Is Moonlighting Detrimental To Businesses? Or Is It Immoral? 

Since the global epidemic that began in 2020, it has become clear that job patterns have changed. With fewer jobs, higher prices, and little demand, thriving industries with exciting workplaces experienced jerks. Dual employment or moonlighting is a novel phenomenon that has become more common during the post-pandemic era.

 

Even though they are few in number, moonlighters have existed in India and around the world since the beginning of the work culture. The main drivers behind it are, among others, current limitations in their primary jobs, the acquisition of a new portfolio of jobs that add to their job characteristics, training in other professions, the need to fulfil financial needs, and disinterest in their current career. Because of their employment worries or concerns about the future of their profession, some people who moonlight work in different industries between their primary and secondary occupations.

 

Moonlighting was recently deemed unfair by a sizable number of IT organizations, and some even let go of staff as a result. On the other hand, several other IT service businesses formalized their policies on moonlighting for their staff, enabling them to profit financially by working on extracurricular projects. Its proponents contend that dissatisfaction with one's principal employment leads to employees moonlighting, which ultimately lowers regular pay, eliminates overtime pay, and lowers productivity. Of fact, employees frequently oppose the use of their freedom of choice to promote the marketability of their abilities based on their time availability.

 

Moonlighting is the practice of working for multiple organizations, typically without the employer's knowledge. Because the job is only done at night during set hours or on weekends, it is known as "moonlighting." A moonlighter typically works a second job since their primary job pays so little. Moonlighters consequently take up low-paying jobs in their secondary career.

Workers who consider their spending pressures and goals to be significantly greater than the financial benefits of their primary jobs are known as moonlighters. The amount of unpaid time is a good indicator of how much moonlighting will be done in a given workplace.

 

According to data obtained through empirical analysis, moonlighters are more likely to accept side jobs in environments that demand a strict or even full-time schedule. A typical moonlighter has a flexible, self-determined schedule and works part-time at their other job.

 

Workers who consider their spending pressures and goals to be significantly greater than the financial benefits of their primary jobs are known as moonlighters. The amount of unpaid time is a good indicator of how much moonlighting will be done in a given workplace. Fewer underemployed hours generally indicate a lower volume of moonlighting in those second jobs that require significant time, especially in light of the money and other costs associated with obtaining and maintaining a second job, as well as the limited opportunities for moonlighting in a particular labor market.

 

The characteristics of different sorts of moonlighting may be seen in practically all professions, such as a doctor or teacher selecting a secondary employment in a private institution for better incentives and best use of their resources while simultaneously working in a public organization.

 

The IT industry, where services are delivered online, has more obvious evidence of moonlighters than other industries. The ability to simultaneously log into various sites allows moonlighters to work on multiple projects at once, raising ethical concerns, albeit these activities are not expressly forbidden by law.

 

This suggests that each time someone moonlighted, there would be two distinct contractual relationships involved. As a result, the legality of the second arrangement would be determined by the terms of the person's contract with the engaging companies. Concerns about quality and consumer welfare have frequently surfaced in these situations, but there is little evidence to support the claim that the public sector would suffer losses as a result.

 

Dual employment is not specifically defined or addressed by Indian law. On the other hand, Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 forbids the addition of a non-compete clause. An employee is prohibited from starting their own business or accepting a job offer from a rival by such a clause. The employee is ultimately prevented from competing with their company, leaking data, either or after the employment period.

 

In light of this, it might be said that accepting dual employment is against the terms of a contract for employment's non-compete clause. The stance of Indian law on this matter isn't entirely clear, though. Dual employment is allowed under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act of 1946. The Factories Act of 1948, however, forbids multiple work. IT firms have, however, been exempted from this rule in some jurisdictions.

 

Furthermore, the Supreme Court upheld the non-compete clause of an employment contract in Niranjan Shankar Golikari v. The Century Spinning & Mfg. Co. (1967), forbidding an employee from working for their employer's rival while the employment contract is in effect. The court further found that a negative covenant could only be upheld if it was fair and not overly strict or biased.

 

In Wipro Limited v. Beckman Coulter International SA (2006), the Delhi High Court ruled that non-solicitation agreements that require employees not to reveal or solicit clients are acceptable. Dual employment is legal if there is no restriction in the employment contract or if the employer agrees, according to the Madras High Court in Government of Tamil Nadu versus Tamil Nadu Race Course General Employees Union (1993). Thus, it is necessary to review the employment contract in order to prevent an employee from engaging in moonlighting.

 

Due to the growth of the internet platform economy, alternative job arrangements are now significantly more prevalent in the United States. Self-employment and proxy employment are widespread in the United States. Using proxies to attend interviews and report on work assignments as well as holding multiple hourly jobs as self-employed individuals in different companies have also been documented. Due to self-assessment and voluntary reporting, such work arrangements are legal in the US and even lead to simplified tax assessments.

 

The second arrangement's legality would be governed by the terms of the person's contract with the engaging entities. Concerns about quality and consumer welfare have frequently surfaced in these situations, but there is little evidence to support the claim that the public sector would suffer losses as a result.

 

According to empirical research on "understanding alternative work arrangements" conducted in the US and released in 2019, American economists Lawrence F. Katz and Alan B. Krueger found that the percentage of people who hold several jobs increased from 39% in 2013 to 77% in 2018. The information they gathered from the administrative tax division also shows that the majority of the workforce is made up of contract workers, on-call employees, independent contractors, and temporary help agency employees.

 

Additionally, there are no restrictions against holding numerous jobs in the UK, and in such cases, the payroll status is not even altered.

 

The Indian legal system forbids non-compete clauses, which implies that moonlighting is against employment contracts. However, legal scholars have always believed that this is unjustified. This is true because doing so means that the law is interfering with people's ability to contract freely, which has an impact on trade. In addition, the Law Commission of India emphasized in its 13th report from 1958 that suitable conditions should be added to the section 27 prohibition.

 

Therefore, where there is a clear policy about the kinds of agreements that employees can enter into during and after employment, moonlighting is acceptable.