I don't think that's necessarily true. Another interpretation of being hired as a salaried employee might be "they get the work done that they were assigned, in a satisfactory manner, and are able to respond during regular work hours when needed". If someone can hold two jobs and fulfill that, then why is that a problem?
> There are lots of people with a "screw everyone else, I got mine" attitude
But if they're getting their assigned work done, doing a good job, and delivering on time, how are they screwing anyone else?
> ... who don't see anything wrong with lying to your employer about how you are spending your time.
Why are employers naturally entitled to a complete picture of how employees spend their time? Again, as long as the work gets done, and done well, and on time.
The thing that bothers me is that there's the implication here that the employee should voluntarily take on more and more work to fill those 40 hours a week. And in some orgs, where "work" isn't very well defined, that makes sense. You might just have a grab-bag of tickets that will take years to complete, and, sure, only working on those for 4 hours a day instead of 8 would be cheating. But in places where they say "here are the 10 work items we need you to complete, and they need to be done in 4 weeks"... if you can finish them in 2 weeks, why should you be obligated to say "hey, give me more work"?
Ultimately you should make sure the company is happy with your work product, and the pace at which it is delivered. A contracting arrangement may fit this whole situation better, but because we live in a stupid world, contractors (in the US) usually don't get basic things like health insurance. And it's usually a policy not to give contractors equity. At some places contractors don't even get invited to things like the company holiday party. It's weird to create these two different classes of workers like that. There's no reason to "punsish" workers for doing something different than the standard 9-to-5.
> It demonstrates a severe lack of integrity. I would never want to work with or associate anyone like that.
I'm sympathetic to this point of view, and mostly agree with it. But I think there's an inherent problem here: the employer-employee relationship will always have a huge power imbalance that favors the employer. I'm very torn. But I just don't think I see it as an issue of integrity to show loyalty to an entity that will not show you loyalty in return. Unfortunately, real people (manager, teammates, etc.) become extensions of that entity. You can't deal with them both as people (where I agree you should deal with integrity) and as extensions of the employer (where I think the obligation is weaker) at the same time. That is, you can't tell your manager "hey, I'm telling you the human being I respect that I'm violating my employment agreement and am taking a second full-time job, but I want you as an agent of our employer to pretend you didn't hear that".
> I do however believe that "no moonlighting" clauses in employment contracts should be illegal. I ought to be able to use my skills to make extra money in my free time, as long is there is no apparent conflict of interest present (e.g. moonlighting for a competitor).
Completely agreed here. Though this does make me question where the line is between "moonlighting" and "doing something bad". I think it's obvious to say that taking a contract job where hours aren't specified, and work is done outside of normal work hours, is moonlighting. But I'm not so sure that taking another full-time job and mixing work hours between the two companies is inherently different. It's not exactly the same thing, to be sure.
