employee freelancing...........

[AKwrapguy]

Your non compete is going to be totally unenforceable across the board if you willingly permit an employee to violate it. Not just with her but with everyone at this point.
I personally dont like moonlighting. If i pay an employee through the good times and the bad and the only risk they have is losing their job then work they encounter should be brought to the business. If an employee doesnt follow your established policies, than they are not as good of an employee as you hold them out to be. You have even eluded to that in wondering if she is doing side work on your nickle. You cant let someone hold you hostage, its your business. Its disruptive to business and this is why companies have policies against it.

Just a quick question, cause this is something that my friends and I have discussed before. You say that you don't like moonlighting, which is fine. I have no issue with that at all. What would you consider moonlighting? For example, lets say that I work for you as a designer, all day long I design signs, posters, wraps, etc... for you. But now lets say I'm going home and working on 3D design for characters/buildings/environmental elements for a video game on the side. Since this is not in direct competition with what you do is it still considered moonlighting to you? It is far enough separated that you would consider this a hobby or whatever and would let it go?

I guess where's the line? Are you willing to pay to me to not moonlight?

 

[DerbyCitySignGuy]

Your non compete is going to be totally unenforceable across the board if you willingly permit an employee to violate it. Not just with her but with everyone at this point.
I personally dont like moonlighting. If i pay an employee through the good times and the bad and the only risk they have is losing their job then work they encounter should be brought to the business. If an employee doesnt follow your established policies, than they are not as good of an employee as you hold them out to be. You have even eluded to that in wondering if she is doing side work on your nickle. You cant let someone hold you hostage, its your business. Its disruptive to business and this is why companies have policies against it.

This is something I fundamentally disagree with. We don't live in a feudal society with the serfs slaving away for the lords (yet). You can write whatever company policy you want, but if your employee is working multiple jobs, even if those jobs are freelancing for themselves, it means that the company is letting that employee down. Most of the jobs in a sign shop are skilled or semi-skilled positions. If you're not paying your employees a fair wage, someone else will. Once that employee figures out that their labor is valuable, they'll jump ship.

Take care of your people and they will take care of you. It really is that simple. If you treat your employees like chattel, they're going to go somewhere else. The sooner we stop treating people like a number in a ledger or a piece of equipment, the better we'll all be.

This applies across the board. Every position in every company is valuable and deserving of respect, otherwise it wouldn't exist and you'd be scrubbing turds off your own toilet bowl.

 

[Gino]

Derby, that's all well and good, but at what point do the people you hire become accountable ??

If I hire someone to do whatever..... I expect that person to do whatever, until it's finished. Until ALL of the whatevers are finished, they are on my time, my money and are being paid to do what the job encompasses. Not following that is insubordination of duties. Also, breech of contract, if they signed a document in the beginning. If.... upfront, a conversation takes place with an agreement at the end of it, then there might be a different outcome.

In no way, am I stifling or stopping someone from not earning extra money, but it better be an agreed upon venture on both parties part. Moonlighting, freelancing or just plain working on the side knowingly upfront can be achieved, but only if all parties know this going in.

Freelancing is really working for various companies at one time and not being fully employed by any single company. If they don't wanna give up their full-time gig, I'd suggest a serious discussion and review of the company policies and not be afriad to walk away from your final decision.

 

[GaSouthpaw]

In many jurisdictions, you can write all the non-compete clauses you want into a employee contract and a judge will find them null as they restrict the employee's ability to make a living. That's when they go looking for another job, though.
I have a life outside work, and I keep it that way. I would never attempt to infringe on my employer's work, and I am 100% up front about what my "moonlighting" is. Only once have I had an employer take issue, and- in all honesty- the issue was more than the guy was a horse's ass than an issue with my moonlighting (as in, he thought I should work all weekend- a schedule I had NEVER agreed to- and took exception to my unwillingness to do it, despite my offering an option that would have solved the problem).
Now, insofar as your employee- as many others have said, you should discuss it calmly and candidly. If she agreed to the policy, it's important that she abide by it.
Now, if there's ANY question about her doing the work on your time, my gut says fire her- no matter how painful it may be. That's stealing. As someone else mentioned, you're 100% within your rights to look at the files on her workstation and determine if there's anything that doesn't belong.

