In previous jobs I’ve always given notice after receiving an offer. In hindsight, I realize that was pretty dumb, but it was a different time, long ago. Going forward I will absolutely wait until my first day on the new job to give notice to the old one. It’s not fair to either employer, but getting an offer pulled after quitting an existing job scares the hell out of me.
No it's not dumb. It's perfectly normal and, especially in a non-remote situation and even more especially with relocation involved, pretty hard to do any other way. And it's not like you can't be laid off during a trial/probationary period with probably very little severance involved.
Sometimes stuff does happen and you can't protect 100% against every eventuality. And your current employer can lay you off too and then you are 100% certain of being unemployed. (Yes, there may be severance is that case but there is absolutely no guarantee that severance generally amounts to much.)
I still don't understand how this isn't considered fraud, or people aren't worried about being prosecuted or sued over it. Getting paid to do two "full-time" jobs simultaneously, without them knowing about it. Maybe just confident they won't get caught.
> I still don't understand how this isn't considered fraud
Because there are 168 hours in a week and each full-time job only consumes 40 of them.
Now, if the employers are competitors of one another, or there's otherwise something that would produce a conflict of interest, then that's another story - but beyond that? As long as you're fulfilling your duties for both jobs, it's neither employers' business what you do on your "free time".
You really think people doing this are working 80 hours a week, 40 on each job?
That seems unlikely to me, but maybe not to you? Or you're saying it's like plausible deniability, like nobody can prove they weren't, or something?
I wonder if GP who mentioned giving his two weeks notice on first day of new job... was planning on working 80 hour weeks for two weeks while they overlapped?
> That seems unlikely to me, but maybe not to you? Or you're saying it's like plausible deniability, like nobody can prove they weren't, or something?
I mean, there were times in my career where I was working 12+ hour days for one employer, so working 16+ hour days for two doesn't seem like that much of a stretch; still leaves you with 8 hours of sleep. I've known enough workaholics in my time to know that it ain't beyond the realm of possibility.
But yes, it's more of a plausible deniability thing. Either/both employers would need to prove that you weren't working 40 hours a week for them, which is not only impossible (good luck proving a negative) but a much higher standard than is reasonable in the first place (especially for programmers, having a full 40 productive hours a week is rare and unsustainable; half that or less is more typical).
This is a core difference between salaried/exempt and hourly workers. You're paid a fixed salary to perform work for your employer, whether there's 80 hours or 2h of work in any given week, you get paid the same.
So if you're a salaried worker delivering results, meeting your obligations and overall expectations of your employer, then how could you possibly construe it as fraud?
Taking away the upsides, but not the downsides of salaried work sounds, for the lack of a better word, rigged.
I think that they might be fired if new employer somehow finds out about it. (Though I doubt anyone would bother suing.) I don't understand all the people counseling getting some incremental protection against a low probability event (offer being withdrawn) when that incremental protection is something you'll probably get away with but better hope no one finds out.
Or if the OLD employer finds out about it -- that you were working a new job for two weeks while still taking a paycheck from OLD employer for those two weeks, I can't see them being happy about. but I guess there's little they could do to you, but try to stop payment on your last paycheck.
My current (non-profit, academic) employer says in the employee manual that you can't do ANY outside work without disclosing it to them and getting approved -- so I'd be in violation of that policy if found out. At first I was annoyed by this -- why shouldn't I be able to do some consulting on the evenings and weekends without their permission? But as long as the process for approval is quick and easy and they generally approve... I can see how maybe it was actually intended, in a remote work world, to make it clear you are violating their policies if you take a second full time job and imply to both jobs you are on the clock simultaneously!
They mention the legal "murkiness" a little bit there.
I'd honestly expect if an employer found out I had been doing this for a year, they would not just fire me, but could sue me to get my salary back.
It seems to me super unethical, and probably at least hypothetically a legal liability.
But people actually pretty frequently talk about doing this on HN. Which doesn't necessarily mean it's widespread, but I'm surprised by how matter-of-fact HN commenters are talking about it. Assuming, as in this case, that everyone is doing it or willing to do it, that we all understand that of course we could continue to collect paycheck from former employer for the first few weeks we're also working for new employer.
I work remote, and will continue to do so. Not impossible to manage that situation. Just let the old job know that you're giving your two weeks for brain dump.
I think they mean when you get completed background check and a signed offer. Though if you're wfh you might as well try to keep the old job for as long as you can keep getting paid...
