Equifax Fires Employees for Working Two Jobs (businessinsider.com) 205
Credit-reporting giant Equifax has fired at least two dozen employees for working undisclosed jobs, and used extensive work-history records it holds on more than 100 million Americans to catch them, according to documents and interviews with people familiar with the matter. From a report: In one of the latest signs of corporate America trying to regain control of an increasingly remote workforce, CEO Mark Begor this week informed employees that some of their "teammates" were fired for having "a second full-time job while maintaining their full-time role at EFX," which is the ticker symbol for Equifax. "We expect our team to be fully dedicated to EFX and have one role â¦their job at EFX," Begor wrote in a recent company-wide email, a copy of which was obtained by Insider. "I am sure you are as disappointed as I am."
The crackdown was the result of an investigation that unfolded in recent months conducted by Equifax employees, including HR and cybersecurity, according to a document seen by Insider. Those leading the investigation combed through work histories and activity records for more than 1,000 employees and contractors, according to an Equifax employee who was not authorized to speak publicly and internal records seen by Insider. The company used various code names for its investigation, including "Project Home Alone" and "Project Page 12," according to the employee and company records. "Project Page 12" is named after the section of the company handbook that bans employees from working two jobs without approval, this person said.
The crackdown was the result of an investigation that unfolded in recent months conducted by Equifax employees, including HR and cybersecurity, according to a document seen by Insider. Those leading the investigation combed through work histories and activity records for more than 1,000 employees and contractors, according to an Equifax employee who was not authorized to speak publicly and internal records seen by Insider. The company used various code names for its investigation, including "Project Home Alone" and "Project Page 12," according to the employee and company records. "Project Page 12" is named after the section of the company handbook that bans employees from working two jobs without approval, this person said.
Their supervisors should be fired too (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Their supervisors should be fired too (Score:5, Interesting)
Because said employees were probably meeting targets.
Re: (Score:2)
Some of this might be that typical uptight mangers looking for control or just wanting to pick some victims to fire for free as suggested by "resulting in savings of $3.2 million", however:
it does look like they at least looked at performance before firing people so maybe th
Re: (Score:2)
They looked at performance as in "tool usage patterns". Not performance as in "were they successful in meeting goals set before them".
This is why I specifically stated "meeting targets" rather than "performance" in my previous post.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You are speculating with zero evidence to back up what you are saying.
I at most companies, not being logged into the VPN for huge swaths of the day would be an EXTREMELY STRONG indicator you are not doing your job. Most jobs require VPN access, most Fortune 500 companies are not 100% SaaS driven.
If my teammate was not logged into the VPN all day, they better be claiming it as a vacation day or sick day because it 100% means they were not working.
Re: Their supervisors should be fired too (Score:3, Insightful)
If being logged into a VPN is your measure of work, can I have a "job" at your company? Seriously, just log in at 8:00, log out at 17:00, and do whatever in between.
For that matter, a lot of my work can be done offline. And lots of resources (email, for example) don't require it. Sure, I use the VPN, but not all day, and some days not at all.
Re: (Score:2)
*sigh*
The point is that if you WERENT EVEN logged into the VPN, then there is nothing to even look at - fired.
No one said anything about not caring if you're doing your job.
Re: Their supervisors should be fired too (Score:3)
At my previous job, I would be logged out of the VPN for very long periods, some days not needing it at all. Basically doing software development where a lot of the time is spent reading through API documentation, stackechange for code examples, etc. Some websites that I needed were literally unreachable through the VPN, namely sites like baeldung, so to access them I'd have to disconnect. (Sites like these weren't blocked due to security policy, rather due to some obscure cloudflare problem.) The endpoint
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently, one of the targets was to not violate the terms laid out in the employee manual, which prohibited send jobs without permission.
That, by itself, justifies firing them, regardless of any other condition.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't suggest that termination was improper. I merely answered the question in context it was presented.
Re:Their supervisors should be fired too (Score:4)
Prohibiting someone from working a second job is (or should be) illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
Prohibiting someone from working a second job is (or should be) illegal.
This seems to be about holding another job without telling Equifax about it, not about the second job itself. From TFA:
Walker said the company's code of conduct, which employees are supposed to regularly review and sign off on, says staff "always need to disclose and discuss outside employment with your supervisor." That policy has been in place since 2017, she said. The employee handbook is less strict, saying only that employees are "expected to notify" their supervisors of outside work.