 

[equippaint]

This is something I fundamentally disagree with. We don't live in a feudal society with the serfs slaving away for the lords (yet). You can write whatever company policy you want, but if your employee is working multiple jobs, even if those jobs are freelancing for themselves, it means that the company is letting that employee down. Most of the jobs in a sign shop are skilled or semi-skilled positions. If you're not paying your employees a fair wage, someone else will. Once that employee figures out that their labor is valuable, they'll jump ship.

Take care of your people and they will take care of you. It really is that simple. If you treat your employees like chattel, they're going to go somewhere else. The sooner we stop treating people like a number in a ledger or a piece of equipment, the better we'll all be.

This applies across the board. Every position in every company is valuable and deserving of respect, otherwise it wouldn't exist and you'd be scrubbing turds off your own toilet bowl.

Let them jump then, if they leave over a dollar it says that they could give 2 sh*ts about you or your company anyways. I dont fire employees everytime a better prospect walks in the door looking for a job and with that I dont tolerate any employees that will threaten to quit everytime a "better" job falls in their lap either. Life is give and take, not just take.
I never said that I agree with non competes. As a matter of fact I am 100% against them and its the actual reason that I went to work for myself. They are totally enforceable and will make your life miserable so be careful with them.
This whole notion of treat your employees good is not rocket science and I do treat my employees very well and they will tell you this but life is a 2 way street. Many employees dont treat their employers good and take advantage of them on a regular basis as if they are gods gift to mankind. They treat you as if you are making millions of dollars and dont see the weeks you struggle to make sure they are paid before the rent. Good employees will bring you work they come across and would care about your success as much as you cared about theirs. The selfish entitled ones will hoard all that they can.

 

[equippaint]

In many jurisdictions, you can write all the non-compete clauses you want into a employee contract and a judge will find them null as they restrict the employee's ability to make a living. That's when they go looking for another job, though.
.

Many state statutes specifically state that the courts may not take any hardship into consideration with regards to a non compete. They are very enforceable. Even if you win, you will be $20k+ in the hole fighting it. The courts will grant emergency injunctions on these too so youre pretty much stuck until the time lapses. Dont kid yourself, Ive seen it many many times. Only California prohibits them.

 

[henryz]

I once read a story about a great boss at a sign shop had an excellent employee but when the economy hit rock bottom it all went south, the boss lost everything found himself in the streets a few years passed and saw a sign shop looking for help he applied and it ends up the old employ who he had been great to was the owner... You can figure the ending true story.

 

[equippaint]

Just a quick question, cause this is something that my friends and I have discussed before. You say that you don't like moonlighting, which is fine. I have no issue with that at all. What would you consider moonlighting? For example, lets say that I work for you as a designer, all day long I design signs, posters, wraps, etc... for you. But now lets say I'm going home and working on 3D design for characters/buildings/environmental elements for a video game on the side. Since this is not in direct competition with what you do is it still considered moonlighting to you? It is far enough separated that you would consider this a hobby or whatever and would let it go?

I guess where's the line? Are you willing to pay to me to not moonlight?

Well the policy was clear that it is not permitted so if you accepted the job that would mean that you would be getting paid to not moonlight. It doesnt matter what it is that you do on the side.
I have had guys with lawn routes on the side, then come a busy saturday and they cant work because they have yards they got behind on. Guys that try and do jobs during lunch that get their heads preoccupied before and after or end up coming back late. Guys that work a night job and drag all day long. People that get hurt on their side gigs, this is a huge deal and I have personal experience with this. I have people moonlight here for me and weve had shop supplies from their employers used, parts taken with them to their actual jobs to get worked on when the boss isnt watching etc. It doesnt work. I want peoples head in the game 100%.

