Working full-time for two companies at once.
February 2, 2012 4:59 PM Subscribe
Working full-time for two companies at once.
I just got laid off. No worries around that -- sweet package, lots of job prospects, all good. Except...
I've never heard of layoff terms like these. As of Jan 31 I am no longer expected to show up at work. My badge is gone, my accounts closed, my cube cleaned out. However my last day of employment will be April 4. Until that time I will receive full benefits and salary. On that date I will receive the layoff package and be officially terminated.
So what do I tell HR at the companies I'm talking to right now? I've gathered that companies can be difficult about overlapping jobs. Is that a legal thing? What can I expect?
I just got laid off. No worries around that -- sweet package, lots of job prospects, all good. Except...
I've never heard of layoff terms like these. As of Jan 31 I am no longer expected to show up at work. My badge is gone, my accounts closed, my cube cleaned out. However my last day of employment will be April 4. Until that time I will receive full benefits and salary. On that date I will receive the layoff package and be officially terminated.
So what do I tell HR at the companies I'm talking to right now? I've gathered that companies can be difficult about overlapping jobs. Is that a legal thing? What can I expect?
how would they know when your "official" last day of employment would be? and why would they care as long as you are showing up and doing the work you were hired to do for them?
posted by violetk at 5:04 PM on February 2, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by violetk at 5:04 PM on February 2, 2012 [1 favorite]
Best answer: Just be careful about health insurance. You do not want double coverage if you can avoid it. It is counterintuitive, but double coverage can cause issues.
posted by crazyray at 5:07 PM on February 2, 2012
posted by crazyray at 5:07 PM on February 2, 2012
Companies only care if you're working two jobs if you start using that as an excuse for not showing up reliably. That's not a problem here. Do be careful about the health insurance thing though.
posted by bleep at 5:11 PM on February 2, 2012
posted by bleep at 5:11 PM on February 2, 2012
I would worry about it. At the very least, read the terms of this layoff package SUPER carefully. I assume that most companies have a policy that says taking another job is cause for termination. So if you took another job, then boom... they "terminate" you for real and no double pay.
Sure they might never find out but it seems risky.
posted by drjimmy11 at 5:13 PM on February 2, 2012 [3 favorites]
Sure they might never find out but it seems risky.
posted by drjimmy11 at 5:13 PM on February 2, 2012 [3 favorites]
Don't worry about it. It's just part of your severance package.
Good for you, by the way.
posted by KokuRyu at 5:14 PM on February 2, 2012 [1 favorite]
Good for you, by the way.
posted by KokuRyu at 5:14 PM on February 2, 2012 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: Just for reference, this is from a boilerplate employment contract I found on line. This is the sort of thing that concerns me, either from my "current" employer or my next one.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 5:36 PM on February 2, 2012
H. Limitation to Consultation Activities/Outside EmploymentI'm in an industry (computer networking) that loves itself some non-compete clauses. They can't enforce them where I live, but I'm pretty sure they could enforce that.
Notwithstanding paragraph 2G, EMPLOYEE shall not, without the express written consent of EMPLOYER, be interested directly or indirectly, in any manner, as a partner, officer, director, shareholder, adviser, employee, or in any other capacity in any other business similar to EMPLOYER's business or any allied trade;
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 5:36 PM on February 2, 2012
Yeah, but during the "transition" you won't be interacting in any way with your previous employer, and I'm pretty sure the terms of your severance state this.
From an ethical point of view, there is no reason for you to mention to prospective employers that you are still "employed", since there absolutely no conflict of interest as things stand.
On the other hand, is this really something to worry about? You need to find another job first.
posted by KokuRyu at 5:49 PM on February 2, 2012
From an ethical point of view, there is no reason for you to mention to prospective employers that you are still "employed", since there absolutely no conflict of interest as things stand.
On the other hand, is this really something to worry about? You need to find another job first.
posted by KokuRyu at 5:49 PM on February 2, 2012
Just another comment on health insurance. Do not let one lapse before getting the new coverage. Any gap can cause problems (Not sure if the new laws fix this, but i wouldn't fool around).
Double coverage can be a pain, but can be sorted out. No coverage can have a lasting impact.
Concerning section H, I'm sure the harshest penalty they could extract (assuming no significant monetary damage could be proven) is termination of employment - I wouldn't worry in this case...
posted by NoDef at 6:03 PM on February 2, 2012
Double coverage can be a pain, but can be sorted out. No coverage can have a lasting impact.
