Part time working and second jobs

 

           I thought the Mail was wrong to write an article recently condemning some police employees for having second jobs. It is quite common for people working shifts to have second jobs that they fit around the demands of their main occupation. Many in the fire brigade, or working for airlines do just the same.  Those enterprising police who do something else supplement their family incomes. They pay more tax, making a larger contribution to society. They share their second skill or enthusiaism with the public, or they carry out tasks that need doing that do not prevent them being alert and good officers for the day job. If your main job is only 40 hours out of a 168 hour week you should have options for the remaining 128 hours.

          Employees who do second jobs have made a decision about how they wish to spend their time that can  best be understood if we use yesterday’s distinction between paid for work and unpaid for work. If a policeman wants to earn more so he has more help at home with the  DIY or better holidays , who is to say he is wrong?

         I assume those who disagree think that the second job takes up too much energy of the individual, limiting their ability to do their main job. This is something which the employer can best judge by looking at results. Employers should not control how employees use their time away from their work contract, other than to avoid conflicts of interest.  Let us consider four different employees turning up for their day jobs to their private sector employer. (I am not now talking about the police).

            Ruth has a second job. She has set up her own dog grooming and dog walking business. She takes on animals for care and treatment at week-ends and in the evenings to earn extra money and because she loves animals. She always arrives at her main employer’s premises on time at 9 am. She also leaves promptly at 5pm to get back to her home and her other life. She feels she needs to offer good value for money and hard work when she is at her employer’s, and has a good record as an employee. She is saving for a bigger house,, and has delayed having a family until she has the property she wants.

          Christine is a single mother. She is also a good worker, but she often finds she has to ring in and say she cannot make it on time because the school run has delayed her, or because her young son needs to be taken to the doctors as he is sick. She finds juggling the demands of being  a good mum and an employee  are difficult. She always tries to make up any time lost for the employer, who is understanding.

          Geoff is a single 55 year old who is no longer in the best of health. He finds it difficult to sleep at nights. He often stays up watching football or late night movies. He likes to drink beer to keep him company when watching the tv. The next morning he is often below his best when he gets up. He is regularly late in to work, though tends to stay on late for a bit of company. His employer is not happy with his work rate or achievement, but is concerned about unfair dismissal legislation so has not done anything.

          George is an energetic 35 year old who can be a bit slapdash at work. He only does the job for the money, and is always talking and thinking about what he will do the minute he can get out of the workplace. He is busily building his own extension to his home. He rushes out at lunchtime to buy the materials he needs for the next week-end build. He also is a keen cyclist who likes to go off for long road runs. Sometimes when they are sponsored for charity he persuades the employer to let him go in firm’s time. He calls in sick  some Mondays or Fridays, as he  says he is giving himself a bad back from the building work he is doing.

          The question I have today is who is the best and the worst employee? There are many  excellent male employees, but in these examples I was more criticial of  the men  than the women in  common with the modern style.   Are second jobs always a bad idea, or can they be the sign of someone who is energetic and determined to do well?  Is  someone who spends a lot of his time on lesiure activities like watching sport and drinking necessarily going to be in better shape to tackle the challenges of the working day? Have you got some more types to introduce to liven up the discussion? (No named real people please)

 

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

74 Comments

  1. Cerberus32
    Posted January 15, 2013 at 6:33 am | Permalink

    “There needs to be a balance between work, living and leisure. Such a holistic approach to life will heal the false dichotomy between life, work and leisure that originated in the Protestant work ethic.” Quote from Hugh Marlow, Management Consultant. 40 hours a week is enough time spent at work though I appreciate that sometimes needs must.

    • zorro
      Posted January 15, 2013 at 8:30 pm | Permalink

      168 hours in a week…….40 hours on work…….10 hours on travel to and from work…..56 hours sleeping (including weekends)……5 hours for breakfast and getting up/ready in the morning….5 hours for preparing /eating dinner in the evening……32 hours on your days off (if you get two in a week) when not sleeping to do things. That leaves you with approx 4 hours to do something else on your work days….If you work 12 hours a day, then no time at all…..

      It all depends what work you do in life and if you can enjoy it…..

      zorro

    • libertarian
      Posted January 15, 2013 at 10:45 pm | Permalink

      Cerberus

      You haven’t really thought this through. I regularly work 12 sometimes 18 hour days. I love it, I really enjoy my work, its also my hobby and my social life.

    • A different Simon
      Posted January 16, 2013 at 12:10 am | Permalink

      John ,

      “If a policeman wants to earn more so he has more help at home with the DIY or better holidays” .

      THIS IS THE BIG FALLACY JOHN .

      When the norm was that Mothers stayed at home , when a Mother took work the family was better off .

      Eventually , it became the norm that the Mother did not stay at home and went out to work .

      Conventional wisdom would suggest that the family should have become better off but what we witnessed is that it became worse off !

      When the norm becomes that people have multiple jobs what is to say that they will not be worse off again ?

      The point of diminishing returns has clearly been passed so where does it stop – and what happens when both parents working 24X7X52 is insufficient ?

      If one analyses this on a supply and demand basis we shouldn’t be surprised . Added to that the “lump of labour” theory turns out to be true .

      Extending the retirement age to 68 is just another example . All the contingencies have been used up – there is no option left other than to address the underlying problems .