 

[ikarasu]

Well the policy was clear that it is not permitted so if you accepted the job that would mean that you would be getting paid to not moonlight. It doesnt matter what it is that you do on the side.
I have had guys with lawn routes on the side, then come a busy saturday and they cant work because they have yards they got behind on. Guys that try and do jobs during lunch that get their heads preoccupied before and after or end up coming back late. Guys that work a night job and drag all day long. People that get hurt on their side gigs, this is a huge deal and I have personal experience with this. I have people moonlight here for me and weve had shop supplies from their employers used, parts taken with them to their actual jobs to get worked on when the boss isnt watching etc. It doesnt work. I want peoples head in the game 100%.

If I was up watching tv until 5 am and came into work tired everyday, you'd fire me. If I constantly came back late for lunch, no matter the reason... You'd fire me. If I "borrowed" parts or tools and took them home, without at least giving you a heads up... I'd also expect to be fired.

Guess how many people I've seen fired for the above reasons, working in many different industries for the past 20 years? Now guess how many of them were fired due to them reasons being the cause of moon lighting?

There's good employees, and there's bad employees. The reason why they're bad shouldn't make a difference.

Just like there's good employees, and bad employees. My employer treats me more like family, than an employee. And for that... I give them my all. I work 5x harder than anyone else at the company. Just today I skipped lunch and breaks to finish a project that needed to be done - didn't even have to be asked to, didn't even bother telling anyone to get any "praise" for it.

I worked for a big company, moved my way up to lower management. It was a family.owned business... I worked 12 hour days because we were so busy. The owners never expected it, and often showed up at 5 am just to drop us off some breakfast. I worked my ass off, newvr phoned it in. Then they sold the company to a corporation - everything was about money and penny pinching. Everyone's attitude changed. They expected us to do 12 hour days... Every single day. Guess what happened? Week after week employees that have been part of the company for 10-20 years left. Before I finally got burnt out, there were 4-5 faces out of 30 that I recognized. All within a year, almost a complete turn over.

Point is... If you have faith in your employees and go everyone them leeway... You'll have an exceptional worker. If you don't trust them / make their lives harder exceptional employee turns into your above examples.

I'm not saying moonlighting is right when she signed a non compete. Just saying, odds are she didn't know she signed a non compete... Which is why we can yap about how it's right or how it's wrong all day, but it means nothing.

Everyone manages their company differently. And every employee is different. What's right for one employee isn't always right for the next. Part of her yearly negotion could be she's allowed to do side jobs... She gets a new contract, all the other employees still have non competes... Nothing to worry about. IF that's what you want. It is your business, she sounds like a good employee... But if you'd rather lose her, that's up to you. I think it'd be a mistake based on what you've related to us, but mistake or not, its your choice to make.

 

[equippaint]

If I was up watching tv until 5 am and came into work tired everyday, you'd fire me. If I constantly came back late for lunch, no matter the reason... You'd fire me. If I "borrowed" parts or tools and took them home, without at least giving you a heads up... I'd also expect to be fired.

Guess how many people I've seen fired for the above reasons, working in many different industries for the past 20 years? Now guess how many of them were fired due to them reasons being the cause of moon lighting?

There's good employees, and there's bad employees. The reason why they're bad shouldn't make a difference.

Just like there's good employees, and bad employees. My employer treats me more like family, than an employee. And for that... I give them my all. I work 5x harder than anyone else at the company. Just today I skipped lunch and breaks to finish a project that needed to be done - didn't even have to be asked to, didn't even bother telling anyone to get any "praise" for it.

I worked for a big company, moved my way up to lower management. It was a family.owned business... I worked 12 hour days because we were so busy. The owners never expected it, and often showed up at 5 am just to drop us off some breakfast. I worked my *** off, newvr phoned it in. Then they sold the company to a corporation - everything was about money and penny pinching. Everyone's attitude changed. They expected us to do 12 hour days... Every single day. Guess what happened? Week after week employees that have been part of the company for 10-20 years left. Before I finally got burnt out, there were 4-5 faces out of 30 that I recognized. All within a year, almost a complete turn over.