Every employer I've worked for has had a policy like this.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, that's none of their business. Any state with decent worker protections will not allow that.
Re: Their supervisors should be fired too (Score:2)
This is in the USA. There are no decent worker protections in this country. Any time it comes up the people who could champion it are tarred and feathered, and the divisive political indoctrination rhetoric of democrats and republicans are reinvigorated through corporate political donations.
Sad to watch political simps fight against their own best interests, but what can you do with an emotional and infantile electorate that is easily controlled with just a handful of overused scare words?
Re:Their supervisors should be fired too (Score:5, Informative)
Sorry, that's none of their business. Any state with decent worker protections will not allow that.
You're being naive; that's not how things work. First, according to many sources, all states (excluding Montana) have "at will" employment (some with limitations/exceptions) so both the employer and employee can terminate an employment relationship at any time without consequence under most circumstances. Also, many states are "Right to Work" states, meaning you don't have to join a union to work at a unionized shop. Second, if it's in the employment handbook/agreement and company policy, then that's something you've agreed to. Also, in many cases, it's absolutely the company's business if you're also working somewhere else as it may affect your work with them -- and especially if it may be a competitor and/or if you have a security clearance ...
Re: (Score:2)
have "at will" employment (some with limitations/exceptions)
You better be looking at those exceptions before throwing around insults. You're likely to be wrong, sir.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? Why do you feel that you, and only you, know what's best for other people? If the employee is OK with a non-complete, why do you get to be the tyrant to them them they don't know what's best for them?
Re: (Score:3)
Prohibiting someone from working a second job is (or should be) illegal.
I doubt it is illegal, but I would expect it to be explicitly spelled out and agreed upon as part of the job offer.
I have never worked anywhere that specifically prohibited working a second job, but I did work for one company that required disclosure of any potential conflicts explicitly including: second jobs, hobbies, and volunteer projects. Many of my co-workers had disclosures on file listing their outside activities. We were on-call often and outside activities could affect our availability.
I would l
Re: (Score:3)
No, his assumption is that all employers are literally the devil, and should be brutalized at every opportunity, and whatever money can be extracted from them should be given to him so he can buy more drugs.
Re: (Score:2)
I hope that these were not California employees, because firing them for simply have a second job would be illegal.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Also, this is kind of a BS news story. 24 people were foudn to have two jobs out of tens of thousands? I'm not surprised, but that doesn't affect anything. It's such a small percentage of their workforce that I don't think it *means* anything. How many of the 24 had secured new jobs and were about to give notice?
Regardless, even if 24 were fraudsters, it's such a tiny number that it's a big fat "who cares".
Re:Their supervisors should be fired too (Score:4, Informative)
The thing about news is that you have deadlines. You have to publish something every deadline, whether it's newsworthy or not.
Re: (Score:2)
It might be that the managers reported these folks to HR and cybersecurity for investigation on the basis that they didn’t seem to be meeting their targets.
Re: Their supervisors should be fired too (Score:3)
So how did Equifax decide who to investigate, if not reacting to lowered work performance?
I suspect those working multiple jobs likely met goals by cutting corners, for example not spending time on researching claims by individuals, instead simply approving or denying claims arbitrarily.
Remember, Equifax isn't a manufacturer, it's a credit bureau, and the vast majority of workers are measured by 'tickets closed' not producing a given number of widgets, code modules, etc.
Re: Their supervisors should be fired too (Score:2)
They probably just pulled up their credit profiles. Employment information is reported to credit agencies.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean supervisors can't win. If they focus too much on what subordinates get done, they're accused of Orwellian micromanagement. If they don't focus enough they're criticized as being out of touch.
So... Equifax used "credit" reports they collect? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm probably mistaken, but I think that's a violation of the fair credit reporting act
Hello Senator Warren?
Re: (Score:3)
The company does have a rather unique ability to have very detailed credit activity reports on their employees without having to go hire another firm to gather the data which would make this type of "spying" easier and cheap. Any company that did a background check would show up as a "soft pull" on their credit history. I'm not defending the moonlighters, but it does seem like a very aggressive abuse of their consumer financial data. You'd think the employees would have to agree to that sort of access, n
Re: (Score:2)
It SHOULD be the case that the employee explicitly agree to that kind of collection... And maybe it is.
