In the evolving landscape of remote work, a controversial practice is gaining traction: “overemployment.” This isn’t merely a side hustle; it involves holding down multiple full-time remote jobs simultaneously, often without employers knowing. The goal? To dramatically boost income, potentially reaching figures exceeding $500,000 annually, and accelerate the path to financial freedom. while it promises significant rewards, it also sparks intense debate around ethics, productivity, and the future of work itself.
What is Overemployment, Really?
Overemployment, sometimes called polyworking, means managing several seemingly full-time roles at once. Enabled largely by the shift to remote work during the pandemic, practitioners argue they fulfill job requirements and deliver value, albeit across multiple companies. It differs from traditional multiple job-holding, where someone might work one full-time and one part-time job. Overemployed individuals aim to stack multiple full-time salaries.
The concept exploded into public view, partly fueled by a viral X post from tech entrepreneur Suhail Doshi. He detailed firing an employee after discovering they were potentially working for multiple startups concurrently, labeling the behavior as “scamming.” This highlighted employer anxieties and brought the hidden world of polyworking into mainstream discussion.
The Overemployed Community and Its Philosophy
A significant hub for this movement exists online, particularly on the r/overemployment subreddit. With over 430,000 members, the community is united by a clear mission: “Work multiple jobs, reach financial freedom.” They share strategies, discuss challenges, and defend their practices.
Members often argue they aren’t “time thieves.” They claim they deliver expected results and meet deadlines for each employer. Their view is that if they complete their assigned tasks efficiently, the exact number of hours worked or other commitments (like meetings) shouldn’t matter as long as performance is maintained across all roles. This philosophy directly challenges traditional expectations of exclusive, dedicated full-time employment.
Strategies for Juggling Multiple Roles
Success in overemployment, according to its proponents, hinges on specific tactics and finding the right types of jobs. Ideal roles are often senior enough to allow for some delegation, have minimal mandatory meetings, and are at larger companies where individual visibility might be lower.
One self-proclaimed overemployed worker on Reddit claimed to manage five concurrent jobs, earning over $3,000 daily. Their strategy included being upfront about acting as a “consultant,” stating unavailability for non-essential events like all-hands meetings, and skipping daily stand-ups. They prioritized solving assigned tasks within sprint cycles, maintaining distance, and staying constantly vigilant across emails and communication platforms like Teams throughout the day, often working across multiple time zones.
While specific claims like the five-job, $3K/day example are difficult to verify independently, they illustrate the ambition and perceived capability within the community to balance demanding workloads for substantial financial gain.
Employer Concerns and Controversial Cases
The rise of overemployment naturally raises red flags for employers. Companies expect full dedication from full-time employees and often have policies prohibiting outside employment that could conflict or impact performance. Discovery can lead to disciplinary action, including termination.
The case of Soham Parekh, a software engineer widely discussed after Suhail Doshi’s post, starkly illustrates employer risks. Multiple startup founders reported hiring Parekh based on impressive interviews, only for him to deliver minimal or no work while seemingly working for other companies simultaneously. Founders cited elaborate excuses for his lack of progress, ranging from personal emergencies to geopolitical events. This situation, while perhaps an extreme example of alleged deception rather than the OE community’s stated goal of delivering value, underscores the difficulties employers face in verifying activity and potential conflicts with remote workers. Founders noted Parekh was highly skilled at getting hired but failed to perform across multiple roles, leading to widespread warnings within the startup community.
The Factors Driving Overemployment
Several factors contribute to overemployment’s emergence and growth. The most significant is the widespread adoption of remote work. Geolocation becomes less critical, and the ability to manage one’s own time and schedule increases dramatically compared to an office environment.
While some overemployed individuals suggest AI enhances productivity, enabling them to handle more tasks faster, the primary enabler remains remote flexibility. The perceived disconnect between the expectation of “full-time” presence and the reality of task-based work in some remote roles may also play a part.
