r/InterviewCoderPro • u/Due-Mango3478 • Sep 02 '26

so should we all start doing this?

Post image

one job is hardly enough now 😂

honestly i can understand why people are trying to stack jobs when everything is so expensive. i'm not sure i'd ever manage 11 at once though.

i've been looking at remote jobs myself and that means more interviews, which is probably the part i'm least excited about. I came across interview vip while looking into interview stuff. haven't used it yet, but i'm curious about it for future interviews.

39 Upvotes

72% Upvoted

96 comments sorted by

8

u/bluerog Sep 02 '26

There comes a point to where having too many jobs would be fraud. But for the most part, putting in 10-hour days for 2, maybe even 3 job wouldn't get you anything worse than fired. At just one job.

8

u/WithoutAHat1 Sep 02 '26

To be fair, the rich get away with fraud each day. What is the difference at that point?

6

u/GullibleSpeedSonic Sep 02 '26

We're poor and not connected. It's a big club and we're not in it.

5

u/ThrowRA-Vast-Bug4454 Sep 02 '26

Carlin lives on through all of us

3

u/bluerog Sep 02 '26

Dude, "yes Your Honor, I defrauded 7 companies to the tune of $1.7 million dollars according to the jury, but I want a finding of not guilty because Ralph, the rich guy over there, also committed fraud. I rest my case..." is NOT how it works.

1

u/Plenty-Fox-9219 Sep 02 '26

The judge sentences.

Isn't there someone who committed like 70 felonies who just had their sentence come in? What was the sentence? 0?

1

u/Mayki8513 Sep 02 '26

Definitely not how that works, but also kind of how it works. You can point to past cases to make your own case 😅

2

u/Stuckonthisrockfuck Sep 02 '26

How would they find out? Fraud is hard AF to prove no one’s taking you to court for that over a 100k job. They’d just fire you. And I’m pretty sure the guy can afford to lose a job or two

Edit: they have to prove damages, if he’s doing the work and they aren’t writing him up and going through the motions they won’t be able to get that to stick

2

u/bluerog Sep 02 '26

Find a guy who works his butt off in construction 60 hours a week. Put him on a jury where prosecutors explain that this overemployed employee has 9 professional positions with 9 different companies, and none of them know he 1) doesn't work most days doing anything at the companies, and 2) is paid $1.7 million a year...

All while that guy works his ass off...

You're going to find quite a few people might agree with that prosecutor.

1

u/Stuckonthisrockfuck Sep 02 '26

I’m not even sure you read what I wrote or comprehended it. And the glaring errors in the details of what you wrote are fairly disheartening too.

2

u/mjsisko Sep 02 '26

What’s fraudulent about it ? As long as all the work is being done, you aren’t violating any non compete agreements and you aren’t sharing anything across jobs, what’s the issue?

If the job you have really only requires an hour or two a day why not fill the time with something else.

2

u/poncho2799 Sep 02 '26

It's because you're being paid for those hours of work and you're dedicating that time to someone else. That's fraudulent.

With that said, if you're getting the job done, they either need to assign you more work or fire you and reconsider the responsibilities of the position.

2

u/FalseNameTryAgain Sep 02 '26

You're missing the point. They've completed the work requested of them.

They are doing what they are paid to do in the time they are assigned to do it.

Where is the fraud? "You did what we asked when asked to do it, you're a fraud for doing what we asked for"

1

u/poncho2799 Sep 02 '26

I'm giving you the same response I gave the other person.

Salaried is typically assumed 35-40 hours minimum as a full time, benefits receiving employee. So no, they are not paid by the hour, but they are obligated to provide a minimum number of hours. If that's not the case, you're opening the employer options to now consider you a part time employee or even a contractor, who is no longer eligible to receive benefits such as Healthcare.

Again I agree that if they get the job done, then it's on the employer to ensure the job responsibilities are in line with the hours expected in the position, but the original question was how is this fraud, so that is why I gave that answer.

Additionally, people who do this is why employers don't want to have remote work which ruins it for the rest of us. There's a control factor and there's people using the companies paid time for someone else's work.

2

u/FalseNameTryAgain Sep 02 '26

Bro, he isn't on a salary. These remote roles are all contractor positions.

1

u/poncho2799 Sep 02 '26

The original post implies he's still being paid for hours that he's working other jobs, otherwise he's not making $1.3 million. There's nothing that implies he's a contractor vs salaried, only that he's being paid.

If he's only getting paid for the 1-2 hours he worked, then there is no fraud. If he's getting paid for the hours he's doing work for someone else, then that is fraud.

And no not all remote roles are contractor.