      • A different Simon
        Posted January 16, 2013 at 12:48 am | Permalink

        Forgive me for labouring the point about contingencies :-

        When one parent worked there was the contingency that the other parent could take on some work .

        When the cost of living requires both parents to work what used to be known as FULL TIME , the only contingency is taking on a second job .

        If one parent becomes ill the stack of cards falls down .

        What happens when the cost of living adjusts up to the average couple requiring multiple jobs ?

        • Conrad Jones (Cheam)
          Posted January 17, 2013 at 10:29 pm | Permalink

          Totally agree.

          This has been studied by Professor Elizabeth Warren and her findings match exactly what you are saying.

          Elizabeth Warren was previously a Harvard Law School professor specializing in bankruptcy law and wondered why so many Families and now struggling to make ends meet. She found out and a lecture of hers at Berkeley University is available on YouTube.

  2. Mike Stallard
    Posted January 15, 2013 at 6:38 am | Permalink

    Yesterday in Wisbech, Cambs, a retired school teacher told me that she had spent the afternoon in our Centre listening to a Lithuanian immigrant with two young children. The children were “starving” and she fed them.
    The mother was very thin and worried sick because the landlord kept making demands on her to pay more and more rent. She lives in a one room apartment, shared toilet and bathroom, no kitchen. No husband was around. She didn’t tell us about the heating.
    Now, and this is what the schoolteacher told me, the Lithuanian woman is about to be evicted, with her two children, into the snow.
    After three hours negotiating with the Centre lawyer (who works for free when not doing criminal law) and the Police, the retired schoolteacher told the Lithuanian woman to stay put in her apartment because under the law (which law?) she cannot be evicted like that.
    Ever seen the Victorian picture of the mother being evicted into the snow?
    Well, it could not happen here……….

    • Wilko
      Posted January 15, 2013 at 9:58 am | Permalink

      The landlord might seem like an ogre, or perhaps he or she is near poverty and merely attempting to obtain a modest but long-overdue debt. Many other or contrasting circumstances might apply.

      People & Govts tend to be compassionate, yet if the entire population of the EU is entitled to choose the UK as its home, consequences can extend beyond what can be solved.

      Everyone is free to make decisions, including the hundreds of decisions compounding into the situations the Lithuanian immigrant, landlord and teacher each found themselves dissatisfied with.

    • Timaction
      Posted January 15, 2013 at 10:53 am | Permalink

      Mr Redwood forgetting the spin, the Government has cut the average salary (pay and allowances) of a Police Constable (plus all other ranks) on average by £5000 a year. On top of that they have had a 2 year pay freeze already and have had another 2 years imposed on them (4 years total). In addition their pension contributions have risen to a contribution of 13.7% of pay (from existing 11%) whilst they are now expected to work until they are at least 55 (currently working) if not 60-65 (new recruits) in most cases for CPI enhanced pension NOT RPI. 1/55 or 57th annual accrual. The starting salary is £19000 per year for 24 hour shift work, unsocial hours on all Bank holidays and overtime at the drop of a hat when the need arises regardless of family commitments. The Bank holiday and overtime payments have also had draconian cuts. Sickness pensions have been taken away for those injured in the course of their duty e.g. shot, stabbed, seriously injured etc. So don’t expect them to race to your aid in the future when they have their own families to consider. Wonder why they’re not happy with Government? In many cases they can’t survive now without the second job. All bills going up but not their salaries!
      Oh, remind me how MPs’ pension reforms are going over 2.5 years into this Government? We’re all in this together.
      With 75% of all laws now made by our masters in Brussels why do we need 650. 250 at most would suffice even if we brought back democracy to this Country.

      Reply Conservatives are trying to cut the numbers of MPs – it’s called the Boundary Review – b ut Lib Dems and Labour are now blocking it. The contribution rate to the MP scheme has been twice raised, and the whole scheme will be changed for the next Parliament. The timing of this and the details are settled by an independent body, not by the MPs.

    • s macdonald
      Posted January 15, 2013 at 3:27 pm | Permalink

      I appreciate this is slightly going off topic, but why is the UK allowing in immigrants with no financial backing and no job to go to?

      • lifelogic
        Posted January 16, 2013 at 10:20 am | Permalink

        Because the EU forces them to and the MPs put up with it.

    • lifelogic
      Posted January 15, 2013 at 5:08 pm | Permalink

      They cannot evict without a court order. But then landlords are not charities they have debts to pay too. If they do not get the rent and pay the mortgages she will be evicted anyway when the bank steps in. If she honestly cannot pay the rent it clearly falls on the state sector and what they wish to provide for such families or not.

      • Bazman
        Posted January 16, 2013 at 12:52 pm | Permalink

        Will she in some way become more incentivised after being evicted into the snow from her one room, no kitchen, shared toilet luxury apartment?