Point is... If you have faith in your employees and go everyone them leeway... You'll have an exceptional worker. If you don't trust them / make their lives harder exceptional employee turns into your above examples.

I'm not saying moonlighting is right when she signed a non compete. Just saying, odds are she didn't know she signed a non compete... Which is why we can yap about how it's right or how it's wrong all day, but it means nothing.

Everyone manages their company differently. And every employee is different. What's right for one employee isn't always right for the next. Part of her yearly negotion could be she's allowed to do side jobs... She gets a new contract, all the other employees still have non competes... Nothing to worry about. IF that's what you want. It is your business, she sounds like a good employee... But if you'd rather lose her, that's up to you. I think it'd be a mistake based on what you've related to us, but mistake or not, its your choice to make.

Thats all well and good but its her responsibility to know what she signs. Its her responsibility to follow the rules. Id err on the side of losing her because i dont think she is all that the owner thinks that she is. If i read this all right, that is why they are here with this dilema. Its become apparent to them that this employee may be doing side work on the clock using their equipment. She is paid well and is given all the extra time that she needs to make extra money at work and she is now taking advantage of the owner. She has been well taken care of yet disrespects the owner by not adhering to their rules. Its stealing time. If she has a problem with it then the employee should have broached this with the owner beforehand. But it seems like she doesnt care. Sounds like a taker to me.
Why should she get special treatment? How is that fair to the other employees?
At what point do you draw the line? When they buy a printer and start making signs in their garage? When they freelance design work from your exisiting customers? Or when they use your customers for referrals and take a chunk of what should be coming in the door.
What if you own an electrical business and your techs all ran around on the weekend doing electrical work off their referrals they got during the week from your service calls. Could you trust them to run a service call and not sell side upgrades that by rights are yours? ac companies weigh their refrigerant bottles just for this reason. Its stealing. Its not permitted because it causes problems, not because people are mean.

 

[DerbyCitySignGuy]

Poor managers almost always think they're doing a great job and that any problems lie directly with the employees. Then they act surprised (or sometimes have a "let them leave then" attitude) and don't understand why employees leave because they have "a good job". Spoiler alert: they're not leaving a bad job, they're leaving a bad manager.

There are plenty of scholarly articles out there about why managers suck, and after reading this thread, I'm inclined to believe there are more than a few people who need to read some of them. I'm not trying to offend anybody here, but some of the statements in this thread read like a laundry list of "don'ts" when it comes to managing people.

 

[DerbyCitySignGuy]

Derby, that's all well and good, but at what point do the people you hire become accountable ??

If I hire someone to do whatever..... I expect that person to do whatever, until it's finished. Until ALL of the whatevers are finished, they are on my time, my money and are being paid to do what the job encompasses. Not following that is insubordination of duties. Also, breech of contract, if they signed a document in the beginning. If.... upfront, a conversation takes place with an agreement at the end of it, then there might be a different outcome.

In no way, am I stifling or stopping someone from not earning extra money, but it better be an agreed upon venture on both parties part. Moonlighting, freelancing or just plain working on the side knowingly upfront can be achieved, but only if all parties know this going in.

Freelancing is really working for various companies at one time and not being fully employed by any single company. If they don't wanna give up their full-time gig, I'd suggest a serious discussion and review of the company policies and not be afriad to walk away from your final decision.

I don't disagree with you, Gino. You're not wrong.

I think most of the issues owners and managers run into are how the situations are handled. A company can terminate an employee for literally ANY reason or NO reason in "right to work" states. That doesn't necessarily mean they should. Many of the problems that seem to be cropping up in this thread are the results of poor communication between employees and employers. The biggest problem I routinely see is managers who don't listen to employees. Employees are only going to try so many times to communicate with their employer, then they're just going to give up. Once one employee figures out that the boss doesn't listen, it's only a matter of time before everybody knows and nobody even TRIES to communicate, because they know it's going to go in one ear and out the other. When you have a manager who is also "never wrong" and/or verbally abusive, it gets even worse.