Concerning section H, I'm sure the harshest penalty they could extract (assuming no significant monetary damage could be proven) is termination of employment - I wouldn't worry in this case...
posted by NoDef at 6:03 PM on February 2, 2012
IF you find another job that starts before your official end date, and IF the agreement you actually signed has that non-compete language (forget some random contract you found online, what did YOU sign?), and IF you are actually that worried about it, you could contact your HR and ask them to confirm in writing that they release you from that.
But those are big ifs and I doubt it's necessary for you to do anything. NoDef is incorrect, often the impact of your old company enforcing a non-compete is that the new company doesn't want to deal with the hassle and you lose your job. However, it seems unlikely that they'd lay you off and then attempt to enforce a noncompete that only applies for a two-month period after they've revoked your badge and taken away your office.
posted by chickenmagazine at 6:32 PM on February 2, 2012
But those are big ifs and I doubt it's necessary for you to do anything. NoDef is incorrect, often the impact of your old company enforcing a non-compete is that the new company doesn't want to deal with the hassle and you lose your job. However, it seems unlikely that they'd lay you off and then attempt to enforce a noncompete that only applies for a two-month period after they've revoked your badge and taken away your office.
posted by chickenmagazine at 6:32 PM on February 2, 2012
Definitely talk to a lawyer. Just off the top of my head, I can see this playing out:
You take a job at Company B.
Company A calls you on March 31st and says, "Hey, there's this thing we need you to sign right now. Come on over."
"Geez, I'm not available right now."
"No? What, you got another job already? That's great!"
"Yeah, I did. Can I come by--"
"That puts you in violation of your contract. We're suing you and your new employer."
And then Company B fires you for getting them sued.
I'm not saying you work for a bunch of evil sons of bitches, but just in case you do, wouldn't you rather figure it out before they take off the mask?
posted by Etrigan at 6:36 PM on February 2, 2012
You take a job at Company B.
Company A calls you on March 31st and says, "Hey, there's this thing we need you to sign right now. Come on over."
"Geez, I'm not available right now."
"No? What, you got another job already? That's great!"
"Yeah, I did. Can I come by--"
"That puts you in violation of your contract. We're suing you and your new employer."
And then Company B fires you for getting them sued.
I'm not saying you work for a bunch of evil sons of bitches, but just in case you do, wouldn't you rather figure it out before they take off the mask?
posted by Etrigan at 6:36 PM on February 2, 2012
I'd probably end up in the 'don't worry about it' school, because I'm lazy. But for pure reason I've got to go with drjimmy11, above.
Ethically the whole thing is bullshit, because they've got you over a barrel.1) In order to receive your hard-earned severance, you have to agree to sit home like an apple. 2) Fuck that, no moral exercise required.
Legally they may have you, and if it comes to that you could lose. But again, you don't fall short ethically -- these assholes win and lose legal cases all the time.
But why would it come up? Aren't you discretion in motion? I'm sure you could put your head down, work hard, and not launch a blimp advertising your presence. And even if Company 1 "found you out," would they really decide to fight a legal battle over it?
Maybe I'm taking it too lightly. I don't know how tight a guild your profession is, or how big the amount in question is. I take a risk now and then. On the other hand, I see a lot good opinion here.
Good luck. Let us know how you fare.
posted by LonnieK at 6:37 PM on February 2, 2012
Ethically the whole thing is bullshit, because they've got you over a barrel.1) In order to receive your hard-earned severance, you have to agree to sit home like an apple. 2) Fuck that, no moral exercise required.
Legally they may have you, and if it comes to that you could lose. But again, you don't fall short ethically -- these assholes win and lose legal cases all the time.
But why would it come up? Aren't you discretion in motion? I'm sure you could put your head down, work hard, and not launch a blimp advertising your presence. And even if Company 1 "found you out," would they really decide to fight a legal battle over it?
Maybe I'm taking it too lightly. I don't know how tight a guild your profession is, or how big the amount in question is. I take a risk now and then. On the other hand, I see a lot good opinion here.
Good luck. Let us know how you fare.
posted by LonnieK at 6:37 PM on February 2, 2012
So a few things.
Your situation isn't necessarily strange. I had it happen to me, I worked at TechTV when it got bought by Comcast and shutdown (and basically given to G4). In this case you have what is called a "plant closing" in CA which has specific rules about how many people can be fired in a set amount of time. The April 4 is probably part of a 60 or 90 day window where notice has to be given More here about WARN What some employers do is give the 60 day notice but then tell people they don't have to show up for 60 days and then they're officially laid off. You can generally get paid out for the 60 days in lieu the notice but states vary. CA, for example, has stricter requirements then the federal WARN Act.
Legally there's no prohibition of working two jobs. What you posted is a non-compete clause - which in many instances can be difficult to enforce.