Contextually, data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) shows that remote employees average significantly fewer hours worked per day (5.14) compared to in-office employees (7.79). This difference of over 2.5 hours daily could, for some highly efficient or less-tasked workers, create the perceived capacity to take on additional roles, or it could simply reflect less time on task. This data point provides background on potential employer concerns about remote productivity, concerns that could paradoxically incentivize some to take more work to feel productive or earn more, while simultaneously making employers warier.
Ethical Debates and Worker Perspectives
The core ethical question surrounding overemployment is whether it constitutes “time theft.” Critics argue that employees are paid for a full-time commitment to one company. Overemployed workers counter that they are paid to perform specific duties and deliver results. If they do so for multiple employers, they are fulfilling their contracts.
Some overemployed individuals justify the practice by arguing it’s necessary to earn a fair wage or achieve financial goals faster in a challenging economic climate, even if they are already earning high salaries. They differentiate themselves from “quiet quitters,” arguing that they do deliver value across their jobs, unlike those who disengage and produce nothing in a single role. They also believe that many companies and HR departments are aware of polyworking, suggesting it’s an open secret in the modern workforce.
Risks and Challenges
Despite the potential rewards, overemployment is fraught with risks. The most obvious is discovery by an employer, which can lead to immediate termination from one or all jobs, potentially damaging future career prospects. Managing conflicting meetings, deadlines, and communication across multiple companies requires intense organization and vigilance.
The overemployed community itself warns that this practice is not for everyone. It requires significant skill, competence, and discipline to avoid “dropping plates” and failing to meet expectations in any role. Attempting overemployment without being highly proficient in one’s primary field is explicitly discouraged in community FAQs. Finding suitable jobs (low meetings, high autonomy) and constantly navigating potential overlap or detection are ongoing challenges. Even handling occasional in-person requirements, like return-to-office mandates or meetings, requires planning, sometimes involving discreetly taking calls for other jobs from cars or unused office spaces.
Beyond the Extreme Examples
It’s crucial to note that the extreme examples of juggling many full-time roles, like the claimed five-job scenario or the controversial Parekh case, are not representative of everyone holding multiple jobs. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis data shows that just over 5% of employed workers have more than one job. However, the average multi-job holder works approximately 35 hours at their first job and only about 13.5 hours at their second. This suggests that while polyworking exists, the highly debated practice of stacking multiple full-time equivalents remains a relatively niche, albeit growing and high-profile, phenomenon.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is overemployment and how does it differ from having a second job?
Overemployment refers to secretly holding multiple full-time remote jobs simultaneously, aiming to earn high incomes and achieve financial independence faster. This differs from typical second jobs, which are usually part-time or freelance roles supplementing one full-time position. Overemployed individuals try to fully meet expectations across several concurrent full-time commitments, often without informing employers.
Why are employers concerned about polyworking, and how do they detect it?
Employers are concerned because they expect full dedication from full-time employees and typically have policies against conflicts of interest or outside work impacting performance. Detecting it can be difficult with remote work, but signs might include an employee being consistently unavailable for spontaneous meetings, decreased productivity, inability to attend all-hands events, or even digital footprints like activity on company networks or social media posts. High-profile cases, like that involving Soham Parekh, raise awareness and prompt companies to look for warning signs.
What are the main risks and benefits of trying overemployment?
The main benefit is significantly increased income and accelerated progress towards financial goals. However, the risks are substantial. Getting caught can lead to immediate termination from all jobs, potentially damaging future career prospects. It also requires immense discipline, organizational skills, and vigilance to manage multiple workloads and avoid burnout. The practice raises ethical questions about fulfilling contractual obligations.
Conclusion
Overemployment is a divisive trend reshuffling the boundaries of traditional employment in the remote work era. Driven by the potential for massive financial gain and enabled by remote flexibility, it thrives in online communities dedicated to sharing strategies. While proponents argue they deliver value and aren’t committing “time theft,” employers view it with suspicion and concern, as highlighted by high-profile cases. The practice demands exceptional skill and carries significant risks for workers. As remote work continues to evolve, the debate over polyworking, its ethics, and its detection will undoubtedly shape the future of employment contracts and company policies.