    • Max Dunbar
      Posted January 15, 2013 at 10:46 pm | Permalink

      If you become a landlord then dont expect the law to be impartial. It will always look favourably on the tenant. In effect, the state can foist what most normal people would expect to be purely government social and financial responsibility onto the shoulders of another individual. This meant that at its most draconian, prior to the 1988 rent act, you could lose half the capital value of you property at one stroke. The law improved dramatically under Thatcher but renting out property is still a minefield for the unwary

  3. margaret brandreth-j
    Posted January 15, 2013 at 6:38 am | Permalink

    You put your finger on it by asking the question . Of course, individual circumstances , physical and intellectual make up come into play .I have done my job all my life and probably will able to carry out procedures and work in half the time without as much energy ( despite ageist comments) .The buzz phrases of the last decade have become work /life. balance. Which is which . Isn’t time spent working peoples life? Isn’t lesisure sometimes more arduous.? Main jobs can be 12 hours per week supplemented by 30 others!
    The problem is the inability to think out of boxes and see productive work . If it does not fit into mainstream policy , which is usually lagging behind the more productive by about 10 years , then it confuses the powers that be and they have to change direction to save face.
    The police however, perhaps more than any other, have a duty to (behave well)

  4. Electro-Kevin
    Posted January 15, 2013 at 6:40 am | Permalink

    The police have absolutely no problem with a working WPC being a mum to small children. In fact they encourage and provide for it.

    There can’t be anything more demanding, exhausting or distracting from the matter of police work than that. That caring for children between shifts is unpaid work doesn’t make it any less of a problem.

    You’re right. The DM was wrong to criticise. Work outside of contracted hours is private business so long as there are no conflicts of interest with the main job – that we know about these jobs is because the police service requires that police officers declare outside work.

  5. Jon
    Posted January 15, 2013 at 7:25 am | Permalink

    There used to be something called overtime 20 plus years ago. I think its very debatable whether to put in extra hours unpaid at work.

    • Bazman
      Posted January 16, 2013 at 12:56 pm | Permalink

      Debatable? What is there to debate? Overtime premium or no overtime. That is where it begins and ends, at least for hourly paid workers and if you cannot do your work in the hours allotted to your contract if you are one a salary, then you are being given to much work or are not able to do the work in the hours given. Time for a new job either way.

      • Jon
        Posted January 16, 2013 at 7:14 pm | Permalink

        Me thinks its the industry I’m in so a new job won’t make a difference.

  6. Roy Grainger
    Posted January 15, 2013 at 7:59 am | Permalink

    Andy is an elected MP. There are no set hours that he is obliged to work, all he has to do is turn up and vote now and again when the whips tell him. He finds he can delegate routine constituency work to lowly paid interns, and his secretary who is also his wife can do much of the routine paperwork. He maintains a taxpayer funded flat in London and he finds he has lots of spare time during the day on a flexible basis. Lots of companies want his advice on how best to lobby the government to promote their own business so he takes on lots of work from them either as a paid advisor or a director – as long as he declares all these interests he can spend as much time as he wants, with no restriction, working for them and still draw his full salary and benefits and expenses as an MP.

    Reply: Not as a lobbyist he can’t.

    • Disaffected
      Posted January 15, 2013 at 9:18 am | Permalink

      Or he/she could become a chair of a select committee to influence his/her own business interests. Better still, in addition get paid to represent interested groups I am sure no corruption will take place.

      No worries IPSA are useless and they decide whether a matter should be investigated by the police not as it should be that the police investigation takes precedent then an internal investigation. If caught, return to the back benches for a year and then return to cabinet.

      There are many reasons why police officers should not have second jobs and need permission to have business interests- the Leveson Inquiry ought to have made that clear to you John. The same applies to MPs. The people who are meant to be the pillars of society who create and enforce our laws need to be above all suspicion of wrong doing. Politicians have resoundingly failed, no need to bring the police, courts or other body to the low level standards of politicians where they are reviled by most people in society..

    • lifelogic
      Posted January 15, 2013 at 2:52 pm | Permalink

      And a pension of £1.5M after just 40 years as an MP linked to RPI too. Still we are all in it together as they say.

      I think about 20% of MPs are worth this and more the rest are certainly not worth anything, many just consider it a career move or a lobbying opportunity for outside paid interests. Hence all the mad laws passed such as the Climate ones.

    • davidb
      Posted January 15, 2013 at 3:41 pm | Permalink

      Oh that article was asking for comments like this. I scrolled down and you beat me to it Mr G.

      As later contributions point out, all that matters is full disclosure and conflicts of interest being resolved. Oh, and don’t go borrowing your employers assets to take his work off him.

      How would perhaps the fictional member of say the H of Lords or European Parliament apportion their time when claiming expenses from the taxpayers? I would be sure none of them would want to be a burden on the rest of us when pursuing any freelance/ second job.

  7. Bryan
    Posted January 15, 2013 at 8:03 am | Permalink

    It would be nice if Mr Cameron had a second job, that of running the country without first asking Mr Obama or Ms Merkel what he should do or say.

    I do however agree with the main tenet of your piece; people who put in the hard yards at their main place of employment should not be barred nor derided for having second jobs etc to improve the lot of them and theirs.

  8. lifelogic
    Posted January 15, 2013 at 8:11 am | Permalink

    Anyone with children and sick elderly parents has a second job anyway. The problem with second jobs, for people working in the state sector, is the suspicion that they are not really doing the first job very much. We know that sick days and times off and similar are far higher in the state sector and that the state sector is not known for running a tight ship. Pay including pensions is about 50% above the private sector.

    In some EU countries many in the state sector do very little at all for the state sector beyond collect the salary and pension. They also seem quite adept at getting relatives similar state sector jobs it seems to be more who you know that counts.