I dunno.
As someone else said, I'm not siding with the moonlighters, just questioning the possible impropriety of this kind of seeming continuous data collection.
I know when I sign for data collection with an employer, it's a one time pull... Explicitly, as the fair credit reporting act requires... And the reporting on this looks as if they think they found a loophole by using the raw data and NOT performin
Re:So... Equifax used "credit" reports they collec (Score:4, Interesting)
Apparently not. They used work records that they get from other companies. I guess you might be able to sue the second company you were working for if they gave the data to Equifax without having the right to do that or without demanding proper protection. That likely wouldn't fly in the EU under the GDPR since the data would belong to the other company and Equifax wouldn't have the right to process that data for this purpose. As it is, they got the data from the other company with no particular restriction so they can use the data.
Re: (Score:2)
That IS data that they use to create credit reports
Re: (Score:2)
Or, like the prohibition on having a 2nd job, it's covered in the employee manual.
We don't know. But the lawyers will, so if we don't see any lawsuits over it, I'm assuming they're in the clear.
I am a genius! Oh no! (Score:2)
Of all the companies to do this with, they were working at one of the few companies that has employment status for almost everyone in the country as part of their business.
I gotta say, "Project Home Alone" was a great name they picked for this, since you know they were working both jobs as WFH.
Re: I am a genius! Oh no! (Score:2)
one of the few companies that has employment status for almost everyone in the country
It's a shame these poor people can't work those second jobs as contractors. That loophole seems to have been lost when Uber drivers fought for their status as employees. And states and snoopy employers happily went along.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Equifax seems to demand desperate optionless subjugates for it's employee base. Probably because they are less likely to speak up when mistreated."
No different than any other company. Why do you think H1Bs are so popular. Why are illegals so popular. And why do we have employers providing health insurance? Companies should be screaming to get employee health coverage off their books. They are not, so they get some benefit greater than the cost of providing health insurance for their money. Desperate Option
Re: An employee's with backup income.. (Score:2)
They violated stated company policy, "Section 12" of the employee handbook as noted in the summary.
Great payoff there guys (Score:2)
The ROI on this is goin
At least... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: At least... (Score:2)
Nice, good point.
How dare they ⦠(Score:2)
⦠work 80 hours/week and be paid for 80 hours! That means they didnâ(TM)t have enough time to dedicate 40 hours for free
Re: (Score:2)
The difficulty being, according to the article, they were not, in fact, working 80 hours a week. They were working significantly less than that, while being paid for 80 hours, and not getting 80 hours of work done.
Criminal behaviour (Score:2)
Re: Criminal behaviour (Score:2)
I suspect Equifax has lawyers that researched this and disagree with your opinion.
What I do on my own time is my own business. (Score:2)
Unless they signed agreements otherwise, Equifax is in right-to-work states. Fundamentally, Equifax can be in an actionable position for doing something dumb. That being said in a right-to-work state you can be fired without cause as well so that should be a lesson to legislators who back these kinds of laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless they signed agreements otherwise, Equifax is in right-to-work states. Fundamentally, Equifax can be in an actionable position for doing something dumb..
Right to work [wikipedia.org] is about an employee's right to work without having joining the union that their coworkers are in. It's not about a right to work somewhere else. From the wikipedia page:
Unlike the human rights definition in international law, U.S. right-to-work laws do not aim to provide a general guarantee of employment to people seeking work but, rather, guarantee an employee's choice of being a member of (and financially supporting) collective bargaining organizations (unions).
Re: What I do on my own time is my own business. (Score:2)
Would you change your tune if you learned they were clocked into both jobs at the same time? Is there a reason you don't consider that possibility?
This actually needs to happen more⦠(Score:2)
Hypocrisy at its finest... (Score:2)
Re: Hypocrisy at its finest... (Score:2)
Since you're Using quotes, I'd love a citation - got one, or do you not understand the proper use of quotation marks?
undisclosed jobs and work history? (Score:2)
undisclosed jobs and work history?
don't most people not list each job on there resume?
and let's say you work on job and say do part time at an place like Mc'd part time some people may not list that on there resume or in SOME ATS systems it may not let you list 2 jobs at the same.
Re: undisclosed jobs and work history? (Score:2)
The jobs were concurrent, not sequential - tgey didn't disclose their second full time job while working at Equifax.
