Moonlighting

[Devin Johnston]

I've noticed that most companies don't like it when their employees do work on the side. Honestly I don't understand why it is this way, if the employee is at work when he/she is supposed to be and they do the work they are supposed to do what business is it of their employer what they do after hours. I'm taking for granted that the employees are not doing work on projects that would harm their parent company in any way. Do you believe these companies are justified in their policies or do you think they are stepping over their boundaries?

[Tommy L]

depends on the employee. Some people aint capable of working 16 hours a day, which is what moonlighting sometimes requires. An employer should expect the best out of their paid employees, not a shell of a man turning up red-eyed everyday. That said, if the performance at work is okay, then i believe the company has no grounds for complaint.

[gfa2]

I know a guy that got hired at a place with the understanding that he does side work, so they all agreed on it. But as far as I'm concerned, as long as you don't do your side work at your regular job and you still give them the best 8 hours of your day...what more could they want. Also...don't take on side jobs that would be competing with your company...ouch.

[3D_IC]

I agree with TommyL in that side jobs still have deadlines which have to be met and can push the most able artist to exhaustion both mentally (lack of sleep) and physically (sitting at a pc 16+hours a day). Two much work can seriously effect your concentration levels, quality of output and efficiency in the 9-5 job. I've seen it happen a few times and think this would be my main concern as an employer. Self control on the part of the employee can get round this, and knowing when to say no to work and yes to sleep.

 

Working on projects that are in the same city as the studio in which you work is competition, and depending on the location of the studio in which the person holds the 9-5 job, competition may be fierce, specially in small cities. Doing work over the internet for a client on the other side of the world shouldn't pose a problem.

 

Also moonlighting can create an atmosphere of miss trust between employer and employee. Stealing clients and fellow team mates to set up another company would also be a worry to the employer. I've seen this happen too!

 

If I ran a visualisation studio I would allow my employees to do freelance work, but would lay down a few basic rules so that it didn't interfere with work. Nothing wrong with earning an extra buck or two but you don't want to bite the hand that feeds you

[mbowers]

It's all about liability. As an graduate architect, i can design anything i want as long as it meets certain size and functional criteria (i am unlicensed). But what happens if i'm asked to design something that is beyond my professional liability? I could get into some serious trouble if i were to design say, a school, rather than a 2,000 sf house. What happens if something i designed would fail, people would get hurt, and possibly die? Who's going to pay for all that? Liability insurance alone costs 10's or 100's of thousands of dollars in premiums for medium to large sized firms. Obviously, i don't have 70K lying around in my home office. So who are the clients whom you've dis-serviced going to look to for that money? YOUR FIRM. That's why firms discourage 'moonlighting' and as it's been touched on...work fatigue, focus, expense and LIABILITY. Hope this helps.

[eksg]

It's all about liability. As an graduate architect, i can design anything i want as long as it meets certain size and functional criteria (i am unlicensed). But what happens if i'm asked to design something that is beyond my professional liability? I could get into some serious trouble if i were to design say, a school, rather than a 2,000 sf house. What happens if something i designed would fail, people would get hurt, and possibly die? Who's going to pay for all that? Liability insurance alone costs 10's or 100's of thousands of dollars in premiums for medium to large sized firms. Obviously, i don't have 70K lying around in my home office. So who are the clients whom you've dis-serviced going to look to for that money? YOUR FIRM. That's why firms discourage 'moonlighting' and as it's been touched on...work fatigue, focus, expense and LIABILITY. Hope this helps.

 

well..i really dont agree with this one.not on the fact that you've said,its definitely correct.but....i dont think a large project would be given to you because of the very same thing that you've said about security.and another thing is that even if you'ved design something...and it fails,i assume that you are not the architect who signed on the plans, because as you've said,you're not licenced.the architect who signed for it is responsible for the project.and one more thing,its not always on the architect or the designer's fault, it can go to the structural designer...whom it might be independent of the design firm.there are so many factors,you cannot generalize that one.

 

the reason that most companies doesnt encourage or allow moonlighting is that what our friend Toomy and the others here said that if it would affect your 8 hour work,it is a big issue.another thing is that if a designer have established his own style that anyone on our field could easily identify it,remember that you are still on the companies name,and your design would be identified on behalf of your company.by saying so... it would benefit,or destroy your companies credibility.

[Brian Cassil]

When our company was formed from a merger of two other companies we had all sorts of training on new office policies. One of them was in regards to moonlighting. In fact, their major concern was liability. It stems not from actual liability, but rather from the chance that because of one of the employees acting on their own might get sued and since that individuals own pockets may not be very deep and certainly wouldn't have any liability insurance that the lawsuit would seek out the firm they worked for only because they would have deeper pockets and probably would have liability insurance.

 

All that being said, so long as I keep extra work completely separate from anything to do with the company (time, e-mails, etc.) they do allow me to do renderings and animations on the side because the liablility in that is almost non-existent. They do not allow architects or drafters to however.

[Devin Johnston]

Good points all, but I disagree with the liability stance, if you doing work under your own name with your own resources and the job was attained with no mention of your day time firm then how can your firm be liable for anything. We're also talking about renderings and animations here; no one is going to die because my colors weren't spot on and if there is anything wrong with the work the client can always not pay. I agree that if the side work is affecting your day job then it has to stop but that would be the only reason I can see that has any legitimacy.

[Brian Cassil]

if you doing work under your own name with your own resources and the job was attained with no mention of your day time firm then how can your firm be liable for anything.

 

In reality they wouldn't be liable and the case wouldn't hold up in court, but it's the fear of being sued at all that makes employers nervous. Agian, this really pertains more to architects and drafters than renderers, which I assume is what you are getting at. I think almost every renderer I know that works for an architecture firm does work on the side. An employer would have a hard time finding anyone good to work for them if they didn't allow it.

[Brian Cassil]

Here's the simple rule my company has: If what you do is going to be used to build something from than, than it's a no-no. Otherwise it's OK. I take it your company's stance is different?

[JamesTaylor]

i don't really see how a company can stipulate that an employee can not "moonlight", the company is only employing the person for a set amount of hrs per day / per week / per year etc. Once that time is done it must be upto the employee how they utilise their free time... be it drinking, dancing or working for themselves.

 

I would view it as the responsibility being on the employee to balance private work / life with the requirements of the no. of hrs contracturally agreed to. If they get that balance wrong and the company no longer feels that the service they recieve from employee meets their requirements then they have every right to terminate the contract in accordance with contractural procedures.

 

It may be idealistic but companies should understand that employing someone is a mutally advantagous, they are recieving a service / skill set in exchange for financial payments. Equally maybe there are a few employees about who should also understand that in return for the payments they are expected to complete tasks / work required by the company.

 

I often feel that companies employ people and then feel they have bought the persons soul to use as they like.

 

Its never going to be a clear cut issue with so many factors to consider but whilst employer and employee are both benefitting from their argreement i can't see there being a problem!

[Sawyer]

I imagine employees assume that everyone will work fail, not abuse company resources, use contacts whatever. And employers assume the opposite. Now the term moonlighting implies working in simular area of employment. What if you need the money and wait tables or whatever? Bah I have found this stuff is usually fine if you are upfront about it but if you "get found out" then people get pissy.