All of the statements are generalizations and in no way reflect on anybody here, just making some points/observations. Clearly this isn't going to apply to every employer/employee or every situation. Everybody has bad days and some people just stink.

 

[equippaint]

I don't disagree with you, Gino. You're not wrong.

I think most of the issues owners and managers run into are how the situations are handled. A company can terminate an employee for literally ANY reason or NO reason in "right to work" states. That doesn't necessarily mean they should. Many of the problems that seem to be cropping up in this thread are the results of poor communication between employees and employers. The biggest problem I routinely see is managers who don't listen to employees. Employees are only going to try so many times to communicate with their employer, then they're just going to give up. Once one employee figures out that the boss doesn't listen, it's only a matter of time before everybody knows and nobody even TRIES to communicate, because they know it's going to go in one ear and out the other. When you have a manager who is also "never wrong" and/or verbally abusive, it gets even worse.

All of the statements are generalizations and in no way reflect on anybody here, just making some points/observations. Clearly this isn't going to apply to every employer/employee or every situation. Everybody has bad days and some people just stink.

The actual problem here is that the OP has an employee that 1- is violating a company policy, 2- is violating a seemingly legal non-compete clause 3- is stealing time and 4- is running a side business out of the OPs business without them knowing. There is no other issue. This is not about communication. As a matter of fact, being a written contract makes the communication in this instance pretty iron clad. It can not be more clear what the business owner wants and what the employee agreed to when it is in ink.
Despite what you think, employees have a tendency to do a whole lot less listening than most managers that I have come across. What many employees fail to see is the reasoning behind many management decisions. Its armchair quarterback crap. A good example is UPS routing drivers to minimize right hand turns. Some drivers feel that it is inefficient and don't follow what they are told. It is not up to the drivers to make this decision, many of them do not understand the depth of data and studying that went into making this policy. So they whine and buck the system and complain that no one listens to them.
Another from my experience is telling a driver with a wide load to not take the turnpike. They think its stupid since the TP is way faster and do it anyways. Well they get stopped and fined $$ because wide loads are not permitted on the turnpike. Why isn't it good enough to be told to not do something and just not do it? Why do you feel that managers need to waste their time explaining their rationale for every last thing? I have better stuff to do with my time than to coddle people all day every day.

 

[GaSouthpaw]

Many state statutes specifically state that the courts may not take any hardship into consideration with regards to a non compete. They are very enforceable. Even if you win, you will be $20k+ in the hole fighting it. The courts will grant emergency injunctions on these too so youre pretty much stuck until the time lapses. Dont kid yourself, Ive seen it many many times. Only California prohibits them.

In four instances I have personal knowledge of here in Georgia, the court found in favor of the individual- not the company- and the two of them who thought to countersue to recover legal fees were awarded them. That may have changed since then, but it does happen.
Honestly, though, enforceable or not- why sign if you're (not you, specifically- just in general) if you're not going to live up to it? As someone else suggested, cross out the part you object to and negotiate, be prepared to walk, or suck it up.

 

[AKwrapguy]

How much do you guys think that this is a generational thing? As younger people are entering the work force they are seeking a better work/life balance, with the internet and rise if the 'gig' economy and the opportunity to make more money presents itself or expanding their own persona brand, can you really fault someone to explore other possibilities? After all we learned in other threads here that owners are less and less likely to pay a livable wage. I would think that it would almost be assumed or expected that these people have other part time jobs or other sources of income as long as it's not in direct conflict of the job.