People can lose jobs for lying on their application, not sure a lie/omission on a resume is grounds for termination.
contractors??? if you are an real 1099'er (Score:3)
contractors??? if you are an real 1099'er then they can't say that you can only work for us as under IRS rules that makes you W2
Re: (Score:2)
Did you know the Biden Administration is trying to push through a revised rule that makes it much more difficult to classify "contract employees" as contract employees?
https://www.reuters.com/world/... [reuters.com] https://www.reuters.com/market... [reuters.com] https://www.reuters.com/legal/... [reuters.com]
Only Two Dozen? (Score:2)
Personal Experience with Equifax (Score:3)
My current manager is on the beach half the day walking and taking meetings since covid started. He is on the VPN all day long, but teams has removed the leash that lyncc and notes was. His role is just to talk and read emails and release engineers and operations folks to do things. He talks effectivly in his leadership. Reading technical emails with graphs and diagrams not so much. I get many more comments from him via email when his beach in Florida is dark or rainy. The effect on him is much less than the former manager with a substance problems and local law enforcement issues at home. Or the one who got married and had a kid while managing a expanding department. Ultimately the department gets more work out him than any former manager while he is walking the beach.
Some roles are not time dependent, not location dependent, if those positions that people were double dipping on were the most productive this would have never hit the press. An action plan would have been formed and the employee suitably compensated for his/her 40+ hours or a departure plan made. Oh wait, this is the same Equifax that is constantly shopping Chicago based IT positions, giving off all the wrong signals at blah pay, with record levels of bullshit for review on glassdoor. The same company I interviewed with 5 times in 2 years during 2008-2010 and could never come to work terms that were suitable. Never mind....Equifax surely just fired some of their most productive employees and gave some corporate trolls raises and titles.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm. Consider working for Facebook versus working for Equifax, which would suck less?
It's tough rating one above or below the other. This question presents one with a conundrum.
Wrong criteria (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If someone can work two jobs and still be more productive than the average team member, why should companies have a problem with it?
A company might not have a problem with it. The issue isn't working a second job, it's working a second job without disclosing it and getting permission from the company that it is okay (and more importantly not a conflict of interest). In this particular company (and pretty much every large company), there are policies (conditions of employment) that require disclosure and permission to work a second job. This policy was violated and the employees were fired.
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
That probably wouldn't fly under the GDPR.
Bit torn about this. I mean lots of Americans pretty clearly voted against privacy and that failure messes us all over, even if we don't live there, on the other hand both parties in the US are pretty much right wing corporate types that believe in the power of companies over people, even if there are maybe a few Democrats than Republicans pushing for privacy laws, so they didn't have that much choice.
do their employment contracts say that working two jobs isn't allowed? If
In this case the article says yes. They signed non-compete agreements. However that shouldn't be an issue i
non-compete agreements are limited and can't be an (Score:2)
non-compete agreements are limited and can't be any job.
jimmy john's tried that with an non-compete that more less said you can't work for just about any other fast food place and they got smacked down very hard.
Re: (Score:2)
do their employment contracts say that working two jobs isn't allowed?
Many employment contracts prohibit undisclosed 2nd jobs.
If not, hello wrongful termination suits.
Except for Montana, "at-will" employment is the default in America. Employees can be terminated for any reason or no reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Employees can be terminated for any reason or no reason.
Except those reasons specifically prohibited, relating to protected classes.
Re: Hmmm (Score:3)
"At-will" is such a bs policy.
Like that time I got fired for violating a NDA that I hadn't been told about much less asked to sign. But if an employee doesn't give 2 weeks, they get badmouthed to their next job.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Though do their employment contracts say that working two jobs isn't allowed? If not, hello wrongful termination suits.
If they have contracts, those contracts will generally have a standard provision about working a 2nd job. Most of them will not allow it. Most jobs, however, are "at-will" which have no contracts and employees can be fired for any reason that do not violate existing laws like discrimination laws. Fired for wearing a tie the boss does not like is legal.
Re: Hmmm (Score:2)
Though do their employment contracts say that working two jobs isn't allowed? If not, hello wrongful termination suits.
It is in Section 12 of the employee handbook, as pointed out in the summary, which, I guess, you couldn't be bothered to read before responding...
Re: (Score:2)
"Thou shalt have no other gods before Me - I mean, jobs."
Thou shalt have no other gods before Jobs--the Apple motto.