    • lifelogic
      Posted January 15, 2013 at 8:29 am | Permalink

      I see the Prime Minister’s boundary review proposal is in tatters after the Liberal Democrats exacted revenge for the collapse of House of Lords reform. One of the few useful things he was trying to achieve.

      Also interesting to read how David Bellamy thinks all his TV work dried up when he expressed sensible opinions on the great global warming exaggerations. He also seemed to believe that Sir David Attenborough “was on our side at first but then has a change of heart”.

      Of late I have not heard Sir David say much I would disagree with on the issue. Climate changes, always has and will, and mankind is one of many factors in it. Perhaps just as well, given the recent temperature reading for the past 15 years or so. When will the BBC finally get some balance on the warming agenda (and the EU agenda) and admit their appalling role in this scam.

      Never under Lord Patten and Cameron I suspect.

    • lifelogic
      Posted January 15, 2013 at 9:03 am | Permalink

      I see Hammersmith and Fulham are earning £2.7M PA from just one box junction camera. Good to see they are providing such valuable public services such as this motorist mugging.

      I assume the junctions are designed with these cash cow muggings in mind, they certainly seems to be. After all, we would not want them to flow freely would we, then the council could never mug anyone. All those council pensions to fund you see. Let constrict the junction with a bus lane, a bike lane and several lights mainly set on red. That will get then onto the box junction for the camera, won’t it.

      • uanime5
        Posted January 15, 2013 at 6:01 pm | Permalink

        I think we may have found another way in which they were to reduce council tax.

    • Tony short
      Posted January 15, 2013 at 9:16 am | Permalink

      What has public sector pay and pension provision to with secondary employment? Why introduce this red herring into the argument?

      On sickness levels and under performance in the primary employment, this is a question of correct management and discipline of individuals and cannot be introduced as a phillisophocal reason to deny ALL state sector employees the right to secondary employment.

      • lifelogic
        Posted January 15, 2013 at 5:14 pm | Permalink

        I do not deny them the right to take a second job.

        I merely make the point that the resentment perhaps comes from that fact that many know that many (in the state sector) do not really work very hard or do much of any real use.

        Such as the people so organise the cash cow mugging box junction cameras and junctions I mention above.

        • Bazman
          Posted January 16, 2013 at 1:02 pm | Permalink

          The 19k for starters is a reduction of 4k from previous starters. The police get a 4k pay cut and the millionaires get a massive rise. See any problem with that? Be copper for £400 a week. Not real and the sort of person that will attract will as you say be more susceptible to corruption or just stupid. WE will end up with a police force of Russian caliber. Hicks from the sticks living in London. Count on it.

      • A different Simon
        Posted January 15, 2013 at 7:12 pm | Permalink

        Tony ,

        Many public sector workers are in practice entitled to indefinite sick leave benefits .

        Given this , aren’t the taxpayers entitled to expect them not to tire themselves out by doing a paying second job given that it may effect their health several years down the line ?

        Pay and pensions are not entirely a red herring . For instance , police are paid well partly to ensure they don’t have to supplement their wages through corruption but surely also so they have no need to supplement their wages by doing a second job .

        • Tony short
          Posted January 16, 2013 at 6:37 am | Permalink

          Hi Simon,
          I don’t know if your theory about Indefinite sick pay is true and I suspect its not. However, for the sake of argument I will assume you’re right. Your argument should surely be in that case for more robust management of sickness absence and an end to too generous sick benefits? The principle of secondary employment is a seperate issue.

        • Wilko
          Posted January 16, 2013 at 10:11 am | Permalink

          “police are paid well partly to ensure they don’t have to supplement their wages through corruption”

          The notion of paying police to avoid corruption is errant. Normal law-abiding people maintain their own decency. People do not need to be paid to act with probity.

          Some people have a distorted view about avoiding theft. They claim it is wrong to steal because of the consequence of being caught. Error! It is wrong to steal, because stealing is wrong.

    • lifelogic
      Posted January 15, 2013 at 10:29 am | Permalink

      I see Lord Patten manages to squeeze rather lot of other positions, while over seeing the BBC with its political agenda of pro EU, quack green “science” and the ever bigger state.

      • zorro
        Posted January 15, 2013 at 8:47 pm | Permalink

        Now, I would really love to see how he spends his time with all those sinecures…..and what he does for his wage.

        zorro

        • lifelogic
          Posted January 16, 2013 at 7:44 am | Permalink

          When asked he seemed to think the question was impertinent and gave no answers. How on earth could Cameron ever think of appointing such a man?

    • Bazman
      Posted January 15, 2013 at 5:08 pm | Permalink

      Here its called an internship and is mainly carried out by chaps and gels who’s family are able to pay for them to live in London with no money. The others are just a source of cheap labour as they are mugs.

      • libertarian
        Posted January 15, 2013 at 10:51 pm | Permalink

        I currently have 3 interns working in my office. They are all under £21 and are all paid £7 per hour PLUS travel expenses.

