A reader writes:
I was recently offered a small side job that I would do entirely on my own time. It’s adjacent to, but does not overlap or conflict with, my full-time job. I’d make less than $500/month, and I viewed it mostly as pocket money for things like my gym membership, hobbies, and eating out.
Before accepting, I read my employer’s policies. The only requirement that seemed applicable was that I inform my manager, which I did. The side work uses my own equipment, email, and resources, happens entirely outside my regular work, and involves no contacts or subjects I encounter through my day job, and there is no overlap between the two roles. I’m also not publicly listed as an employee of the side business — I’m an independent contractor.
My manager’s response was that I cannot really have “personal time” in which to do this work because, as a salaried employee, I am expected to be available to my employer 24/7. Therefore, according to her, anything I do outside my normal working hours is technically company time.
This is not just theoretical. My workday often starts before 5 a.m., and I was recently criticized for not catching something at midnight — something that was outside my particular scope even if it had happened during normal business hours. I’ve also previously been told that I cannot travel over a weekend without advance notice because my personal plans are subject to “business needs.”
My actual job description describes a fast-paced role involving a careful eye, but does not say that I am on call 24/7 or that I must be available outside working hours. There is no language in the job description about unrestricted availability. I do not make overtime, and I do not get comp days.
So: is this a normal/legitimate expectation for a salaried employee, or is my manager overreaching? More specifically, can an employer essentially claim that all of my waking hours are “company time” because I’m salaried and therefore prohibit me from doing unrelated work or making personal plans without approval?
I’m in the U.S., if that matters. I’m also wondering whether I’m being unreasonable here. I understand that my job can — and it sometimes does — involve emergencies and unusual hours, and I’m not arguing that I should never have to respond outside 9–5. I’m struggling with the idea that this means my employer owns all of my non-work time.
No, that’s absurd.
It’s legitimate for your employer to object to you working a second job if it would overlap with your normal hours for them, or if the work itself would be for a competitor or otherwise pose a conflict of interest. And even when neither of those things are true, there are some cases where an employer could reasonably object on bandwidth grounds — like if your full-time job for them was extremely demanding with last-minute evening hours regularly required and you wanted to take on a whole separate full-time job on top of it.
But “you don’t actually have any personal time outside of work because we have first dibs on all of it” is not a typical stance, nor a reasonable one. Wouldn’t that also mean that you can’t plan a day-long hike on a Sunday? Or commit to volunteer work? Or be the sole caregiver for your small child in the evenings? Or have a drunken hotel weekend with your paramour? And I doubt that they’re asserting any of those (although they’re getting close with “you need approval for weekend vacations”).
The idea that anything you do outside your normal working hours is somehow “company time” is preposterous.
I’m also very skeptical that your company would agree with your boss on this, so as a next step you should talk to HR, relay these specifics claims of your boss, and ask if that’s truly the company’s position. If they say that it is (although I bet they won’t), you should ask if you’re considered “waiting to be engaged” (a legal term meaning that you can do whatever you want but you’re on call in case they need you) or “engaged to wait” (which means your time is not your own and you can’t engage in your own pursuits, and where they have to pay you). They’re going to say “waiting to be engaged” because otherwise they’d have to pay you more, but simply introducing the legal terms into the conversation is likely to get them to look at what they’re saying more closely.
As for whether they actually can ban you from taking the other gig: Yes. They don’t have any ethical or logical grounds to do that, but legally they can. (California, Colorado, and North Dakota might be exceptions, because they ban firings for off-duty legal activities.) But the far more interesting question to raise with HR would be your boss’s broader claim that the company owns all your time, period.
By the way, while you’re looking at this, take a look at whether your company has you classified correctly. Since you don’t get overtime, they’re treating you as exempt (a government-regulated category that makes you exempt from the overtime laws) and that may be perfectly correct — but it’s not uncommon for companies to misclassify people to get out of paying overtime, and this sure would be a good time to find out if that’s happening.
The post my boss says the company owns all my personal time, not just work hours appeared first on Ask a Manager.
[Disclaimer: The content in this RSS feed is automatically fetched from external sources. All trademarks, images, and opinions belong to their respective owners. We are not responsible for the accuracy or reliability of third-party content.]
Source link