 

[DerbyCitySignGuy]

The actual problem here is that the OP has an employee that 1- is violating a company policy, 2- is violating a seemingly legal non-compete clause 3- is stealing time and 4- is running a side business out of the OPs business without them knowing. There is no other issue. This is not about communication. As a matter of fact, being a written contract makes the communication in this instance pretty iron clad. It can not be more clear what the business owner wants and what the employee agreed to when it is in ink.
Despite what you think, employees have a tendency to do a whole lot less listening than most managers that I have come across. What many employees fail to see is the reasoning behind many management decisions. Its armchair quarterback crap. A good example is UPS routing drivers to minimize right hand turns. Some drivers feel that it is inefficient and don't follow what they are told. It is not up to the drivers to make this decision, many of them do not understand the depth of data and studying that went into making this policy. So they whine and buck the system and complain that no one listens to them.
Another from my experience is telling a driver with a wide load to not take the turnpike. They think its stupid since the TP is way faster and do it anyways. Well they get stopped and fined $$ because wide loads are not permitted on the turnpike. Why isn't it good enough to be told to not do something and just not do it? Why do you feel that managers need to waste their time explaining their rationale for every last thing? I have better stuff to do with my time than to coddle people all day every day.

Wait, where are you getting all of this from? Jo-Jo stated that the employee signed paperwork with a non-compete/no moonlighting clause. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's a legally binding document. I don't think Jo-Jo ever specified whether it was a part of the hiring documents or an actual binding legal agreement. Second, Jo-Jo never said that she was stealing time: "I do not know if she is using company time to complete the jobs." That's not stealing time, that's not running a side business out of Jo-Jo's location. The employee apparently wasn't trying to hide it, since she was telling other employees about it, so it's probably true that she just didn't realize that what she was doing was against policy. One of the reasons most people were suggesting Jo-Jo have a conversation, while calm, before jumping to conclusions.

This absolutely is about communication. If an employee says, "This isn't a good idea, why are we doing this?" and the managerial response is, "Because I said so," and not an explanation that the employee can comprehend, that manager sucks. Plain and simple. That's a failing of management to communicate ideas and strategies. You know what happens when you fail to effectively communicate with employees? The examples you listed.

Finally, and I really hate to break this to you, but the job of a manager is to manage staff. If managers aren't answering questions and explaining situations to employees with questions, what exactly are they doing? If a person in a managerial position with direct supervision of employees were ever to tell me that an employee quit because they didn't have time answer that employee's questions about JOB RELATED concerns, that person wouldn't be in that position for long.

Yes, a manager's job is to "coddle" employees, especially if that manager directly oversees people. That's the whole point of having a manager or a supervisor: to deal with employee issues. If a manager doesn't want to spend a few minutes addressing employee concerns, they suck at their job.

 

[equippaint]

In four instances I have personal knowledge of here in Georgia, the court found in favor of the individual- not the company- and the two of them who thought to countersue to recover legal fees were awarded them. That may have changed since then, but it does happen.
Honestly, though, enforceable or not- why sign if you're (not you, specifically- just in general) if you're not going to live up to it? As someone else suggested, cross out the part you object to and negotiate, be prepared to walk, or suck it up.

I agree 100%. Do not sign things that you do not agree with and if you do, grow up and own your decision.

 

[DerbyCitySignGuy]

In four instances I have personal knowledge of here in Georgia, the court found in favor of the individual- not the company- and the two of them who thought to countersue to recover legal fees were awarded them. That may have changed since then, but it does happen.
Honestly, though, enforceable or not- why sign if you're (not you, specifically- just in general) if you're not going to live up to it? As someone else suggested, cross out the part you object to and negotiate, be prepared to walk, or suck it up.

Most the time they don't even go to court here, for those very reasons. They're mostly an intimidation tactic. I've had people ask me to sign them and I straight up tell them, "I know that these are rarely enforceable, but I won't be signing any non-compete agreements. I'd still be interested in discussing employment with you, but not under those terms." They almost always back off if they're actually interested in hiring.

How much do you guys think that this is a generational thing? As younger people are entering the work force they are seeking a better work/life balance, with the internet and rise if the 'gig' economy and the opportunity to make more money presents itself or expanding their own persona brand, can you really fault someone to explore other possibilities? After all we learned in other threads here that owners are less and less likely to pay a livable wage. I would think that it would almost be assumed or expected that these people have other part time jobs or other sources of income as long as it's not in direct conflict of the job.

Definitely a generational thing. I bet you can nail down somebody's age to within 10 years based on their viewpoints on these forums.

