Team-BHP (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/)

-   Shifting gears (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/shifting-gears/)

-   -   Moonlighting | Are you for it or against? | Wipro & Infosys frown, Swiggy is okay (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/shifting-gears/257344-moonlighting-you-against-wipro-infosys-frown-swiggy-okay-8.html)

What builds up my angst against this company --which wholeheartedly took away job of 300 of its employees-- is the fact that It couldn't find any of the following legitimate reasons to get rid of the employees:

(1) Were these employees not giving their upmost during their working hours?

(2) Were these employees lagging in terms of their performance?

(3) Were these employees frequently did not show up to work? ..etc.

Were these and many more reasons which I have not enumerated here, in isolation or in unison were the reasons due to which these 300 employees were laid off?


Sorry for the sake of repeating myself, but its seems the above stated facts seems to have been brushed under the carpet by those who believe that the said company is right in what it did.

Its highly likely those who uphold that said company decision belong to middle and upper echelons of such like minded organizations. Which clearly look down upon those at the bottom.

Consider this: A profit making IT company is hell bent on paying pittance to those at the bottom, not to mention, way below the industry standards! Acts as a flag-bearer of righteousness when it reveals the malpractice committed by 300 of its employees. A malpractice according to their own definition which they call 'Moonlighting'!

No one is willing to understand the fundamental reason : Why 300 employees of the said company did it!!? Simple: Its because the said company was paying way below the industry standards that's why they did it.
The spectra of the rise of inflation is not some far fetched reality its an existential fact. To deal with that existential fact is going to be an uphill task as the days go by.

Had the said company paid according to industry standards , I don't think those 300 would have lost their job. I don't thing they would have committed what this company calls 'Moonlighting'! Even if some would have, but they would have been few and far between.

Consider the arrogance exhibited by this high and mighty IT company. It doesn't require a lot of imagination to figure out the kind of profits they make. Yet, it couldn't stomach or accustom itself to the fact that those at the bottom rung had to take a second employment albeit inconspicuously in order to make the ends meet or gain extra income. This is what that they (The company) cannot accustom themselves to!. This highlights their vain, shallow , selfish mindset! This is the underlying sentiment exhibited by those at the upper echelons of this company and to rub salt on the wounds of those 300 they intent to reveal this fact(That they are two-timing) to their other employer so that the other employer gets rid of them! This is ruthlessness.

Those so call 'letter of appointments' or the 'Code of ethics' which are comprehensive and well documented. That these companies used as legitimate proofs; that they have used against the 300. If such letters of appointments or code of ethics include such unjustified clauses such as 'their right to offer lower than industrial standards salaries and at the same time to take away their employees right to seek employment with any other organization'. Then as per natural justice , it wouldn't stand a chance. Hell, in the court of law , I sincerely believe, it wouldn't stand a chance. Not in these times.

Besides the point, it brings to my imagination the cover picture of the book that I intend to read 'A Discourse on Inequality' by 'Jean-Jacques Rousseau'. Definitely my next read.

Mans need for money has no end, there is 0 guarantee that one wouldn't moonlight even if you pay him thrice for the first job.

Also, if one wants to moonlight, be clear during the contract negotiation and have it modified. Simple. Why should an employer be forced to employee someone who cant follow their policies?

The idea is to pay your employees $A for the 40-45 hours/week you expect them to work for you and a further $B to make sure they do not work for anyone else in the remaining 123-128 hours/week.

The employee can reject the extra $B if they think they can make more by moonlighting (so you either up that number or leave it at that) or take it if they value their personal time. This way, everyone wins.

What is not right is for the employee to take the $B and still moonlight. In this case you can fire them and sue them as you wrote in the contract upfront.

+1

I just received confirmation that these folks were indeed outed by their PF contributions. In some instances multiple contributions to the same account! In truth, all the outrage manifest in this thread should be against those who were obviously two-timing and should not be against the organisation for doing what any other would do under similar circumstances.

That means they were indulging in overemployment, and not moonlighting.

We can still be outraged at the organization for misusing the word moonlighting, when they really meant overemployment. :) They should have googled the word before going to the press, who didn't know any better either.

While down-sizing, most companies do it in the most ruthless way.

If the company has no commitment to its employees, why should the employee have?

Not trying to oppose your views but, we need changes on both sides. Wipro and other companies have 3 month notice period. all these Employees have to suffer as many other companies wouldnt pursue candidates with 3 months notice. Remember, these companies already worked on extending the notice period to 6 months earlier.

Is it wrong? i dont think so, unless you implement the company doesn't fire you without valid reasons, the employees did nothing wrong. No?

Software Developer here.
My company (non MNC, medium sized, mostly Indian business) asked me to sign an agreement, to not work for a competitor during my time employed with them. I started a non IT based side hustle some time ago, and casually asked one of the directors if that is allowed. He said that since it does not interfere with my work during my 9 hours a day at office, 5 days a week, I can do what I want in my spare time.

He even gave a few examples how some employees were working part time on other platforms, and it had a positive effect on their primary work.