Even besides all that here's why you don't have to worry.
Companies going out of business don't give a shit about suing people they've already laid off. Etrigan's scenario while possible just makes zero sense. There's no benefit in your current company suing you, and in fact they generally don't want to piss off people they just laid off. They don't want to get hit by a shitload of nuisance employment suits. They've obviously been extremely cool in their package you getting a new job is hardly going to be something that others them.
If you get a job offer in the next few weeks tell them your situation and ask them if they'd like you to give notice at your old job. You'd lose your severance/double pay but hey its a job. Assume for a second that you take 3/4 weeks off (which I would - I mean its paid) you can always ask for an April 5th start date. Its likely to only be a few weeks away from when you actually get a job offer.
posted by bitdamaged at 7:51 PM on February 2, 2012
Your situation isn't necessarily strange. I had it happen to me, I worked at TechTV when it got bought by Comcast and shutdown (and basically given to G4). In this case you have what is called a "plant closing" in CA which has specific rules about how many people can be fired in a set amount of time. The April 4 is probably part of a 60 or 90 day window where notice has to be given More here about WARN What some employers do is give the 60 day notice but then tell people they don't have to show up for 60 days and then they're officially laid off. You can generally get paid out for the 60 days in lieu the notice but states vary. CA, for example, has stricter requirements then the federal WARN Act.
Legally there's no prohibition of working two jobs. What you posted is a non-compete clause - which in many instances can be difficult to enforce.
Even besides all that here's why you don't have to worry.
Companies going out of business don't give a shit about suing people they've already laid off. Etrigan's scenario while possible just makes zero sense. There's no benefit in your current company suing you, and in fact they generally don't want to piss off people they just laid off. They don't want to get hit by a shitload of nuisance employment suits. They've obviously been extremely cool in their package you getting a new job is hardly going to be something that others them.
If you get a job offer in the next few weeks tell them your situation and ask them if they'd like you to give notice at your old job. You'd lose your severance/double pay but hey its a job. Assume for a second that you take 3/4 weeks off (which I would - I mean its paid) you can always ask for an April 5th start date. Its likely to only be a few weeks away from when you actually get a job offer.
posted by bitdamaged at 7:51 PM on February 2, 2012
Etrigan's scenario while possible just makes zero sense. There's no benefit in your current company suing you...
They might use it as an excuse not to pay a severance package, and they probably have a lot better lawyers, especially if Company B just fired the OP for not at the very least telling them he was still technically employed somewhere else.
I'm not saying that this is definitely going to happen -- I'm just laying it out as a possibility, however remote, to demonstrate why talking to a lawyer would be a good use of an afternoon.
posted by Etrigan at 8:31 PM on February 2, 2012
They might use it as an excuse not to pay a severance package, and they probably have a lot better lawyers, especially if Company B just fired the OP for not at the very least telling them he was still technically employed somewhere else.
I'm not saying that this is definitely going to happen -- I'm just laying it out as a possibility, however remote, to demonstrate why talking to a lawyer would be a good use of an afternoon.
posted by Etrigan at 8:31 PM on February 2, 2012
Lawsuits I wouldn't worry about. But the losing the severance package thing might be a concern.
If they are somehow forced to give you the 90 days of salary by law or contract, I don't think you would have to worry about being called in for a "hey, one quick thing" day of work, since that would likely reset the counter. But the same contract or law could very well state that the company is off the hook if you find other employment.
posted by gjc at 8:52 PM on February 2, 2012
If they are somehow forced to give you the 90 days of salary by law or contract, I don't think you would have to worry about being called in for a "hey, one quick thing" day of work, since that would likely reset the counter. But the same contract or law could very well state that the company is off the hook if you find other employment.
posted by gjc at 8:52 PM on February 2, 2012
Best answer: Hm. IANAL, and I don't know anything about your company. But, I have given people packages like these, and in my situations it's been just a form of severance. I've done it for a variety of reasons: because a collective agreement required it, because employment law in a particular jurisdiction required it, and/or because it was administratively simpler for my company to keep the departing employee on the books for a period of time rather than paying them out with a lump sum, particularly if we had any reason to think their ability to maintain health insurance might be an issue otherwise. I've also seen it done where there was a possibility a departing employee might trash-talk the company, and we wanted to give them a reason not to do that. (Easier to stop a paycheque than to claw back money already given.)
I have negotiated a couple of departures where we offered to keep people on the payroll for a certain period of time, and planned to take them off if they found work before that period expired. But in those (few) instances it was always an explicit negotiation, with the employee fully in the loop.