        I think you’ll find its mostly the Labour party, Guardian, left wing think tanks and lefty trendy media companies that actually exploit young workers

  9. Tony short
    Posted January 15, 2013 at 8:25 am | Permalink

    John Redwood makes some excellent points here. The Mail which is supposedly a conservative leaning paper which supports free enterprise gets curiously angry at the thought of public sector employees having 2 jobs. There can be no moral or practical objection for the furious headlines they run about policemen with second jobs so we are left with the alternative that they like nothing more than a bit of state sector bashing. Stories like these tend to be rushed out when budgets are being squeezed and the Mail can’t wait to oblige their political masters by bombarding the readership with stories of 30 firemen rescuing a squirrel or policemen earning more than the PM – “how dare these greedy people complain about their budgets being axed when they’re all raking it in and retiring to Dubai on gold plated pensions”. Etc etc etc.

    The fact is that provided a persons secondary employment doesn’t impinge on their ability to do their main job and they are paying tax then nobody has the right to deny them the opportunity of earning some extra money. The different skills set often carries over to the main employment and can bring a range of benefits.

  10. Robert K
    Posted January 15, 2013 at 8:36 am | Permalink

    The issue is conflict of interest, which falls into two categories. First, is the other job with a competitor or another party whose interests do not align with the main employer? Second, does the main job take priority over the secondary one? For example, it might not be problematic for a police inspector to have a second job as a financial adviser or plumber, but if he or she was in the middle of a murder investigation would it be reasonble for them to say “it’s 5pm, I need to meet a client” or “I have a tap to fix .”
    In my work, financial services, I have no objection to one of my team members doing other work, so long as it is disclosed and I can see there is no conflict of interest.

  11. Alte Fritz
    Posted January 15, 2013 at 9:42 am | Permalink

    These examples illustrate how it can be relatively straightforward to manage two jobs if you have no other commitments. Christine is in a fix acknowledged by successive governments but never really helped. There are many, far too many Geoffs and Georges. Both situations will one day explode, both men will lose their jobs, each employer will have an expensive claim on its hands and everyone will lose.

    The George situation reflects why most employers are very dubious about second jobs, but it’s supposed to be a free country, so if the first job is done properly, why not have the second.

    As usual I come round to the distortive effects of our employment legislation. It helps almost no one and encourages problems to get out of hand for fear of falling over.

  12. Posted January 15, 2013 at 10:36 am | Permalink

    My daughter works for the civil staff of a major police force, and when she wanted to work weekends, she had to get permission from her employer as it was a disciplinary offence to do such work without notifying them, The same applied when I worked in the Civil Service. Whether the rules still apply, I don’t know.
    But other, non-paid, activities which take up a lot of spare time could be far more detrimental to one’s job than paid work. You mention DIY, but there are also those who engage in certain sports who arrive at work Monday morning totally exhausted and unfit for work. I had a colleague who went mountain climbing in Scotland, and would arrive at work having driven back overnight and had minimal sleep. Another was into amateur dramatics, and for the week when they presented their show of the evenings, was useless the next day.
    So its not a matter af whether you are paid, but whether your activity leaves you unfit for an honest day’s paid work.

  13. The Prangwizard
    Posted January 15, 2013 at 10:36 am | Permalink

    I haven’t read the newspaper article. I don’t have an issue of principle in respect to second jobs, but as for the police I just get an uneasy feeling that there may be conflicts of interest. Should a policeman get a job mucking out in the kennels of the local Fox Hunt? And what would an employer think about having one working on his premises. Can a copper ever detach himself from his job? What if he discovered something which if as a copper he received a complaint about. What are the ethical and legal positions? If I were an employer I would not employ one, no more than as an individual I would let one into my house if he knocked on my door in a routine enquiry. You never know how they interpret what they see.

  14. Wilko
    Posted January 15, 2013 at 10:37 am | Permalink

    When the press were in Fleet Street, a young Despatch Manager there was highly capable in managing the messenger employees, responsible for all the business deliveries. He did most of his work in his head, and made best decisions about use of scarce resources.

    One day the Chairman happened to enter the Despatch Dept and saw the young manager laying back with his feet on the desk. He fired him instantly, assuming he was a waster. The replacement Despatch Manager was a well-intended older man. In contrast, he was & looked very busy. Colleagues described him as rushed off his feet, overworked & inclined to panic when presented with more than one task.

    Those who needed messengers complained to each other that it seemed so difficult to obtain an available messenger when needed. They knew that the chap with his feet on the desk was not a waster, but an exceptionally high performer with some blood flowing through his head.

    Nobel laureates recognised for their work in DNA were regarded by some colleagues as not being proper scientists, as they discussed ideas in the pub rather than making copious written notes. Finest work is handled by high performers in different ways. Results matter more than serving some prescribed procedure for its own sake.

    • Bazman
      Posted January 15, 2013 at 5:14 pm | Permalink

      Might have been talented, but was still (foolish-ed).

    • zorro
      Posted January 15, 2013 at 8:59 pm | Permalink

      Good points there. Too often, people are not judged on results but more by how they seem to appear. The person who manages emails and enquiries well has an inbox which is empty or well managed with few emails. People might superficially think that this person does not have much work to do…..whereas another employee is always rushing around being ‘so busy’ (always) but achieves little in reality. He/She is always carrying a file or has 400 emails in their inbox to show busy they are. In reality, they are usually poor timekeepers who cannot make decisions, and are inefficient. Superficially, however, they might appear to be ‘busy’….

      zorro

  15. Conrad Jones (Cheam)
    Posted January 15, 2013 at 11:10 am | Permalink

    Mr (X) was a Politician.

