I'm an HP exec: I believe employees should have the right to work multiple jobs

Fast Company

5 days ago

The controversy surrounding Soham Parekh, the software engineer accused of secretly holding multiple jobs, has sparked a predictable backlash against 'overemployment.' Parekh's methods—he reportedly misled multiple employers—were clearly unethical, but this shouldn't obscure a broader question: Is it time to rethink our antipathy toward employees holding multiple jobs?
A double standard?
Parekh's case notwithstanding, there's a deeper structural issue at play. Why should it be acceptable for some CEOs to hold leadership roles at multiple companies yet unacceptable for a talented marketer or software engineer to have multiple jobs? The world of work has fundamentally changed, and limiting people to one job is an outdated idea that doesn't benefit anyone.
Startups have embraced fractional executives; CFOs, CMOs, and other senior positions going part time is now standard practice. However, large corporations continue to address similar needs exclusively through consulting arrangements. This highlights a significant gap in how organizations approach talent acquisition and utilization.
This disparity provides valuable context for understanding why employees may resort to undisclosed secondary employment. By establishing clear policies and frameworks for multiple job arrangements, organizations could provide more transparent alternatives to the current trend of covert moonlighting. The gap between evolving work patterns and traditional corporate structures points to an opportunity for more adaptive talent management strategies.
The inevitable shift
Workers don't have it easy today. Fresh graduates worry about their job prospects as entry-level roles shift to AI. Warehouse workers face replacement by robots. Large corporations continue to outsource jobs to cheaper sources of labor. We need to tilt the scales back in favor of workers and create an environment where talented and productive people can make a better living.
By removing the taboo of overemployment, we would create an environment where honesty is rewarded over secrecy. AI is only going to make performing multiple jobs (a lot) easier. We should get ahead of this trend and bring it out into the open instead of pretending it won't happen. How many other Soham Parekhs are out there today, perhaps working at your own company? We really have no idea, but there are likely to be more of them moving forward.
Toward mutual benefit
This isn't just about employee flexibility; it could be a win for employers who are struggling to retain talent amid strict return-to-office mandates (another antiquated idea). It would allow enterprises to become more agile, tapping into top-tier talent only when needed. Furthermore, this shift would encourage a focus on outcomes and productivity rather than just managing hours in the office.
The root cause of overemployment isn't that it's unethical, it's that we're forcing it underground. The real scandal isn't workers maximizing their earning potential; it's employers clinging to the primitive concepts that they own their employees' entire productive capacity.
Transparent overemployment could actually strengthen the job market. Imagine if companies had to compete not just on salary, but on being the kind of workplace that actually cares about the employee experience.
While we can all acknowledge the shift in traditional corporate jobs isn't going to be easy or happen overnight, we must also accept that the current system punishes honesty and rewards deception. We've turned competent professionals into corporate double agents. This isn't sustainable, and it's certainly not efficient. The question isn't whether overemployment will continue, it's whether we'll legitimize it before the whole charade collapses under its own absurdity.
The industrial age is dead, but we're still using its rule book. While AI copilots and agentic workflows obliterate the tedious grunt work that once consumed entire careers, we're clinging to antiquated notions of what constitutes a 'full-time' commitment. The math is brutal: If machines can handle the repetitive tasks that fill 40-hour weeks, why are we pretending humans still need to be chained to single desks?