I have never worked for an organization that wanted a former employee NOT to get another job. And, apart from the few situations I mentioned above, where it was explicitly negotiated, we would never have bothered to stop payment to a person who got work sooner than expected, even if it had been legally possible. Really, ordinarily the company will wish you the best and want everyone to move on -- they don't ordinarily care to police what you do, they don't wish you any harm, and they have lots of other things to think about.
So if I were you, I would not let this trouble you. You're free to look for another job, and to accept one. If you're asked about your employment status, I'd just say "I left X company at the end of January."
I should warn you though: I've only worked for places that are basically humane and ethical. There may be cutthroat companies out there playing HR games that I don't recognize. And, I don't know much about non-competes, and I don't know anything about problems associated with double health coverage.
Good luck!
posted by Susan PG at 12:22 AM on February 3, 2012
I have negotiated a couple of departures where we offered to keep people on the payroll for a certain period of time, and planned to take them off if they found work before that period expired. But in those (few) instances it was always an explicit negotiation, with the employee fully in the loop.
I have never worked for an organization that wanted a former employee NOT to get another job. And, apart from the few situations I mentioned above, where it was explicitly negotiated, we would never have bothered to stop payment to a person who got work sooner than expected, even if it had been legally possible. Really, ordinarily the company will wish you the best and want everyone to move on -- they don't ordinarily care to police what you do, they don't wish you any harm, and they have lots of other things to think about.
So if I were you, I would not let this trouble you. You're free to look for another job, and to accept one. If you're asked about your employment status, I'd just say "I left X company at the end of January."
I should warn you though: I've only worked for places that are basically humane and ethical. There may be cutthroat companies out there playing HR games that I don't recognize. And, I don't know much about non-competes, and I don't know anything about problems associated with double health coverage.
Good luck!
posted by Susan PG at 12:22 AM on February 3, 2012
Best answer: Gardening leave, basically. You're not expected -- or allowed -- to work but you still get paid for some time.
Be careful with this kind of clause as your package seems attached to it. Often, in lieu of non-competes, which are notoriously difficult to enforce, these layoff clauses are to prevent you from immediately moving to a competitor or acting in a new business role.
The legalese makes sense -- basically, it's presumed you will be moving on to a company within the present ecosystem. Maybe that's true, maybe it's not. Regardless, if you violate this agreement and begin work before the end of your old employment, your package will disappear and there may be additional ramifications.
In finance, these are taken very seriously. To the point where the hiring company will often not allow new staff to come into the office even for informal conversations, before the official release date.
I would be honest with the HR department at your new company. Chances are they will respect the old company's package as many companies do this, and it can be a 'code of the schoolyard' thing.
posted by nickrussell at 5:07 AM on February 8, 2012
Be careful with this kind of clause as your package seems attached to it. Often, in lieu of non-competes, which are notoriously difficult to enforce, these layoff clauses are to prevent you from immediately moving to a competitor or acting in a new business role.
The legalese makes sense -- basically, it's presumed you will be moving on to a company within the present ecosystem. Maybe that's true, maybe it's not. Regardless, if you violate this agreement and begin work before the end of your old employment, your package will disappear and there may be additional ramifications.
In finance, these are taken very seriously. To the point where the hiring company will often not allow new staff to come into the office even for informal conversations, before the official release date.
I would be honest with the HR department at your new company. Chances are they will respect the old company's package as many companies do this, and it can be a 'code of the schoolyard' thing.
posted by nickrussell at 5:07 AM on February 8, 2012
Response by poster: So just to wrap up:
I talked to a Fortune 500 multi-national type company and they were absolutely going to play it safe. I would either have to officially resign, or postpone my start date. The HR rep had actually performed layoffs with these terms himself and knew the drill.
I talked to a start-up where no one had direct experience with the situation, but a quick legal consultation determined that they couldn't care less as long as I wasn't getting myself in trouble with the existing company.
If I was doing it again I would do exactly what I ended up doing this time, which was to wait until we were discussing availability and lay it out then.
Thanks everyone for your helpful comments.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 12:20 AM on March 15, 2012
I talked to a Fortune 500 multi-national type company and they were absolutely going to play it safe. I would either have to officially resign, or postpone my start date. The HR rep had actually performed layoffs with these terms himself and knew the drill.
I talked to a start-up where no one had direct experience with the situation, but a quick legal consultation determined that they couldn't care less as long as I wasn't getting myself in trouble with the existing company.
If I was doing it again I would do exactly what I ended up doing this time, which was to wait until we were discussing availability and lay it out then.
Thanks everyone for your helpful comments.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 12:20 AM on March 15, 2012
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by downing street memo at 5:03 PM on February 2, 2012 [6 favorites]