Employment in a company can be of various types mainly - FTE or Full Time Employees, Contractors, Consultants.
I work for an American Multinational and FTEs in my org have the advantage in many employment terms - they get paid even when they don't have a project assigned (termed as "on bench"), get insurance benefits - group term insurance, individual and family health insurance, 6 months of maternity/paternity leaves + many other allowances during important milestone events.
It would be fair for the company to expect exclusivity from FTEs. There is no such expectation from contractors and/or consultants who may well be working gigs unless otherwise specified in their (short term) agreement.

Overemployment seems to be the problem the companies want to arrest. I don't think anyone would blame them for it.

Moonlighting as dictionaries define it should be okay and the IT companies should allow within their policies to provide that option to those employees provided there's full disclosure from employees about the nature of such additional employment and there's no conflict of interest.
Such employment may come with different salary structure and benefits.

Fair enough!

On another note, this, I think, is another thread where all that needs to be said has been said. Not sure if keeping this open will invite anything new or pertinent. Thoughts?

We don't really close threads unless the debate gets too ugly.

It is a difficult argument to make in this particular instance. I am not aware of the details of each individual in that 300. Broadstroking, to me, this case is quite straightforward, and I understand why the company did what it did. Not only was it devious on the employees' part, but I also think it was stupid to leave such an easily trackable trail.

With close to 3 decades of work experience with multiple companies, I can share my perspective that no company has (or needs to have) any commitment to employees beyond their inherent and demonstrated value. That is the basic premise of this or any industry that operates for profit. As harsh as it may sound, all ethics, values, humanity, etc. is predicated on this inherent and demonstrated value. Within this condition, there are variations and degrees to which companies manifest these practices. Whether they wield a battleaxe, rapier, or velvet glove, the end result is the same for employees when they do not generate value or pose a risk to / compromise the reputation of the company.

It is, therefore, in the interest of us, employees, to make sure we are generating value while ensuring we are not risking the reputation of the company in any way. This is not subservience but playing the system per the rules of the system. This is how most of those who grow, grow! If despite us trying to generate or actually generating value (and showcasing it), there is no growth or recognition in line with our expectations, we are free to try our fortune elsewhere rather than succumb to bitterness.

It is simple. But I completely understand it is not easy. But over a period of years and hard knocks, this reality becomes evident. I am hoping folks here will learn from the experience of others who have walked this path and thereby save themselves some pain.

Sorry for the soapbox, and I hope you understand where I am coming from.

Maybe I missed it, but I still haven't seen a satisfactory answer as to why an employer can expect to dictate to an employee what they can/cannot do all 24 hours a day, when they have contracted them, and indeed are paying them, for about 8-9 hours a day five days a week.

I don't have a blanket answer to that question since there are different employment types and associated contracts. I can only state what is, in my opinion, and experience, the better course of action, which is prevention is better than cure. As I mentioned earlier, it is best to clarify with the employer before we embark on anything that can result in a monetary benefit.

If an employee believes they have been wronged outside the remit of their individual contract and their company is not amenable to a favorable discussion, they can take it to court. Considering this particular instance seems as open and shut as they come, I doubt it will be fruitful.

I understand your point of view sir. But i believe, we should see the issue from all perspectives and then decide.

After all, a company is run by humans and those humans are allowed to be ruthless with their employees. But employees are humans too. We cannot have one to be ruthless and the other to be loyal at the same time BY LAW in the same country. right?

Some countries make the company pay for 6/12 months, if they fire employees without any reason. Why?

Ask anyone who wants to emigrate, why they want to leave? The most significant reason is "Quality of life". Doesn't having such laws aren't a part of basic human decency?

I have seen MNC's do this to good & hard working people who just committed to their parent's surgery/sister's marriage. Their lives got derailed by these MNC's just because of the decisions taken by the management.

From an employee point of view,
- If you put someone in a project which is ending in couple of months, Should they be a victim of your management decisions?
Especially when you know the project is ending in couple of months, especially because of your inability to deliver?
- Did you communicate them regarding the same before hiring / putting them in it?
- In most of the cases, the company is concealing/withholding sensitive information from its employees for its short term commitments and being ruthless later.
- Why should one suffer for the management's crooked moves?

Following questions do often pop in my mind after working in this Industry
- Companies are allowed to fire at their will, but when it is being used for their greed, should it be allowed?
- Why do we have 3 months notice period & non compete clauses, when no commitments are not provided by the employer?
- Are they solely to ensure the employee doesn't get any other opportunities elsewhere?
- Are the MNC's with lakhs of people are so incapable & cannot find a replacement for 3 months, but are allowed to fire at their will?
- If the official notice period is 3 months, shouldn't the company be liable to pay 3/4 X times notice period pay, if the company decides to fire? After all they are curtailing employee's options to look elsewhere during his tenure with firing employer.
- If the employee wishes to join a competing company, pay him 6/12 months salary as severance to not join a competitor [inline with their Non compete agreement] ? The employee is not the competitor to the leaving company. He is just looking to better utilize his skills for a better pay. No?


Are any of the above points unfair in any way?

These are some of the difficult questions, but we need to move somewhere before implementing any lopsided laws.

I am sorry you feel this way. I see these as a series of disparate incidents for which there is no thematic answer other than 'all companies are bad' which, is a pointless takeaway. We must remember a large number of those running these companies started from lower levels. There are lessons there for us to learn and profit from. That, my friend, is a better way to view this than take umbrage which I think is an exercise in futility. Take care.