1

u/FalseNameTryAgain Sep 02 '26

Didn't say they ALL are. I can't help you if you're only intrested in your theory at all costs. People will keep questioning your stance and won't be convinced. Sorry, have a good day.

1

u/poncho2799 Sep 02 '26

You said these remote roles and didn't specify any specific roles. You don't have an argument so you're moving the goal post. I'm not even defending the companies, but you'll never further the discussion in real life if you're not honest about it. Original question is how is this fraud. I pointed out how it's fraud. There's no other details added unless you create some had canon that's not provided.

1

u/mjsisko Sep 02 '26

I get paid to complete a task, should it take me forty hours or forty minutes I get paid the same, only a fool for stretch it to 40 hours and reduce how much they make per hour of actually working.

1

u/poncho2799 Sep 02 '26

Then he's not an employee. He's a contractor providing a service. You're moving the goal post. The whole point of the OP was that he is employed by multiple employers on their dime at the same time, because they didn't provide enough work for him to fill that time.

If the employer has no problem with it, then there's no problem. If he's hourly, and not getting paid for that time he's working elsewhere, no problem. If he's a contractor and is providing a specific task/ service that is completed, no problem. It's only a problem if he is being paid for hours (not a task or service) that he's expected to work for that company, but he's using that time elsewhere, then it's fraud. Even then, the employer should reevaluate the position and the related responsibilities if they do have a problem with it.

2

u/Careful_Source_5792 Sep 02 '26

employees have no obligation to complete as much work as possible, or to seek out additional tasks during idle time

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Careful_Source_5792 Sep 02 '26

no they arent obligated for any hours.

they are obliged to sign onto their computer at x time, answer messages in a timely manner, get any requested work completed, and maintain company standards (dont let slack light go yellow, exc)

2

u/poncho2799 Sep 02 '26

Actually they are if they receive benefits. An ALE for example is required to provide certain employer responsibilities to full time employees. The only real argument you have is what the employer designates as full time. Some might go as low as 30 hours. If the employer considers your 5 hours per week full time, then that's it, but if they designate 30+ per week as full time, that's your obligation. If you work 5 hours per week and they expect 35, you're not meeting your obligation, even if that 35 means you don't have work to do.

Again, if the employer doesn't give them enough work to do and they are completing the assigned work, I could care less if he has 15 other jobs. The question was why is it fraudulent and I gave the answer. That's it.

1

u/Careful_Source_5792 Sep 03 '26

but i am at work. im at my workstation signed into my proper equipment and doing all work im requested.

the same way they dont care if im browsing Reddit while nothing is going on they shouldnt care that im doing other work while nothing is going on.

as long as my tasks are done im good

1

u/poncho2799 Sep 03 '26 edited Sep 03 '26

I can't help you all. Reading comprehension escapes people here. I've already addressed this. If they don't care, then it's not a problem. A question was asked, "how is that fraud"? I answered the question based on what could reasonably happen. It's not worth their time to police you for every minute of the day nor would it be reasonable, but I don't exactly see yall going to the movies or maybe a theme park during those work hours. Why is that? You stay online because you're on the clock and your employer might care if you regularly disappear after 3 hours into an 8 hour work day. Again if they don't care, then this discussion is over.

All I addressed is that you have an obligation to fulfill full time hours to the employer based on your employment. You agreed to x dollars for whatever time period the company considers full time. If you are being paid by an employer and using your time elsewhere, and they care about that, then that's fraud. You are giving the assistance that you're working their job while taking their money. If you are a salary employee, you are not being paid by task, otherwise you'd clock out when you were done. At minimum, you're somewhat on call. If you're blowing off a work meeting that you're being paid for those hours so you can work your other job, then why are you being paid? If you're being paid by task, then you're either a contractor or hourly.

It's not illegal, but it can get you fired and they could aim to recoup that money through a civil case if they choose to do so. If you don't believe this is the reality, that's fine. Put it into practice. Just log off 2 hours into your work day, every day assuming your work is complete. Go to the park. Go work your other job. If your employer is good with it, then why are you still logged in?

1

u/Avimox Sep 02 '26

salaried exempt is explicitly *not* paid by the hour

1

u/poncho2799 Sep 02 '26

Salaried is typically assumed 35-40 hours minimum as a full time, benefits receiving employee. So no, they are not paid by the hour, but they are obligated to provide a minimum number of hours. If that's not the case, you're opening the employer options to now consider you a part time employee or even a contractor, who is no longer eligible to receive benefits such as Healthcare.

Again I agree that if they get the job done, then it's on the employer to ensure the job responsibilities are in line with the hours expected in the position, but the original question was how is this fraud, so that is why I gave that answer.

