Your Job Isn't Your Husband. And You're Not Property

More and more professionals are juggling multiple jobs. But is that really a cause for concern?

Or what if it’s not a red flag, but a sign of the times?

In 2025, the topic of overemployment, working for multiple employers at the same time, has become more than just a trend. It’s a trigger. A trigger for arguments, mistrust, and contract revisions. And at the same time, a reason to fundamentally rethink the relationship between companies and professionals.

Let me start with a personal story. 

I have a friend — incredibly skilled, highly qualified, with twenty years of experience. She doesn’t work in tech. Her field involves the creation and implementation of physical products. And for 18 out of those 20 years, she’s always held two, three, sometimes even four jobs at once. Not because she’s a workaholic. She has a very active personal life, including sports, hobbies, and travel. 

But she also doesn’t have a partner or wealthy parents, and she supports herself entirely. One salary — even a good one, in a senior role — isn’t enough for the quality of life she wants. Buying an apartment, building a financial cushion — all of that requires a level of income that her industry simply doesn’t allow, even with a position in a government ministry (which she’s had, too). But she has skills that can be monetized. Under her leadership, companies undergo rigorous government and industry audits, and in every role, she brings structure, order, and results. That’s why she keeps getting invited.

And yet, whenever she’s honest about her other gigs — even when they don’t conflict, even if they’re on weekends, even if they’re in different fields — she faces pushback. Not outright bans, because no one can legally forbid it. But passive aggression, a sense that her choices are “wrong.” Like someone’s hinting she’s violating some unwritten contract of loyalty.

Even though she demonstrates loyalty every day. Just not in the form of “I belong only to you.”

Why do people choose over-employment?

Sure, financial motivation is often reason number one. Particularly if you support yourself. Mainly in big cities where rent eats half your income, where saving is a luxury, and a mortgage is a life sentence, especially in immigration, where you don’t qualify for local benefits or support.

But money is just the surface. Underneath it lie other, often more meaningful layers:

1. Psychological safety. Many people tell me they simply can’t afford to rely on a single employer — too many shocks in life, such as layoffs, relocations, wars, and lockdowns. Having one more project to lean on is a personal plan B. It creates control, all the more so in today’s labor market, where neither large stable corporations nor startups can guarantee long-term security, regardless of skill level or job title. In that context, over-employment isn’t rebellion — it’s a survival strategy.

2. Growth that’s missing from their primary role. When you’re a seasoned professional, you often have an overflow of ideas, ambitions, and skills. But not every workplace gives room for those things to flourish. Over-employment becomes a window to a world where you feel alive again.

3. A step into something new — without a leap into the void. Many people use a second job to softly enter a new profession. To test if it’ll work. To see if it’s interesting. Without quitting, without burning bridges. It’s not cheating — it’s an intentional shift.

4. Entrepreneurial energy. Some people launch side projects: courses, consulting, mentoring, a website with a friend, a podcast with a colleague. And they do it evenings or weekends. Not because their “main job is bad.” But because they’re not just “employees” — they’re people with ideas, interests, and voices.

5. Some people want exposure to another industry while staying anchored in their current role.

6. Others aim for control and freedom. Even four hours a week where you make your own decisions, build your own processes, work “for yourself” can be a balancing force. That’s even more true if your main job is endless syncs, reports, and someone else’s strategy.

7. And some simply don’t want to put all their eggs in one basket. Diversification, after all, isn’t just a financial principle — it’s a career one too.

So maybe the issue isn’t that someone is exploring other opportunities, but that their company can’t or won’t offer growth or security.

The flip side: when over-employment becomes deception

Let’s not romanticize, abuse happens.

Some people take multiple full-time jobs and slack off. Others outsource their tasks without telling the client. Some build entire careers on ghosting — not doing the work themselves at all. That erodes trust. But that’s not an over-employment problem. That’s unethical behavior. And it can happen even with just one job.

I should also note that this often occurs with B2B contracts. And that’s where the real dilemma begins.

On one hand, companies choose that model — lower taxes, fewer obligations, flexibility. But on the other hand, a B2B contract means someone operates as a business. And a business has the right to choose its clients. Sure, there needs to be agreements on limits, responsibility, and conflict of interest. But that’s a matter of transparency, not a reason for blanket bans.

Why are companies against it?

Common arguments: 

— “They won’t stay focused.” 

— “It’s a security risk.”

 — “They’ll burn out faster.”

— “What if they take our ideas or even worth, our clients?”

This hits a nerve in competitive industries or where confidentiality is key. Yes, those risks exist. But let’s be honest: they exist in “monogamous” contracts too. They’re just easier to ignore when the employee is “yours alone.”

It’s the mindset: “If I don’t own all of your time, I can’t depend on you.” It’s rarely said out loud. But you can feel it.

And that’s where I ask: If you can’t pay someone enough to live on one income, and you still want them to be exclusive, is that care, or is it possessiveness?

Is overemployment always a loss?

Now let’s look at executives. CEOs sit on other companies’ boards, run mentoring programs, sometimes own or advise investment funds, and teach at universities. That’s normal. It’s even encouraged. Does that mean they’re less dedicated to their core job? Why is this acceptable for top-level talent, but not for middle or senior specialists?

Where is the line of “acceptability” drawn? Very often, it’s not about workload, effectiveness, or KPIs — it’s about class perception. Executives are allowed more. Regular employees? They’re expected to stay in their lane. 

So, what is overemployment in 2025? 

A threat or a symptom? Maybe both. But certainly — a signal. A signal that the lines between work and life, between roles and identities, between “can” and “should” — are blurring. And maybe the healthiest thing we can do is talk about it. Openly. Without fear or taboo.

What do you think — is over-employment a sin or a way to mitigate risk?

Do companies have the right to forbid it and demand exclusivity?

Is it ethical for an employee to have multiple jobs, especially if they’re upfront about it with their employer?