    After leaving his Job, he found he had time on his hands and several Mortgage Repayments to make on a large Portfolio of Prime Real Estate.

    Although his wife also works, he found it difficult to cope after the stress of his politicial career and so took on four Jobs:

    1. Envoy to Middle East
    2. Managing Investment Bank in Switzerland
    3. Part Time Job with Major American Bank based in New York with Offices in London.
    4. Dinner Party Speeches (Part Time)

    etc.

    • Conrad Jones (Cheam)
      Posted January 15, 2013 at 9:57 pm | Permalink

      etc ?

      Please can you enlighten me as to why you have not included my other comments. I would not have minded if you had not included this one.

      But my other comments – I felt were serious, and to the point.

      Reply I POST COMMENTS THAT DO NOT CONTAIN PERSONAL ABUSE AND UNPROVEN ALLEGATIONS. Long posts and posts with references to external sites may be delayed as these all take time to check)

      • Conrad Jones (Cheam)
        Posted January 17, 2013 at 12:00 pm | Permalink

        Mr Redwood,

        Thank you for your reply.

        Firstly, the above comment was not aimed at you at all, it was aimed at a well known Labour Politician – (words left out)

        As to the other comments relating to yourself, ( words deleted as he wishes to pursue an untrue allegation about me.I suggest he withdraws it as it is quite false)

      • Conrad Jones (Cheam)
        Posted January 17, 2013 at 10:37 pm | Permalink

        I would just like to enthasie that that is a lie. I did NOT RESORT TO PERSONAL ABUSE.

        And as far as allegations are concerned –

        (seeks to publish an allegation which is false and which I have no intention of repeating by denial)

        • Conrad Jones (Cheam)
          Posted January 18, 2013 at 12:32 pm | Permalink

          Ok, fine.

          I will not pursure this topic with you any further.

          (he still refuses to apologise for a lie about me)

          • Conrad Jones (Cheam)
            Posted January 18, 2013 at 3:55 pm | Permalink

            You need to print my entire statement where I clarified that I don’t think you have done anything illegal.

            I have already apologised for upsetting you.

            If anyone has done anything illegal with this regard, or unethical – there are certain Labour Politicians who have stretched the Law to breaking point. I am not your enemy.

            If anything, there is a severe problem with the System of Parliament. I thinking more of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown when I say this.

            What exactly do you think I have accused you of ? If you’ve got nothing to hide – which I sincerely believe you do not have anything to hide; then why cut my comments short?

            I am not interested in attacking you but I am interested in how the system works, and what can be done to improve it.

            Like I said, there is no point in pursuing this discussion any further.

    • Conrad Jones (Cheam)
      Posted January 15, 2013 at 10:06 pm | Permalink

      I acknowledge that you may wish to edit comments but would you mind clarifying the fact to other readers of this blog by placing the modified text in parentheses with “Ed” at the left hand side, as you have done in the past, otherwise, you mislead other readers into thinking that the text has not been altered.

    • Glenn Vaughan
      Posted January 16, 2013 at 12:50 am | Permalink

      Mr (X) has a Blair-faced cheek if he regards any of those trivial tasks as proper jobs, particularly the utterly irrelevant Middle East envoy nonsense.

  16. PT
    Posted January 15, 2013 at 11:29 am | Permalink

    Didn’t the Mail article also highlight that by far the most common second ‘job’ was being a BTL landlord i.e. rent seeking, using free capital gains on primary residence to out bid first-time buyers, capturing someone else’s income for minimal effort… you get my point.

    Unless you’re an established professional landlord self-managing a large portfolio, BTL is hardly a second job. Most landlords just want to sit back an watch (someone else’s) money roll in.

  17. P O Taxpayer
    Posted January 15, 2013 at 1:28 pm | Permalink

    In the past Policemen/Women were not allowed second jobs because their employer might use this as a means of influence/pressure over the them. This was incorporated into their contract of employment.
    It seems this doesn’t apply anymore

  18. Conrad Jones (Cheam)
    Posted January 15, 2013 at 1:38 pm | Permalink

    You seem to have missed the real story as to why people are struggling so much that they need a second or even a third job to meet expenditures.

    1. Wages have dropped – in real terms over the last forty years.
    The wealthiest Nation on Earth, the United states had it’s wages peak in 1972. Since then, they have fallen for 39 straight years.
    http://middleclasspoliticaleconomist.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/basics-real-wages-remain-below-their.html

    2. House prices across the UK have nearly trebled in the last 60 years, increasing
    by an average of 186 per cent, data from Halifax has revealed.
    http://www.ftadviser.com/2012/05/28/mortgages/mortgage-data/uk-house-prices-treble-in-years-halifax-4ur3H8kPxBkLQcdijtlCpK/article.html

    Umm… I wonder what shrinking wages and rising House Prices is going to force people to do ?

    Even with Two wage earners now paying the mortgage, House Prices have increased to eliminate the advantage and wages in general have fallen in real terms.

    Micro Analysing symptoms is not as interesting as analysing the cause. Take a step back and have a look at the overall picture.

    People haven’t suddenly decided that they’d rather have a second Job than spend it their free time with their Friends and Families. They are doing it becasue they are forced to because of credit expansion.

