"No Moonlighting" clause advice needed...

April 1, 2006 7:42 PM

How do I keep from falling afoul of a "no moonlighting without permission" clause in my employee handbook?

I currently work as a full-time, salaried employee of a medium-size corporation. In my employee handbook, there is a clause that says, in a nutshell, "No moonlighting without advance written permission from HR and your departmental VP."

In the 5 or so years that I've worked for this company, this clause wasn't something I had to worry about. Recently, however, I've decided that I want to write a book. The book I'd like to write will cover techie-type stuff, will be directly related to the work I do for this company, and peripherally related to the company's primary business activity.

For what it's worth, I intend to do all my research and writing on my own time, on my own computers.

What I'm afraid of is this: if I ask permission to begin writing this book, one of the more paranoid types in the corporate chain may decide that my request is an indication that I'm about to start looking for work elsewhere. Having a publication credit is a substantial resume enhancer, of course, so this fear wouldn't be entirely groundless. Also, this company (and my department in particular) has a history of firing employees that they believe are looking elsewhere, and our at-will employment status makes that perfectly legal.

My question for all of you is: What's the best way to bring this up with HR? I have a good working relationship with the HR director, but I think this is probably something that must be handled very gently. I tend to be very blunt-spoken, and more than a bit of a bull in a china shop when it comes to handling sensitive matters.

posted by deadmessenger to Work & Money (14 answers total)

You have two options:

1. Don't mention it. You're doing it on your time, with your own computer.

2. See above.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:53 PM on April 1, 2006

What's the best way to bring this up with HR?

i wouldn't ... it's not moonlighting until you've got a contract with a publisher ... before that happens, it's just a hobby ... between the time you have that contract and the time the book actually comes out, you should have plenty of time to get your resume in order and line up another job
posted by pyramid termite at 7:56 PM on April 1, 2006

Unless the company is going to pay you for 168 hours per week, they don't own you outside of working hours. Ignore the handbook.

There are very many employers that would actively encourage such endeavors. If yours wouldn't, that says nothing good about them. Your company sounds like a real 'winner'.
posted by jellicle at 8:21 PM on April 1, 2006

I don't think writing a book falls within the "no moonlighting" provision. Moonlighting, as typically understood in employment agreements, involves having a job where you have another employer, and (usually) are physically present at another workplace.

On your exacting interpretation, the "no moonlighting" provision would bar all kinds of personal endeavors that people do on their own time.
posted by jayder at 8:36 PM on April 1, 2006

A clause in my employee handbook once upon a time stated that the copyright for any publication whose subject matter was related to the firm's activities was assignable to the firm. You may or may not have this clause somewhere. But be very, very careful. And this goes without saying, but comb your book carefully for anything that might, directly or indirectly, in any miniscule amount of high or low importance, reflect on data that your employer deems proprietary.

Getting fired sucks. Getting fired, being sued for your book proceeds, and being sued for additional damages sucks more. If you're serious about writing the book, consider quitting your job and selling your services as an independent contractor.
posted by Saucy Intruder at 9:48 PM on April 1, 2006

It is easier to get forgiveness than permission.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 11:04 PM on April 1, 2006

what b1tr0t said.
posted by I Love Tacos at 12:39 AM on April 2, 2006

What bitrOt said, deux.

'No moonlighting' clauses exist for two reasons: to ensure that there is no conflict of interest (as determined by the company) and to ensure that the company's intellectual property is protected. Your project sounds like it could be construed as both, and if the subject matter of the book is in any way even tangentially related to the work your employers are paying you to do, you will need permission.

When you discuss it with your managers, ignore your fear that they'll think you're looking for work elsewhere - pitch it as something that will bring esteem to the company as well as yourself (if a publication looks good on your CV, it looks just as good mentioned in company promotional literature/website etc), and will increase your skills and knowledge in your field. You need to make it sound like a winning situation for all parties.

My partner has done this just recently - he wrote to his HR manager (he works for a Tech 100 company) outlining a proposal for a program he wanted to write (and eventually make money from) using the company's software (a very widely distributed, popular program). He was given all their blessings and two hours per week of company time in which to work on it.

It is easier to get forgiveness than permission.

Just, no. I can't see how this is good advice in any situation.
posted by goo at 4:17 AM on April 2, 2006

Intersting advice b1tr0t. Hopefully the original poster will let us know what he does and how it goes.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:26 AM on April 2, 2006

I see deadmessenger has made his decision, by picking best answers; but it's still the wrong decision. The essential hallmark of a certain type of bad employer has been nailed in deadmessenger's posting - preemptive firing of anyone they suspect might be looking for work. Bitrot's and goo's advice is going to get deadmessenger fired, before the book is even written, or, worse in my opinion, he's going to go to the company and they're going to say, "No, you can't write this book", and then what's he going to do? At that point he either writes the book (guaranteeing loss of employment), or he doesn't, (guaranteeing loss of dreams), and the world is poorer for it either way.

No, you don't need permission if you write a book "in any way even tangentially related" to your employment. Please. Slavery is so 1860's. Deadmessenger has NOT said "I'm going to write a book listing lots of company secrets", and I don't suppose he intends to do so.

Bitrot's and goo's advice is predicated on the notion that deadmessenger works for a good company. Basically they're saying "throw yourself upon the mercy of the company and it will all come up roses". Deadmessenger has explicitly said that he doesn't work for a good company. Their advice is not correct.
posted by jellicle at 8:59 AM on April 2, 2006

jellicle: even at a bad company, the idea can be pitched in a very positive way. It doesn't have to jeopardize the job.

Your advice would land the poster in a world of legal trouble with no reward whatsoever.
posted by I Love Tacos at 9:13 AM on April 2, 2006

Jellicle: I appreciate your comment. However, I never said that I don't work for a good company - in fact, it's a great place to work, and I have no plans to leave. However, they do take trade secrets and non-competition VERY seriously - that's why they fire employees that are looking elsewhere, because this company has been burned to a crisp in the past with key people leaving and taking trade secrets with them. Although I don't necessarily agree with the way they enforce that policy, that doesn't outweigh the rest of the things that make it the best place I've ever worked.

Also, you mention that I don't need permission even if it's tangentially related to my employment. I think the issue here is whether it's tangentially related to the company's *primary line of business*, which my book would be. That's called non-competition, and again, this company has a history of aggressively enforcing the non-compete clause in our employment contracts.

To address your earlier comment, that they don't own me, and they're not paying me 168 hours per week: Yes, they are. That's what being a salaried employee is all about. By paying me a fixed annual salary, they are entitled to "first dibs" on my time and my ideas. It's not slavery, either, because I am free to leave at any time, with no further obligation to them.

I was simply seeking advice on how to both share my ideas and keep my job. I thought b1tr0t and goo did the best job of giving that advice, thus I marked them as "best answer".
posted by deadmessenger at 9:52 AM on April 2, 2006

If you cared to follow up to this thread after you make your pitch to your employers, I think we'd be very interested to learn how it went.
posted by ikkyu2 at 2:09 PM on April 2, 2006

brandon, and ikkyu2: You bet - once this all shakes out, I'll follow up. However, I've decided to invest in a little bit of professional advice first, from a labor attorney (an endangered species here in Georgia, for sure) . I figure the hundred bucks or so that I'll shell out will be worth it if it keeps me from making a mistake that costs me my job.

Thanks to all who responded...
posted by deadmessenger at 4:10 PM on April 2, 2006