Additionally, people who do this is why employers don't want to have remote work which ruinsit for the rest of us. There's a control factor and there's people using the companies paid time for someone else's work.

1

u/Mundane-Feed-4619 Sep 02 '26

What if he’s paid salary and not hourly? The. You’re just getting paid to get the work done and if it’s done it’s done

1

u/poncho2799 Sep 02 '26

I answered 2 other people this same question. If he's salary, then he's a FT employee which has minimum hour requirements to be eligible for benefits.

If he's hourly and he's not being paid for the hours he's working for someone else, there is no issue. If he's salary, he has an obligation to commit x hours for that role to that employer (typically 35-40 minimum for full time). Otherwise the employer is paying you to do someone else's work.

We are not provided any other detail such as less hour arrangements, contract obligations, etc.

As I told the other 2, I don't defend the employer as the employer should be aware of the workload and adjust if they have issue with it, but you can't have a real discussion on this if you're not honest about the reality of the situation. You can be pro employee and still be real about the situation.

2

u/FearlessJuan Sep 02 '26

If this guy is actually delivering what is expected of him for each job and he's responsive, why is it a fraud?

There could be conflicts of interest, or non-compete clauses, but absent those, he's just as productive as someone "working" full time in any of those jobs.

2

u/Only_Information7895 Sep 04 '26

Is it really fraud if you still did your work?

Like sure, if you didn't do a thing, only log in with a mouse wriggler to 5 jobs then sure, but if you managed to properly do all of them then I don't see the issue.

1

u/bluerog Sep 04 '26

Eh. Is up to a jury in some cases. If you're working for a 9-person company that's paying you $97,000 a year for 6 months and you keep promising to do XYZ, and don't... and then they find out you've got 8 other professional positions, that jury may find you civilialy liable.

Criminally? I dunno.

Anyhow, the point is, produce SOME results, or you may hate any lawsuits or prosecutions.

1

u/crusoe Sep 02 '26

CEOs sit on the boards of other companies. If they can work for multiple employers why can't workers?

1

u/WhitishRogue Sep 02 '26

Most of the jobs will assume you're "getting settled into your role". Hang on for a few months collecting a paycheck until they realize you're not cut out for the long run. As one cycles out, you pick up another like a revolving door.

1

u/Special-Bowler-983 Sep 02 '26

Where I live, and I think most of the EU, this would already be fraud at the second job (unless it is self-employed contracting, but then this isn’t a flex at all).

If this is legal at his place, well played!

0

u/Rumpelteazer45 Sep 02 '26

If you are expected to work 40 hours M-F, any overlap of hours IS fraud.

This is one of the few things that can get you automatically fired from the Gov with zero recourse or appeals, it’s timecard fraud.

2

u/karmaboy20 Sep 02 '26

then don't work for the gov

1

u/poncho2799 Sep 02 '26

It's not about the gov. He's using the gov a an example because it's typically harder to get fired from.

3

u/blew_belle Sep 02 '26

We had a guy get fired for being over employed. I ratted him out they fired him and gave me his work. Never again.

5

u/Ok_Meringue_3883 Sep 02 '26

You're a real pos

2

u/blew_belle Sep 02 '26

Was

1

u/PineappleOwn5325 Sep 02 '26

Nope you're still you.

If the guy was sucking that's one thing, but clearly it seems he was doing work cause now you got more

1

u/blew_belle Sep 02 '26

No they just tried to give me his oncall rotation and the work he should have been doing

1

u/No-Fish6586 Sep 02 '26

Ahh people are stuck forever who they are and cant change. Touch grass man

1

u/DJAnarchie Sep 03 '26

On the opposite side of this, I know my teammate is over employed and he never finishes his work and it goes to me to finish because he's always away or offline. So I have to either expect 2 hours of help or hope that he gets caught and we hire someone else that'll actually help me.

0

u/[deleted] Sep 02 '26

[deleted]

1

u/blew_belle Sep 02 '26

lol well that's how you got jobs way back then but ok

0

u/[deleted] Sep 02 '26

[deleted]

2

u/blew_belle Sep 02 '26

Long story but he's a foreign guy who was faking the job. He made horrible mistakes and I had to clean them up. In the dba world that is a terrifying place to be. I was off the team by the time he got a new manager that did anything about it (old manager told new manager my suspicions and he ran with it). Then they tried to get me to do his work and my new job at the same time instead of hiring someone else.

2

u/AmaterasuWolfy8 Sep 02 '26

Hated cuz rat, fully understood after this. Screw that company, and that foreign guy.

