Investigation launched after IT employees allegedly work for Dallas and Austin simultaneously
Posted by lithdoc@reddit | Dallas | View on Reddit | 59 comments
AbueloOdin@reddit
If they were paid salary and did both jobs well enough, I see no issue.
SignificantNoise5261@reddit
Two things with that:
there's usually a clause in your employment that requires you to get permission before obtaining a second job because it could interfere with your primary duties or create a conflict of interest.
if they let this go, they would have to admit that your job doesn't really require 40 hours of work a week and the follow-up question would be Why are we paying you for 40 when we're not getting 40 out of you?
It's always IT professionals that get caught doing this. They're not the only ones doing it, but they're always the ones getting caught.
AbueloOdin@reddit
Those clauses are bullshit.
They aren't paying for 40 hours. They're paying for the job to get done. If they wanted to pay for 40 hours, they'd pay hourly.
Basically, if a company is allowed to have multiple clients and sell by the job, why am I not?
doobymoogey@reddit
Saying it's bullshit means nothing if you signed and agreed to it
AbueloOdin@reddit
What? Am I also supposed to run whether I have kids by them as well? Just in case it "may interfere with my primary duties"?
berryer@reddit
Parents are a protected class in the US, but before the labor movement the answer was yes. Still is in all Asian countries I'm aware of.
boondockspank@reddit
It’s called contractual obligation, brother. If they have a contract requirement that says you must ask them before you have kids and you sign it, then yes, you can be fired for having kids without their permission.
They can’t kill your kids, but they are allowed to terminate the contract (your employment). Even worse, sometimes they do put penalties for defaulting on your contract that go beyond contract termination. If you sign it, you have agreed.
I’m sure you know all this but you’re acting like you don’t so here we are.
AbueloOdin@reddit
Doesn't matter of you sign it or not: it's still bullshit. Like, if there was a clause to require you to wear yellow on Thursdays, it's still bullshit.
Do you not understand what "it's bullshit" means?
Rhewin@reddit
Well, not entirely. A contract that violates a protected class is illegal to begin with. But in right to work states, they can just BS any other reason.
berryer@reddit
employment agreements are fundamentally signed under duress
masta@reddit
Texas is an at-will employment state, and not a union state. Therefore I'm not sure what you mean by fundamental duress, unless you have some silly definition of duress?
Crrcc@reddit
At-will just means your boss can fire you anytime…it doesn’t magically remove the part where most people need wages to afford food, rent, and like just generally survive. Sure, it’s not legally duress but the only ’silly’ definition is pretending that’s equal bargaining power.
berryer@reddit
Employment isn't optional for most people
tigersatemyhusband@reddit
not necessarily.
i sighed my last non compete because it was so shitty it would never be enforceable.
the people pushing back were the ones likely to get the company to change it into something they might actually be able to do something about.
basically they had it so you couldn’t work the same job for a year in the united states.
DonkeeJote@reddit
You enjoy reading all those Ts&Cs before you click through?
hubristichumor@reddit
You can think it’s BS and still disregard it and accept the consequences, like these guys probably did. But If there really are jobs you can have without any conflict of interest and handle the responsibilities then I see no issue with it. A lot of issues with how employees are treated in the U.S. and I’d say holding down two jobs despite not going through the right protocol to alert your company is about the least morally bad thing you could do that’s against an actual line in a contract. Especially compared to what actual companies do that break rules all in the name of profit.
intergalacticVhunter@reddit
I wholeheartedly agree. I take it a step further as those clauses are against our fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of property/happiness.
fakejacki@reddit
They should just be paid as consultants expected to complete xyz job not hourly employees.
berryer@reddit
looks like they were salary, not hourly
SuccotashOther277@reddit
They want workers dependent on the employer, which gives the employer leverage.
JoshS1@reddit
Thats just a bull shit way of thinking in the buisness world. They should hire people because there is a positive buisness case for their production. The level of production and compensation is set. If theu can accomplish that in 40hrs or 4 hrs it should make no difference in compensation as the whole purpose was "we pay you $X and you provide Y production" if those employees can simultaneously do that across multiple companies good on them, but the idea that the company owns you for 40hrs a week needs to stop. Workers are not property.
SignificantNoise5261@reddit
Your describing how the world should be not how it is. The employees knew the risks when they did it.
If they want to be paid per job, not by working hours, they should become 1099 contractors, not employees for city government.
This case could also raise questions about the IT department's preparedness and focus on resilience during the 2023 ransomware attack. The CISO just fired from austin for being overemployed was the CISO for dallas during that attack.
-KaiTheGuy-@reddit
I work in IT.
Even tho my job is only 25-30 hours and I get paid for 40, you pay for the times that shit goes south and you need the IT people there to work 40+ or to resolve and respond to the issues.
And as for the employment clause, it shit when companies do this honestly. It's not any companies business what the person does. If they can work 2 jobs at the same time and perform both jobs to standards, leave the employee alone.