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, there should be little regulation about what an employee does off the clock of their employer's work hours.
This level of micromanagement is excessive.
I have worked multiple jobs in the past and never did I seek prior approval. Most of my bosses were aware. I made certain that I was still able to complete my work related tasks.
This is just corporate control over the individual that is ridiculously excessive and needs to be stopped.
Re:Good (Score:4, Interesting)
I think "off the clock" is key here. You can't work a second fulltime job without overlap, meaning at some point you were charging one or both your employers for hours you were not working for them. That is fraud, and they are lucky not to be charged.
Re: (Score:2)
Can't you? Say you put in your standard workweek for Equifax, then throw in two 10-hour days at your side job every weekend. You then only need to clock in 4 hours extra per weekday to hit 40 hours on the second job. You won't have much of a personal life but there isn't necessarily overlap. Especially if one of the jobs is remote work for a company in another time zone, or is the kind of thing that can be done on your own schedule, nothing at all prevents someone from putting in the hours outside of Equifa
Re: (Score:2)
In a country that lionizes hustle and small business, how is some schmuck supposed to get ahead? If I work my 40, and only get paid for 40, the other 128 hours a week should be mine. If you want to control what I do in those other hours pay me OT for them. I see nothing wrong morally with working a second job, especially in a work world where making ends meet is often not possible on the crumbs many workers get paid. If I want to work a part time gig on the side it should only be the business of my empl
Re: (Score:2)
You are talking about the FLSA, and pretty much any "white collar" work can be categorized as FLSA exempt (meaning no OT for over 40 hours if the business doesn't want).
I have never been a manager/supervisor/in charge of anyone other than myself but have managed to be FLSA exempt my entire career (12 different jobs, 3 employers) and never made a penny of overtime. Always either earned "comp time" or was paid straight pay.
Re:Good (Score:4, Informative)
Honestly, there should be little regulation about what an employee does off the clock of their employer's work hours.
Since one of the motivations to perform the investigation was employees who were not, in fact, available during work hours, your comment does not apply.
Re: Good (Score:2)
Honestly, there should be little regulation about what an employee does off the clock of their employer's work hours.
This level of micromanagement is excessive.
You are making an assumption that these employees were not simultaneously "clocked in" to both jobs, then basing your support for them on this assumption.
It is hard to argue that an employee that works 16 of every 24 hours/day is really bringing their "A Game" to their jobs - I've worked a full and part-time job (sequentially) and that was a grind, but doable. I doubt that working two 8 hour jobs leaves a worker enough time to 'recharge' between shifts.
Re: Good (Score:2)
So long as there's no conflict of interest and you're fulfilling your duties, why is it any of the companyâ(TM)s business what you do legally in your personal time?
Re: (Score:2)
So long as there's no conflict of interest and you're fulfilling your duties, why is it any of the company's business what you do legally in your personal time?
Because your definition of conflict of interest might be different than the company's.
Granted, some job types and cases may be clear. If your job is to perform physical labor or highly specific tasks (such as working on an assembly line, being a cashier, or a non-management position in a restaurant), that work is unlikely to be a conflict of interest with a second job where you are also punching a clock. If on the other hand, your job is to be an information worker, a manager, or a position where you are re
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Good (Score:2)
You assume they weren't doing two jobs simultaneously, and the employee handbook (Section 12) explicitly says working two jobs can be grounds for termination.
Re: (Score:2)
Such firings should not cause outrage as well.
May I feel outraged for the fact the company: a) is allowed to have such a rule; b) is allowed to enforce such a rule; c) isn't forced to live under though, severe, crippling rules that causes its shareholders, its executives, and the company itself, the same level of anguish, despair and suffering their mistreated employees go through while working there and when at-will fired from there, such top-brass anguish, despair and suffering kept up for as long as the top-brass keeps said mistreatment of employees
Re: Good (Score:2)
Go ahead, feel outraged - that's your right - but remember they agreed to this policy when they accepted the job they were offered...
I have never heard of anyone being 'forced' or in any way 'required' to work at Equifax.
Re: (Score:3)
I have never heard of anyone being 'forced' or in any way 'required' to work at Equifax.
Of course not. They're free. They have choices. For example, they can choose between working at Equifax, or staying unemployed for months. If they freely chose the latter, then they can choose between paying the rent, or paying a sudden medical bill or food and becoming homeless. If they freely choose to become homeless, they then have the choice of sleeping in this street, or that one.
