The moonlighting volcano: Ready to erupt

Why is tension simmering between employers and employees over moonlighting?

The debate over moonlighting has taken centre stage. At the same time, it isn’t difficult to spot the rumblings of discontent among large groups of employees. A broad consensus on how to deal with the moonlighting issue has remained elusive. Partly because the two extreme positions on the subject aren’t easy to reconcile.

At one end of the spectrum is Wipro. Its Executive Chairman Rishad Premji was the first to draw a line in the sand. Moonlighting amounts to plain and simple cheating, he said. He also said 300 employees had been sacked for unauthorised moonlighting. Since then, every other day, Infosys, TCS and IBM have been talking about the scourge of moonlighting that’s afflicted their organisations — and the need to root it out.

And at the other end, it isn’t just C P Gurnani, the chief executive officer of Tech Mahindra, who has chosen not to join the chorus of these IT firms. Mohandas Pai, the stormy petrel of the IT industry, took up the cudgels for employees — pointing out how young IT workers had been exploited over the years, without salary hikes at the base of the pyramid.

Over the last few days, Rajeev Chandrasekhar, Union Minister for state for Skill Development and Entrepreneurship, and Nandan Nilekani, the non-executive chairman of Infosys, have argued about a generational shift — and why companies need to adapt to the new ways of working and why employers should “not pin their employees and put a lid on their dreams”.

So how does one thread the proverbial needle? Here’s the nub: There are two schools of thought on this issue — and bridging them looks tough. A sensible public debate might force both sides to question themselves. However, if the two public stances harden, be prepared for things to worsen:

Imagine you’re against moonlighting: Whether you are a large frontline IT firm or a mid-sized ITES firm, you’re likely to press one or more levers to stamp out the menace. One, start monitoring or surveilling employees. There is enough AI software available to monitor the productivity of remote workers. Privately, many firms admit they have begun using technology to track keystrokes to gauge how much time employees are in front of their machines.

If employees put in an eight-hour shift in a day, they say, they are then eligible to do other work that is not in conflict with their core work as full-time employees. The law allows employees that flexibility. However, this kind of monitoring has the potential of escalating into an invasion of privacy soon.

Two, expect many of them to tighten employee contracts shortly, if they haven’t done so already. More pernicious clauses like termination without notice if an employee is caught moonlighting are likely to be introduced.

Three, many business leaders believe that the work from anywhere culture has led to this phenomenon of moonlighting. Policies that force employees to adopt a 70:30 hybrid work could become all-pervasive. After successfully working remotely for two years, many employees are not in the mood to come back to the office. And diktats that force them to do so run the risk of triggering large scale resignations, wherever employees have marketable skills.

Clearly, if firms use these blunt tools, the bedrock of trust that defined the relationship between an employer and employee will be eroded. Employers have been increasingly frustrated by the prospect of job-hopping and last-minute dropouts. A founder at a leading ITES firm says that more than half of his senior level hires tend to skip joining after having accepted the offer. They tend to shop around for the best deal, sometimes managing a 50 per cent hike on their last offer. Such unethical behaviour won’t easily go away, unless the job market cools down. Well-funded start-ups, which have gone on a mad hiring spree will need to bring in a semblance of order. A funding slowdown — and layoffs at start-ups — could help place curbs on such mercenary behaviour.

If you’re for moonlighting: During Covid, there were firms that held their line. They didn’t lay off, cut salaries or bonuses. In fact, they doubled down to provide healthcare support, counselling services and showed genuine empathy in times of adversity. Equally, there were enough corporate scrooges, who slashed salaries, denied bonuses —and ruthlessly laid off workers, even as CEO salaries were substantially increased. Employees were perceptive enough to see through this charade. And many of them are now no longer willing to define themselves by the work they do. It is now just another aspect, albeit important, of their lives.

This generational shift will have major implications on the workplace choices young people make. Trying to bind them through contracts and rigid policies could result in an upheaval. There’s another reality: There is a playbook for remote work that’s been around for more than two decades. Many employees who have experienced the benefits of remote work now want more choice and flexibility in planning and executing their work. Measure us on outcome, they say. Equally, there are others who would prefer to be back in office.

The debate around moonlighting needs to be reframed around flexibility versus rigidity of workplace policies. Importantly, it is also about access to capabilities rather than owning all the talent, especially at a time when the potential for gig work grows.

Post-Covid, the pragmatic leadership team at Swiggy has read the writing on the wall by introducing their industry-first moonlighting policy. What are other CEOs waiting for? 

The writer is co-founder of Founding Fuel