    “If your main job is only 40 hours out of a 168 hour week you should have options for the remaining 128 hours.” – Why not take speed pills and work ALL 168 Hours? Sleep is over rated anyway, and who needs to spend time with the Family and Kids – they’re just an overhead – right?

    • Conrad Jones (Cheam)
      Posted January 18, 2013 at 3:41 pm | Permalink

      Mr Redwood,

      Thank you for printing my comment.

      Regards,

      Conrad Jones.

  19. Simonro
    Posted January 15, 2013 at 2:16 pm | Permalink

    Alan (not his real name) – a 37 year old accountant for a FTSE 100 firm. Previously well regarded, but moved to a job he is unqualified for in a departmental ‘reorganization’. Unable to cope with the work he is given, his performance is below an acceptable standard. His manager has been told to ‘manage him out’ of the company by constantly increasing his workload and giving him the lowest possible performance ratings in monthly reviews, whatever he actually deserves.

    Expressing concerns about the morality, and possible legality of this, the manager has been told that their next performance review will depend on their successful handling of the situation.

    Alan is currently signed off work with stress after working 70hrs / week for 9 weeks straight. His manager has resigned.

    • A different Simon
      Posted January 16, 2013 at 1:00 am | Permalink

      Simonro , a Lithuanian manager in a UK office told me pretty well the same story of how his British managers were expecting him to manage the staff who were to report to him .
      He now works for an American company who believe it or not have a more mature attitude . How does the story go on …. and end ?

      “Alan’s kid’s are feeling insecure and are upset at a couple of occasions when they did not get to the toilet on time .

      They are falling behind at their school work and will probably never be able to catch up .

      Their landlord throws them out .

      His wife can’t handle it and commits suicide ” .

      • Bazman
        Posted January 17, 2013 at 6:59 pm | Permalink

        Hide in the office managers often use the East Europeans as buffers to the rest of the workforce whilst not being responsibly for anything. You know who you are.

    • Wilko
      Posted January 16, 2013 at 2:38 pm | Permalink

      The strong spotlight of others being able to see wrong-doers’ deeds tends to bleach malevolent thoughts out of existence, before they can be put into action.

      Alan & his manager should expose the culprit in a way that is effective to prevent such nuisance from spreading.

  20. peter davies
    Posted January 15, 2013 at 2:26 pm | Permalink

    I can speak from several angles.

    Scenario 1 – Like many when I was much younger I spent a lot of time socializing including in the week. Whilst it did me no harm I don’t think the morning after I would have been very productive in most instances – socially this makes you accepted – team spirit etc, but as a productive person in your own right this does no good at all.

    Scenario 2 – I held down a day job for years with a private sector company and always did it well (because it happened to be a job well within my capability). No automatic pay rises and bonuses were given, but I rarely missed out meaning that I must have been near the top of the pile amongst my peers. I achieved this despite having a part time business that pulled in (when times were better) more than my salary – (the business has since been sold).

    I now do a certain amount of writing and online marketing, I have had small amounts of success but have yet to hit any meaningful figures that could replicate my income as yet but it will come.

    Both activities in this scenario have taken a lot of time and energy but if anything have helped in my day job due to the wide variety of new writing, internet, commercial, security and many other skills I have mastered along the way.

    Scenario 3 – Currently I have a young family which I do my fair share of the picking up/looking after – this takes a considerable amount of time and energy and juggling, particularly as the Child Minder only works in term time and schools will close if there’s any excuse, training, wrong rain etc.

    Hand on heart this scenario does not help me in the workplace in any way, it is a consideration we have to make when making any work or travel arrangements so anyone, particularly single parents who have to do it all themselves get my deepest sympathy – that is not to say its not doable and NO EXCUSE to stay at home and not work

    Based on my experience I have to agree with you, the person who enjoys his or her drinking time is not likely to be the best employee though they might be the soul of the party and build relationships with peers. The person with a family might be more grounded but getting them to do that bit extra may be difficult due to their other considerations though they are likely to be more mature.

    The person who is able to juggle his or her own business outside work is likely to prove very useful due to their wider array of skills providing he or she doesn’t intend to pack in their day job and move to the business which many will. These type of people tend to be more flexible and more trainable – and given that there are no longer jobs for life (even in the public sector) you do need that flexibility nowadays – the govt has had to lay off many in the public sector so anyone who thinks outside the box and prepares themselves is to be applauded.

    Obviously there needs to be appropriate demarcation points between both jobs.

  21. Barbara
    Posted January 15, 2013 at 2:28 pm | Permalink

    We could also look at the woman who works in her day job, perhaps part-time to fit into family committments. A part from the actual job in a major High St chain, starting early at 5am each morning, and finishing at 10am. She then goes home and begins again. Washing, ironing, shopping, cleaning, gardening, and carer for disabled husband. In between hospital appointments, or doctor’s appointments, or the dentists, all have to be done as the disabled husband cannot walk safely on his own. Then we have meals to prepare, clearing up after meals, and generally keeping the house tidy. In all her day ends when she hits the pillow, and nothing is guarrenteed during this day. What we can say is the day is filled from morning till night, and time for herself is limited. This is happening all over the country, and women bear the brunt, although some men face these difficulties too. Work sometimes as value for giving a break from emotional dealings at home, as well as financial gain. At the end of the day, when she gets worn out by her neverending service to loved ones, who will look after her in her hour of need?