 

[AKwrapguy]

The actual problem here is that the OP has an employee that 1- is violating a company policy, 2- is violating a seemingly legal non-compete clause 3- is stealing time and 4- is running a side business out of the OPs business without them knowing. There is no other issue. This is not about communication. As a matter of fact, being a written contract makes the communication in this instance pretty iron clad. It can not be more clear what the business owner wants and what the employee agreed to when it is in ink.
Despite what you think, employees have a tendency to do a whole lot less listening than most managers that I have come across. What many employees fail to see is the reasoning behind many management decisions. Its armchair quarterback crap. A good example is UPS routing drivers to minimize right hand turns. Some drivers feel that it is inefficient and don't follow what they are told. It is not up to the drivers to make this decision, many of them do not understand the depth of data and studying that went into making this policy. So they whine and buck the system and complain that no one listens to them.
Another from my experience is telling a driver with a wide load to not take the turnpike. They think its stupid since the TP is way faster and do it anyways. Well they get stopped and fined $$ because wide loads are not permitted on the turnpike. Why isn't it good enough to be told to not do something and just not do it? Why do you feel that managers need to waste their time explaining their rationale for every last thing? I have better stuff to do with my time than to coddle people all day every day.

I think that this is is simply a communication error as well a failed managing style/philosophy. If you told me to not go down the turnpike when delivering something but it was faster or easier I would be frustrated and would think that you were just wasting my time. How ever if you said to me 'Remember don't take the turnpike this time because wide loads aren't permitted on there and you'll be fined' I would agree and thank you for the reminder and not do it.

Sometime a simple explanation is all it takes, and the attitude of I'm the boss do what I say because I'm the boss means that you'll never get the employees that you'll need to grow your business. The best boss I ever had is a Program Director at a radio station up here I work for on the weekends, he's the best simple because he's approachable, honest, has open communication with all his employee's, never tells you want to do but ask's and explains things so you feel included in whats going on.

 

[equippaint]

Wait, where are you getting all of this from? Jo-Jo stated that the employee signed paperwork with a non-compete/no moonlighting clause. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's a legally binding document. I don't think Jo-Jo ever specified whether it was a part of the hiring documents or an actual binding legal agreement. Second, Jo-Jo never said that she was stealing time: "I do not know if she is using company time to complete the jobs." That's not stealing time, that's not running a side business out of Jo-Jo's location. The employee apparently wasn't trying to hide it, since she was telling other employees about it, so it's probably true that she just didn't realize that what she was doing was against policy. One of the reasons most people were suggesting Jo-Jo have a conversation, while calm, before jumping to conclusions.

This absolutely is about communication. If an employee says, "This isn't a good idea, why are we doing this?" and the managerial response is, "Because I said so," and not an explanation that the employee can comprehend, that manager sucks. Plain and simple. That's a failing of management to communicate ideas and strategies. You know what happens when you fail to effectively communicate with employees? The examples you listed.

Finally, and I really hate to break this to you, but the job of a manager is to manage staff. If managers aren't answering questions and explaining situations to employees with questions, what exactly are they doing? If a person in a managerial position with direct supervision of employees were ever to tell me that an employee quit because they didn't have time answer that employee's questions about JOB RELATED concerns, that person wouldn't be in that position for long.

Yes, a manager's job is to "coddle" employees, especially if that manager directly oversees people. That's the whole point of having a manager or a supervisor: to deal with employee issues. If a manager doesn't want to spend a few minutes addressing employee concerns, they suck at their job.

I hate to break it to you but it absolutely is not a managers job to coddle employees. If you expect a manager to deal with employee issues all the time then that is not a manager, that is a babysitter. And those employees with these issues that need constant intervention and employees that constantly question every single instruction are bad employees period. At what point does an employee have responsibilities to be mature, grown up adults in your world? These types of employees are a drag on the workplace, they kill morale and they waste the time of effective leaders. If your boss tells you "because I said so" it is probably because you never listen and they are sick and tired of your attitude. Quit confusing bad leadership with bad employees. Even good managers can not fix a bad employee.