MagicWishMonkey@reddit
^^^ this, you're paid to do specific things, not to keep a chair warm.
lithdoc@reddit (OP)
I can see where the conflict of interest can go deep down to the tune of millions when hanging out contracts and other stuff and it's always to the tune of millions.
DonkeeJote@reddit
They aren't being paid for 40 hours of time.
Rhewin@reddit
Most jobs I've worked don't have anything about getting a second job unless it's in the same industry and you could be sharing proprietary knowledge. For city governments, I don't see a conflict.
DowntownSalt2758@reddit
Also, these two jobs are 200 miles apart. Unless both jobs are 100% remote, it is unlikely they are properly doing their jobs even if two jobs are allowed. They would likely be shifting at part their workload to other IT staff. I’d bet it was someone else in IT who blew that whistle
qkilla1522@reddit
I generally agree with this in most scenarios. But in this specific issue with data security for 2 large cities there could be risks to citizens information etc.
I don’t care much if Twitter goes down because it’s hacked but if key city infrastructure is compromised that’s a higher stakes situation
MagicWishMonkey@reddit
Do you know much about infosec? A lot of people in that field barely know how to use a computer. One good person working 20 hours a week is significantly better than a shit person doing 40 or 60 hours.
AbueloOdin@reddit
Then any company that does work for one city, should be disbarred from doing work for any other city under that logic.
qkilla1522@reddit
Without disclosing and going through the proper protocol. I agree
timayws@reddit
Why are you presuming they did their job well enough? This was a whistleblower report, which to me implies they weren't.
The only times I've ever known about coworkers working two jobs is because they did shitty work and caused work to pile up on their colleagues' plates.
AbueloOdin@reddit
Nah. People get jelly over weird things.
Brassanthe@reddit
In the current economy, we gotta do what we gotta do.
downvotedcommentbot@reddit
r/overemployed
ProfessorFartiology@reddit
Shhh
locodfw@reddit
Also another example of don’t trust anyone at work Don’t disclose any personal life. Narcs everywhere.
locodfw@reddit
What if they had tons of unpaid leave and took it then started the new gig while using up their leave? Also where is the line drawn regarding secondary jobs? No side hustles allowed??
KC5SDY@reddit
My question would be exactly what function did they fill at both cities. IT in Dallas does have offshoots that have little to do with true IT work.
Working_Succotash_41@reddit
Probably werent doing much of anything fbh
Fantastic_Scratch_62@reddit
None of the coverage coming out of this specifies what rule has been broken.
Striking_Reindeer_2k@reddit
What rule/law did they break? Is this a crime to have two jobs?
As long as they met the goals both their jobs gave, I don't see a valid reason to terminate.
Hell, they are overachievers doing two full time jobs.
Really lousy reporting here.
PrefersEarlGrey@reddit
You're agree to do a job, you do the job, you get paid. I fail to see why this is vilified? The work is being done.
Besides GOP reps are telling us to get a second or third job to deal with the rising cost of living.
So which one is it?
monolith_blue@reddit
Perhaps the cities of Dallas and Austin don't want people following GOP advise?
James-the-Bond-one@reddit
In series, not in parallel.
monolith_blue@reddit
And?
Specialist_Royal_449@reddit
Fixed headline: employer mad that employee is using their skills to their advantage instead of being taken advantage of.
SpecialistGrouchy341@reddit
I think it’s also a red flag because these individuals went to Austin along with the previous city manager. And then they were still working in Dallas too?
Primary_Maybe1721@reddit
,, we z,w and,
YaGetSkeeted0n@reddit
so true
Semicoldwater@reddit
But rich people can serve on multiple boards
medisamurai@reddit
no wonder its gonna take the GDP of a small island nation to refurbish city hall.
tx4468@reddit
How is this any different than doing instacart after your 9-5 is over? OR were they double dipping both jobs during the 9-5 hours?
donttakemypugs@reddit
Both jobs require being on-call and working from 9-5.
It would be very easy to claim fraud here if the employees were chronically behind on work for either municipality. And if additional staff is hired to cover that workload.
Speedtrucker@reddit
Civil service jobs usually have higher levels of conflict of interest and guidelines for PII.
So it isn’t that say a Dallas IT guy can’t go uber in the nights and weekends, often only being required to notify their supervisor or HR.
The issue here is that it’s 2 municipalities and doing the same job in both of them can present serious conflict of interest as they have access to potentially confidential and/or proprietary data in cities that are very much in competition with each other.
At the federal level it gets more severe because usually you’re also carrying a security clearance higher than public trust
DeathbyTicklin@reddit
This person should start a consultancy and charge both municipalities double.
ForgottonTNT@reddit
I mean if he got the work done for both municipalities , what’s the problem 😂
StormForeign@reddit
"If anyone would have told me this kind of thing is frowned upon"....