  22. Dick Sawdon Smith
    Posted January 15, 2013 at 2:36 pm | Permalink

    Before I retired I remember a woman in one of our shops who was amongst the best salepeople we had. When she went home in the evening she had a second business delivering pet food, which wasn’ t in conflict with us. I would never have thought of banning her from spending her time away from work as she wanted.

    Dick

  23. Adam5x5
    Posted January 15, 2013 at 3:43 pm | Permalink

    Aside from the misandric nature of the examples, a good question. Could you explain why you put both the negative examples as male? Why not one of each?

    I have found (cue massive generalisation) in my experience that the opposite is true – that women are less bothered about work than the men and are only in it for the money. Obviously there are exceptions to this, but the majority of women I’ve worked with have been more interested in their children/social life than putting in a decent days work.

    Your examples of workers are all fairly negative though.

    John Doe works shifts as part of a team providing 24/7 cover (4 on, 4 off). He is happy to work anti-social hours including nights and weekends as the job requires. He puts in a lot of effort at work, ensuring a high quality of output. He is happy to work extra shifts to cover sickness and holiday. Occasionally he goes out for a few beers with friends on his 4 days off and will come back tired but functional.

    Regarding the police having second jobs, the main question for me would be whether they are capable of just walking out mid-shift if there is an emergency which requires a large scale response – terror attack for example. If they can, no problem.

  24. uanime5
    Posted January 15, 2013 at 5:15 pm | Permalink

    What people consider a leisure activity varies from person to person. Is working really any worse than wanting to climb mountains, fish, shop, or build model ships in a bottle? Unless these activities start cause problems at work I’d say they’re all fine.

    I’d say second jobs are only a problem when a person can’t a have a normal standard of living while only working in one job full time.

    In other job related news many companies in the City are delaying their bonuses to take advantage of the new lower tax rate. Along with being aggressive tax avoidance I have a feeling that this sudden increase in tax revenues may cause the Chancellor to declare that his economic plans are working and as a result assume that every year will have such high levels of tax revenue. This will cause problems in 2014 if spending is based on 2013 level but tax revenues aren’t boosted.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/billions-in-bankers-bonuses-could-be-delayed-until-april-when-top-rate-of-tax-is-cut-8451467.html

  25. sjb
    Posted January 15, 2013 at 9:52 pm | Permalink

    X is an MP, which if performed reasonably well is a full-time job. X is then appointed a Minister, which is far more demanding work carrying heavy responsibilities. X becomes stressed through overwork and makes mistakes, one of which costs the taxpayer £40m in compensation through a faulty tendering process.

    Yis a recently qualified anaesthetist, who has opted out of the Working Time Directive, because he wants to clear the £40k debts (tuition fees etc) incurred in obtaining his degree asap. While prepping a pt he is so tired he falls asleep on top of her – junior doctors of early 1980s vintage will recognise that scenario.

  26. Credible
    Posted January 15, 2013 at 10:24 pm | Permalink

    John
    You simply do not have a clue about the real world do you.
    Most don’t do it to suppliment their income, they do it because they have no choice if they are going to have enough money to live and bring up a family. It takes away from valuable family time and stretches people to breaking point. Tired and stressed people do not perform as well at work as they could.

    Your examples are contrived and meaningless. Someone else could come up with many different examples to highlight different behaviour and attitudes. For example, you could have written that Christine’s employer is NOT very understanding – which would be closer to reality for many working mothers.

  27. Max Dunbar
    Posted January 15, 2013 at 10:28 pm | Permalink

    Many of these second jobs will be cash-in-hand deals, especially if they involve doing work for individuals rather than companies. The fireman who does a bit of decorating in his spare time springs to mind.

  28. Bazman
    Posted January 16, 2013 at 1:04 pm | Permalink

    Two jobs as a desk jockey might be feasible, but not if you have a physical job such as those found in the building or metal trades. You could do it if you did not do much work, so if anyone wants to put forward you can, this is your answer.

  29. Jon
    Posted January 16, 2013 at 7:29 pm | Permalink

    There is another type of employee. Generally a corpulent male with supposedly left wing ideaology but really its all about how much more “I” can take regardless of the expense of others. They were commonly found loitering around car factories in the 70s in the Midlands. They can be found at (word left out)Union functions and also have been found (at high levels in the Labour party-ed) in the past and possibly the future a certain ambitious one gets his way. Its all take take take take with them regardless of the cost to others.

  30. Posted January 24, 2013 at 10:13 am | Permalink

    Not only fire brigade, working for airlines or the policemen, but maximum population today is having a second job, to have a better earning for serving thyself and family. The second job goes to freelance work for most of the people.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

  • About John Redwood

    John Redwood has been the Member of Parliament for Wokingham since 1987. First attending Kent College, Canterbury, he graduated from Magdalen College, and has a DPhil from All Souls, Oxford. A businessman by background, he has been a director of NM Rothschild merchant bank and chairman of a quoted industrial PLC.
  • John’s Books

  • Email Alerts

    You can sign up to receive John's blog posts by e-mail by entering your e-mail address in the box below.

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    The e-mail service is powered by Google's FeedBurner service. Your information is not shared.

  • Map of Visitors

    Locations of visitors to this page