CNN published an article called Sneaky ‘daylighters’ risk firing by working extra jobs. Basically, it’s an article about employees with two jobs who try to do both jobs during the day. It’s not moonlighting, suckers. It’s daylighting. Get it?
CNN quotes Debbie McGrath from HR.com who says, “When you are employed for a firm, 100 percent of your focus should be spent working for that company during regular office hours.”
Uh, okay. May I ask a clarifying question about my compensation? Am I paid for my time, my performance, or my results?
Here’s how I see it:
- If a company is buying my time as a commodity, then I agree with Ms. McGrath. I am required to focus on my job, which most likely entails serving fries or scooping ice cream.
- If a company is paying for my performance or results, though, a second job shouldn’t be such a big deal. Why do you care if I’m negotiating mortgage deals from my personal cell phone at 10:52 AM?
Sometimes I wonder if this 1913 and American workers are still assembling Ford Model T’s. As a Human Resources professional, I feel strongly about the following statement:
- If you’re not performing, you will be fired.
The rest is up to you.
*
On a side note: I think it’s interesting that — in the wake of our financial crisis — more & more white-collar-employees are working two jobs. It’s great that HR professionals are contacted by CNN and asked to give a statement about employees who work two jobs, but where is HR in the broader discussion of the economic crisis?
Instead of writing about daylighting, it would be great if CNN asked HR.com (which is a really good site with very smart members) to comment on the housing crisis, the credit crunch, and the impact of financial uncertainty on employee productivity. Can you be a productive employee if the bank is foreclosing on your house? How do you manage those employees?
Sounds like a good segment for my friend, Ali Velshi!
{ 1 trackback }
{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }
Laurie, I agree with you for the most part, especially perform or get fired. The grey area is when the second job is virtual and the core job is used as the base for office, phone, computer…all at the first owners expense. Also I am assuming your targeting exempt employees as hourly are paid for time served as much as output…companies may view an hourly as “stealing” time>>>
Godd thought provoking post!!!!
I wrote something similar to this:
http://genxpert.blogspot.com/2008/09/telecommuting-some-people-just-dont-get.html
I agree with YOU Laurie. Paying for “time” rather than “outcomes” is why we have so many people who are inefficient with their time, because they have to keep that seat warm whether they are done with their work or not.
I blame the Boomers. But blame the Boomers for everything
@Mark Hmmmmm…good points about the infrastructure costs. Sheesh, we’re in such a nanny state at the office. What a mess.
@Suzanne I think this is a call for ROWE. Also, I agree with you about Boomers. Ugh.
I guess it really depends on perspective, especially in today’s knowledge economy. If you’re getting paid based on performance and knowledge (i.e. if you are a subject-matter expert), than it really shouldn’t matter.
The example I see most is a creative director or user experience expert that comes if with an idea and charges the company $10,000 for that idea. if the idea took them 10 minutes or 100 hours to come up with, but the value to the company is more than that $10,000, does it really matter if they are sitting in a chair for that idea?
Agreed on the Model T comment; our nature of work and our economy is definitely changing in our world. When will attitudes change?
I have mixed feelings about this because it’s not like we couldn’t all use that extra time to be better at our current jobs.
@RachL Whatchoo talking bout? I’m at the pinnacle of my career. Doesn’t get much better than this.
To my mind, squeezing two jobs into one shift is unethical. It