Option B is explicitly prohibited in your employment agreement for most salary workers. I would never consider working for a company that required me to violate a contract just for a chance to work there.
In my experience this hasn't been the case. The closest I've come was an employment contract that required me to notify my employer of any work on the side. This has happened only once over more than a decade of work in this industry.
GitLab has an employment offer example up on their website¹.
Here's the part that's relevant to the discussion:
> While you render services to the Company, you will not engage in any other gainful employment, business or activity without the written consent of the Company. While you render services to the Company, you also will not assist any person or organization in competing with the Company, in preparing to compete with the Company or in hiring any employees of the Company.
I'm sure we can have both charitable and strict interpretations of "while you render services to the Company" but only a lawyer can probably tell what that means. Did you not have such a clause?
I do not think we would make a problem if people did a paid technical interview somewhere else, it doesn't make sense to me. On the other hand it is hard to write an exception for this, but merge requests are welcome.
Are technical interviews work on real world problems, the work is not paid and the code is open source. You can opt for an alternative if you want, see https://about.gitlab.com/jobs/
"During your Employment, you shall devote your full business efforts and time to the Company. During your Employment, without written permission from the Chief Executive officer, or one of his direct reports, you shall not render services in any capacity for any other person or entity and shall not act as sole proprietor or parter of any other person or entity..."
As I understand it, this is pretty much the nature of being salaried (as opposed to hourly).
"Most"? Anecdotally and all that, but I never signed a contract that stated that, across ~5 jobs. One tried and I got it redlined out before I started.
Anecdote to add, I've never across 20 years experience (and many jobs) not had a moonlighting clause in my employment agreement.
As someone who hires, I'd be worried about the IP implications of even suggesting I pay them for outside work prior to them leaving their prior commitments.
Huh, interesting. I think I'd just walk if presented with a firm one. I constantly have other things going on, even when FT employed, and honestly no employer is going to pay me enough to constrain my options.
I work in higher ed now, and I can do whatever I want outside of normal hours, as long as it doesn't interfere with the work I was hired to do.
One benefit of having firmly rejected Silicon Valley is that I'm no longer at the whim of jealous employers who know I could find another job across the bay at any time and keep my home and social circles.
This is true of work you do on company equipment during work hours. If things were as you describe, no one would ever be able to do open source, let alone sign standard FOSS CLAs or the like.
Don't over-generalize, both of the big tech companies I've worked at in the last 10 years have this clause and require _explicit_ specific approval for any outside work, open source or not. Otherwise, yes, according to the contract it is their property. The enforceability of this debatable, but it is most definitely something that happens.
Saying they are not enforceable & saying that they are completely risk free for a potential hirer who wants to pay a nominal payment for coding exercises are 2 different things, especially considering that conflict of interest laws are enforceable.
As for the ethics of it, I find it odd that you are fine with working for someone who uses something you are vehemently against, but hey to each their own.
