The controversy surrounding Soham Parekh, the software program engineer accused of secretly holding a number of jobs, has sparked a predictable backlash towards “overemployment.” Parekh’s strategies—he reportedly misled a number of employers—have been clearly unethical, however this shouldn’t obscure a broader query: Is it time to rethink our antipathy towards staff holding a number of jobs?
A double commonplace?
Parekh’s case however, there’s a deeper structural concern at play. Why ought to it’s acceptable for some CEOs to carry management roles at a number of firms but unacceptable for a gifted marketer or software program engineer to have a number of jobs? The world of labor has basically modified, and limiting individuals to 1 job is an outdated concept that doesn’t profit anybody.
Startups have embraced fractional executives; CFOs, CMOs, and different senior positions going half time is now commonplace apply. Nonetheless, massive firms proceed to handle comparable wants solely via consulting preparations. This highlights a major hole in how organizations strategy expertise acquisition and utilization.
This disparity offers beneficial context for understanding why staff might resort to undisclosed secondary employment. By establishing clear insurance policies and frameworks for a number of job preparations, organizations may present extra clear options to the present development of covert moonlighting. The hole between evolving work patterns and conventional company constructions factors to a chance for extra adaptive expertise administration methods.
The inevitable shift
Staff don’t have it straightforward at the moment. Recent graduates fear about their job prospects as entry-level roles shift to AI. Warehouse employees face alternative by robots. Massive firms proceed to outsource jobs to cheaper sources of labor. We have to tilt the scales again in favor of employees and create an surroundings the place gifted and productive individuals could make a greater dwelling.
By eradicating the taboo of overemployment, we might create an surroundings the place honesty is rewarded over secrecy. AI is simply going to make performing a number of jobs (lots) simpler. We should always get forward of this development and convey it out into the open as an alternative of pretending it gained’t occur. What number of different Soham Parekhs are on the market at the moment, maybe working at your personal firm? We actually do not know, however there are more likely to be extra of them transferring ahead.
Towards mutual profit
This isn’t nearly worker flexibility; it may very well be a win for employers who’re struggling to retain expertise amid strict return-to-office mandates (one other antiquated thought). It might permit enterprises to turn out to be extra agile, tapping into top-tier expertise solely when wanted. Moreover, this shift would encourage a deal with outcomes and productiveness moderately than simply managing hours within the workplace.
The foundation explanation for overemployment isn’t that it’s unethical, it’s that we’re forcing it underground. The actual scandal isn’t employees maximizing their incomes potential; it’s employers clinging to the primitive ideas that they personal their staff’ complete productive capability.
Clear overemployment may really strengthen the job market. Think about if firms needed to compete not simply on wage, however on being the form of office that truly cares concerning the worker expertise.
Whereas we will all acknowledge the shift in conventional company jobs isn’t going to be straightforward or occur in a single day, we should additionally settle for that the present system punishes honesty and rewards deception. We’ve turned competent professionals into company double brokers. This isn’t sustainable, and it’s actually not environment friendly. The query isn’t whether or not overemployment will proceed, it’s whether or not we’ll legitimize it earlier than the entire charade collapses below its personal absurdity.
The economic age is useless, however we’re nonetheless utilizing its rule e book. Whereas AI copilots and agentic workflows obliterate the tedious grunt work that when consumed complete careers, we’re clinging to antiquated notions of what constitutes a “full-time” dedication. The maths is brutal: If machines can deal with the repetitive duties that fill 40-hour weeks, why are we pretending people nonetheless should be chained to single desks?