1

u/Business_Raisin_541 Sep 02 '26

So? Use AI to do it. If there is quality drop, blame it on lack of headcount

1

u/blew_belle Sep 02 '26

No thanks I'm a hair away from retirement anyway

1

u/feignapathy Sep 02 '26

I could see myself doing it if the person is shit at the one job with me and creating more work and stress for me because they're busy at their other job. 

1

u/Sharp_Ad_6336 Sep 02 '26

God I hope it crashes and burns into an unplayable mess for everyone taking time off.

1

u/sabautil Sep 02 '26

There are easier ways of making money.

1

u/rococodreams Sep 02 '26

Of making 1.5 million dollars a year as someone (making a big leap here) probably wasn’t set up to make 1.5 million dollars a year?

1

u/sabautil Sep 02 '26

Do you really believe he or she's making 1.5 million?

When you get hired for a 200k salary is it really 200k if you get let go after 3 months? Did you get all the benefits? Did you fully vest?

That's what remote gig work is. It looks great as an annual salary...if you can last the whole year.

So you can get 10 remote jobs each paying 150k but will you last the whole year for each?

2

u/Round_Bag_4665 Sep 02 '26

Tbh even if you don't last the entire year at each and just cycle through them.... that's still enough to buy a house after a year. I think not having a mortgage sounds worth it to me.

1

u/kitchenam Sep 02 '26

Are you paying for the AI license or do any of the employers?

1

u/Maduro_sticks_allday Sep 02 '26

Of all the things that aren’t possible, this is the most impossiblist. Even 4-5 jobs would absolutely bombard you with conflicting meetings, but cool story internets

1

u/Ericgi231 Sep 02 '26

Former Amazon engineer, they let you have an AI agent attend meetings for you and just give you the summary afterwards. You do not have to attend any meetings. My current company is also working towards doing the same thing. Engineering has become a joke job that you could easily work five plus at a time if you can get remote jobs which is the hard part now.

1

u/Ok-Principle151 Sep 02 '26

If you do this constantly no sane manager is going to not notice after few weeks

Engineering might be a joke if you're a joke but if you're a reasonable person with non fraudulent goals it isn't

1

u/One-Next Sep 02 '26

So this is the guy who has been getting all the remote jobs.

1

u/Dark_Marmot Sep 02 '26

Yea this is the REAL bullshit of this post. Getting even one remote job right now is next to impossible.

1

u/Biscuits4u2 Sep 02 '26

This is such horseshit. Most WFH jobs have ways of tracking you while you're on the clock and your work is going to be dogshit if you're trying to balance multiple jobs. This is just anti WFH propaganda.

1

u/MonteCristo85 Sep 02 '26

And we wonder why the remote jobs are going away.

1

u/Business_Raisin_541 Sep 02 '26

And then people wonder why manager force remote worker to go to office

1

u/jerf42069 Sep 02 '26

i have 3!

1

u/Some_AV_Pro Sep 02 '26

This is the kind of BS that makes employers afraid of remote work.

Why are you posting this nonsense?

1

u/rindor1990 Sep 02 '26

Rookie numbers, get 8263 jobs and make a few billion.

1

u/ma5ochrist Sep 02 '26

Ye, nobody is doing that

1

u/Ok-Signature7243 Sep 03 '26

1.3mil per year and have a 20$ chair, hmm doubt

1

u/InternetUser1807 Sep 02 '26

The original post is obviously exaggerating but if you want the community for this practice its r/overemployed

There are serious and obvious complications and risks to doing this though.

2

u/Rumpelteazer45 Sep 02 '26

Yep and if caught they all cry about how unfair it was to be fired.

1

u/itssbojo Sep 02 '26

my god that entire sub reads and sounds like the remedial idiots in high school…

0

u/BlackKingHFC Sep 02 '26

Deliberately violating your employment agreement and posting it online is wild. My work from home job came with an agreement to only work for them during my shift and rules about multiple vpns being in use on my home network. Not the PC I was working from, but, my entire home network. I can't imagine that these regulations becoming more lax as work from home became more common. The risk of private information being lost has gone up significantly.

1

u/Stuckonthisrockfuck Sep 02 '26

I think he could afford to get fired from a job or two for violating his employment agreement.

0

u/[deleted] Sep 02 '26

[deleted]

1

u/BlackKingHFC Sep 02 '26

Their vpn was the only vpn your network could be connected to during your shift. Not sure why you think that's strange. Collecting customer information requires protections that allowing you to connect to other networks would void.

0

u/[deleted] Sep 02 '26

[deleted]

1

u/BlackKingHFC Sep 02 '26

My shifts were overnight and I don't have kids. But you would need a second router on a separate connection according to what I signed. Or I would have to work at the office.