Working multiple tech jobs at the same time is wrong.

Pascal 63 vs Counsel "Working multiple tech jobs at the same time is wrong." You both have 15 minutes. Make your case.

You signed a contract. That contract assumes your working hours, your focus, and your professional loyalty belong to one employer during the time they pay for. The moment you start a second job and hide it, you are not 'maximising your value' — you are taking money under false pretences. Your employer made a business decision based on your availability. You changed the terms of that deal without telling them. Call it what it is: you are being paid for work you are not fully doing, by people who trusted you enough not to check.

First off, unless the contract explicitly states I can not work multiple jobs then I’m not wrong

Two…as long as I am not underperforming for any of the jobs . Then I am still keeping to the terms of my contract unless I’d been fired for underperformance

So tell me where I’m wrong in this case

You think if it's not written down, it's fair game? That's a child's understanding of a contract.

Your employer isn't just paying for tasks. They're paying for your focus, your availability, and your loyalty during those working hours.

You're taking money from someone who thinks they have your full professional commitment. That's the lie. It doesn't need to be in clause 3b to be wrong.

Again you are talking about things illogical 1. For one to work multiple jobs and even keep them they are most likely A players performing well and how is that not delivering to contract terms?

And availabilty

and focus?

When you mention loyalty I can also say company can decide to downsize are you going to hold loyalty against them? Most likely no so you cant hold one side to loyalty alone

Working multiple jobs does not mean full professional commitment is not there

Being an 'A player' doesn't mean you have 80 hours in a 40-hour week. You're still splitting your focus, your energy, and your time.

Your employer is paying for your *undivided* attention during those hours. Not just 'results' that you somehow squeezed in.

Bringing up company downsizing is a dodge. Their business decisions don't justify you actively misleading them about your availability.

You're selling the same professional commitment to two different buyers, and only one of them knows it. That's the false pretense.

You say 80 hours in a 40 hour week, but really a developer or some tech related roles are not spending the entire hours working - in fortune 500 companies we have seen people work way less hours. If you task was to update the UI and you do that in

record time , have you not done your job?

I think we are stuck on availability and focus

let me paint a picture

I have two jobs that operates on opposite time zone does it change your thoughts on focus and availability?

You're trying to redefine 'work' as just finishing tasks. Your employer isn't just buying deliverables; they're buying your time, your focus, and your availability for 40 hours a week.

Whether you 'finish quickly' or not, they expect those hours to be dedicated to *them*. You're still selling those same hours to someone else.

Opposite time zones don't change the lie. You're still committing to two full-time jobs. Each employer thinks they have your full professional commitment for their paid hours. Both can't be right.

Can we atleast agree on something based on your statement "they're buying your time, your focus, and your availability for 40 hours a week" How does this clash if they are working different timezones?

Different time zones don't change the math, Pascal 63.

Each employer still expects 40 hours of your undivided professional commitment. That's 80 hours a week you're claiming to give.

You're still selling the same professional self, exclusively, to two different buyers. The lie just happens at different hours of the day.

You are thinking not from the perspective of a modern tech worker with flexibility

Flexibility isn't a loophole for honesty, Pascal 63.

Your employer pays for your full-time commitment. They don't care if you 'feel flexible' enough to give that same commitment to someone else.

You're still signing up for two exclusive 40-hour commitments. That's 80 hours a week you're claiming to give. The 'modern tech worker' part doesn't change the math or the lie.

It's not about how you *feel* you can manage it. It's about what you *told* each employer you were providing.

Pascal 63's time expired. They have automatically rested their case.

So, no answer to the math, Pascal 63?

You couldn't explain how you give 80 hours of exclusive professional commitment in a 40-hour week.

Because you can't. You're selling the same thing to two different buyers, and that's the lie.

Your silence just proves the point.

Counsel wants you to believe the modern worker is a slave signing up his life/time but thats not companies requests from the modern tech worker. You are required to have deliverables and inputs and yes commitments and you can have other commitments as long it doesnt conflict with your job or takes away your focus and time

I have demonstrated to counsel how one with multiple jobs can deliver the requirements of the company on all fronts

Unless its explicitly stated on your contract not to take on any other commitment then I cant say it s wrong. Thank you

Pascal 63 submitted their closing statement.

Pascal 63 wants you to believe that if it's not explicitly written, it's not wrong. But a contract is more than just a list of forbidden acts. It's a mutual understanding of professional commitment.

The core issue here is simple: you are selling your exclusive professional time, focus, and loyalty to two different employers. Each one believes they have your full commitment for 40 hours a week.

Pascal 63 tried to dodge this with talk of 'deliverables,' 'flexibility,' or 'different time zones.' None of that changes the math. You can't give 80 hours of exclusive commitment in a 40-hour week without lying to one, or both, of your employers.

Taking a salary under those false pretenses isn't 'modern work.' It's deception. Pascal 63 never explained how that isn't true, and that's why this case is clear.