottlenecks, and the importance of correct documentation.
It seems entirely reasonable to me that a second job could provide inspiration for the main one. Perhaps, with two congretations who expect slightly different things from a lay leader, you can get ideas from each that can be applied to both.
no subject
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.
no subject
You make some good points here. Thank you.
I was trying to couch this in terms of what I might owe, rather than what my employer might demand. I can accept an obligation that I do not grant others the right to impose on me. If an employer tells me I owe him all my thoughts, my response will be either "goodbye" or "we need to discuss salary". But that doesn't mean that I don't think I owe my employer something, so now I'm trying to tease out just what that is.
It's obviously a situation that resonates with my situation
I actually hadn't been thinking of your situation, though I can now see why you would see it there. I think a key point is that your primary job is clearly not a full-time job, so it should be obvious to all involved that you are going to supplement that. You have to. If they want all of your effort they have to give you the corresponding job and salary.
Maybe the analogy could be to drinking.
This is a good analogy. My employer does not have the right to demand "no drinking at all". I, on the other hand, am obligated to not have that two-martini breakfast if I think that's likely to impair me at work that day. The employer is legitimately concerned only with outcome; the employee is concerned with how to achieve that outcome.
no subject
no subject
Some of the differences are in stuff that's common to all liturgy, like in the Amidah, or all shacharit, like p'sukei d'zimra. There's more potential for cognitive interference there than in the stuff that only appears in the Conservative weekday liturgy and not in any Reform liturgy I do (kaddish shalem, psalm for the day, the extra parts of yotzer, etc). I compensate for this by always working from the siddur (when leading) even though I've got the text memorized, so I have an extra prompt for the correct version. So far I haven't screwed that up, and I don't think I will.
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?
Correct. We've actually talked about doing weekday shacharit, but we don't have critical mass.
no subject
no subject
BTW, off topic:
Thanks. Will investigate when I won't be bothering officemates.
Hmmm.
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.
no subject
no subject
Yes, Jews are crazy. :-)
Re: Hmmm.
I agree that employers have a right to mandate results and no right to mandate means. (Unilaterally, I mean -- any employer-employee pair can put whatever they like into a voluntary contract.)
I think I'm hung up on the appearance aspect, sort of a combination of (if you'll excuse the domain switch) marit ayin and placing a stumbling block before the blind. Marit ayin is giving a false negative impression; in this case that I, and by extension possibly others, do not meet my obligations even though I do. Is it a real concern or hyper-sensitivity? Probably the latter. The other aspect is that if I do the balancing successfully my coworker might see only the results (hey, two jobs!) and not the effort behind it, go off and get another job himself, and shortchange our shared employer. The shared employer has ways to deal with it, but I've still led to that employer taking a temporary loss by being a bad role model. Is the problem ultimately caused by my coworker? Yes, of course. But did I contribute? Now obviously we can't go through life worrying about every little way that someone might imitate us and do it badly, so maybe it's not a major issue, but I have to ask myself the question.
On a vaguely related note, I was talking with some coworkers today and suggested that we find our peers within the organization -- employees of other recently-bought small companies -- and share coping strategies. My coworker pointed out that by all appearances we're getting more freedom and flexibility than the others did, and do we really want to bring that to our peers' attention? Maybe it could help, but more likely it would do harm.
I'm rambling. I'm sorry.
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?
Conventional? Probably not. Legal? Wal-Mart. And some producers require their distributors to agree to not carry the other guys' products -- Coke and Pepsi both do this a lot with restaurants. The restaurants, of course, are free to go elsewhere for their drinks, but (e.g.) Coke says "if you want us you don't get Pepsi" as a condition of the contract.
no subject