Isn't having so much choice an amazing thing? Ahh, the American Dream!
Re: Good (Score:2)
Re: Good (Score:2)
What are you basing this 'after-hours' or 'on their own time' argument on? That claim is not supported by the fine summary.
Re: (Score:2)
It's good that they were fired. They were in violation of their conditions of employment...
The problem with that is it's trying to govern things Outside the Employer/Employee relationship they Don't really have a right to just do.
And the "Company handbook" is typically not included in job listings and not part of agreement for their hiring, The handbook is not the employment contract, But is presented much later, E.g. on the first day of work / during Initial training and onboarding... Handbook's a
what you where up front in the interview about sid (Score:2)
what you where up front in the interview about side work and they where ok with it and then they can't hand an Handbook saying you can't do that right?
Re: (Score:2)
I think this is a better accounting of the factors. The OP is correct, but can't be if the employee doesn't know all the rules yet.
Seems to me that the right thing to do would be: after learning of the manual, to read it, and if you intend on violating it, let your employer know and see what may come. Perhaps a negotiation might ensue. More likely, you would be shown the door. This is also appropriate. Personally, I would offer to resign as an option on the table along with any other factors that mi
Re: Good (Score:2)
So if they say you can't get pregnant or you'll be fired that's ok? They can put whatever they want in the handbook, but most of it isn't actually enforceable.
Re: Not Good (Score:2)
Some "conditions of employment" are unethical, wrong, and even illegal. These types of conditions certainly don't serve the best interest of the employee.
A software company added a clause to their EULA requiring that users give up their firstborn child, just to make a point. Just because it's in the agreement, doesn't make it right or reasonable.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-p... [arstechnica.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Some "conditions of employment" are unethical, wrong, and even illegal.
That may be the case. The question here however, is if a requirement to disclose to your employer and to and get permission to work a second full time position is "unethical, wrong, or illegal". In my opinion such a requirement is ethical, correct, and while I am not a lawyer, probably legal. I also feel that for certain kinds of work, especially jobs were you are paid to think instead of being paid to perform manual labor, not disclosing a second job is unethical.
Your opinion may be different, and you are
Re: (Score:2)
implying that some conditions of employment or elements of a contract being bad would invalidate all conditions of employment or elements of a contract is kind of a weak argument
This is a straw man, and it's not what I said. No one would say that one invalid clause would invalidate all. But one invalid clause would indeed invalidate the one invalid clause.
Some states do allow employers to place restrictions on where else employees can work. But 27 US states have "right-to-work" laws, which invalidate these clauses. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] In these states, such restrictions are unenforceable, and they should be unenforceable in all states, IMO. There are constitutional arg
Re: (Score:2)
In the context of labor law in the United States, the term "right-to-work laws" refers to state laws that prohibit union security agreements between employers and labor unions which require employees who are not union members to contribute to the costs of union representation. Unlike the human rights definition in international law, U.S. right-to-work laws do not aim to provide a general guarantee of employment to people seeking work but, rather, guarantee an employee's choice of being a member of (and financially supporting) collective bargaining organizations (unions).
Re: (Score:3)
They already pretty much do...
Re: Burying the lead (Score:3)
They give it away for free every year or 2 with data breeches.
Re: Burying the lead (Score:2)
Yeah, isn't that their business model?
Re: (Score:3)
You do realize every decent sized company has this stipulation, don't you? Even the government has this. If you want to have outside employment you are required to run it by HR/Legal to verify there are no conflicts of interest. Not doing so will get you fired.
It's not that the people were working a second job, it's that they didn't disclose it and get approval.
Re: Good for them (Score:2)
Quick, go down the hall to your company's president/CEO and ask him/her if it's OK for you to work a second full-time job, then ask if it's OK if those two full-time jobs overlap (so you're working both at the same time for some portion of the day), as long as you are meeting expectations.
I suspect you'll find your company is just as scummy and will quickly resign.
Re: Increase salary (Score:2)
What a non-sensical response - they were opportunists that exploited the lax oversight of 'working' from home and violated a stated company policy against working a second job.
This has nothing to do with Uber or the gig economy, they worked two jobs simultaneously, not sequentially (there's no evidence Equifax terminated employees for driving an Uber or DoorDash after ending their shift working for Equifax.