From Paychecks to Burnout: The Reality of Moonlighting

After an individual’s typical work hours, generally, from 9 to 5, they prioritize spending some time with their family and taking time for themselves. Whereas people who engage in moonlighting for their survival, tend to have a routine far from ordinary. Moonlighting refers to working a second job after the working hours of the first or primary job.

Due to the rise of COVID-19, the gig economy, and the remote work culture, the concept of moonlight has become a trending topic. On one hand, moonlighting offers many benefits financially and provides opportunities for career growth. On the other hand, it evokes questions about work-life balance, mental health, and job performance.

The standard of living keeps increasing, creating a need for more money than we had previously. To keep pace with this ever-growing economy, people seek additional jobs. It’s not only about money but also about the desire to expand your career. The gig economy, in particular, has provided lots of opportunities for people engaged in moonlighting. At the same time, it has also shown some challenges that need to be addressed. The rise of this concept of moonlighting has sparked debate throughout India.

Role of Technology in Enabling Moonlighting

Technology is a major factor in adapting moonlighting as a standard practice. Freelancing platforms like Upwork and Fiverr have made life easier for individuals seeking a second job. It offers different opportunities from different sectors that can even be carried out remotely. This helps individuals manage multiple jobs efficiently while also giving priority to the primary job.

Despite all the benefits of technology facilitating moonlighting, certain legal restrictions are limiting such opportunities. One such is the existence of Restrictive Covenants. Restrictive Covenants are clauses in an employment contract restricting the employees from taking part in certain activities. The most common clauses falling under this are exclusivity, non-compete, non-solicit, and confidentiality clauses.

According to Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act :

“Every agreement by which anyone is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business of any kind, is to that extent void”.

The only exception to this rule is concerning the sale of goodwill where the seller can agree to not set up a similar business within a certain boundary.

Indian Courts view non-compete clauses (which prevent employees from working for competitors) strictly and consider them void based on Section 27 of the Act. On the other hand, the courts have, in certain situations considered exclusivity clauses (working only for one employer) based on conditions like duration of restriction, geographical scope, etc.

In connection to moonlighting, such restrictive covenants may hinder the employees from taking secondary jobs. This results in conflicts between the emerging trend of usage of technology for extra income and the legal constraints caused by the covenants. Balancing the enforceability of these provisions is something the employers must take care of while drafting employment agreements.

In Niranjan Shankar Golikari v. The Century Spinning and Mfg. Co. Ltd. (1967), the Supreme Court recognized that non-compete clauses are enforceable if they are reasonable in scope and duration and necessary to protect legitimate interests, such as confidential information. Although Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act generally invalidates agreements in restraint of trade, the Court has upheld exceptions when the restrictions are fair, not overly restrictive, and serve a legitimate business purpose.

Moonlighting and Mental Health

Additional income can indeed be earned through secondary jobs, but at the same time, it can take a toll on mental health. Trying to manage multiple jobs at the same time, can cause burnout and reduce personal time for an individual. The real issue here is not having two jobs but the pressure to perform well in both of them. These factors can be overpowering, can cause dissatisfaction in the jobs, and, will reduce the overall quality of life. It is the lack of time and relaxation that causes distress. Individuals sacrifice their relationships, interfering with their personal lives. The mental health of such employees with long working hours can deteriorate over time.

To protect employees’ well-being, various statutes such as The Factories Act, 1948, the Shops and Establishments Acts, and the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 specify provisions that regulate rest days, overtime, working hours limiting it to 48 hours per week and payment for overtime. However, these provisions do not explicitly mention anything about the practice of moonlighting.

There is a gap in the current legal system that does not cover the grey areas, as the existing laws do not focus on moonlighting. The lack of such clauses will pose challenges like health concerns due to extended hours and conflicts with employers. Guidelines and regulations about these missing clauses need to be formulated to avoid such complexities and address the realities of modern work arrangements.

The Gig Economy and Moonlighting

The gig economy refers to working for a short term under different employers rather than under a single employer for a longer term. It specifically engages in short-term contract-based employment and freelancing.

Platforms like Uber and Swiggy have contributed to the rise of the gig economy as a source of secondary jobs. For example, delivery partners of Uber and Swiggy, who are considered gig workers, juggle multiple jobs to survive in this economy. They do not have access to employment benefits or job security like that of the traditional employees. This makes them financially vulnerable. The labour laws in India, once again, have failed to address such challenges faced by gig workers regarding job stability, fair pay, and other benefits.

The Code on Social Security, 2020 in India officially acknowledges gig workers emphasizing their contribution to the economy. But, it does not provide for safety measures such as fixed wages and benefits. Without legal provisions protecting the moonlighting workers, they remain vulnerable to exploitation by the employers.

The comparative analysis of gig economy provisions shows how countries like the EU approach the concept of moonlighting within the gig economy. In the EU, the directive issued by the European Parliament called the Platform Work Directive, provides for standards for gig workers. The criteria is that workers must be working for at least 3 hours per week or 12 hours per 4 weeks. T

The employers under this directive have to provide proper working conditions and ensure fair treatment of their employees. A recent judgement given by the Supreme Court of the UK held that Uber workers are entitled to legal protections just as any other worker. However, it was specifically mentioned that this protection is exclusively for platform workers only.

Conclusion

Moonlighting is not just about juggling between two jobs. It’s much deeper than that. It reflects on an individual’s yearning for economic freedom while focusing on self-growth simultaneously. After analyzing the challenges faced, it exposes cracks in the legal framework. This does not mean the entire concept of moonlighting should be eliminated, rather means creating a balance between employer and employee interests.

Moonlighting is not merely a conflict between the two. They are supposed to work together to identify the terms of employment that benefit both the employer and the employee. Promoting aspects like open communication, flexible legal regulations, etc., can help create a harmonious work culture. By doing these things, moonlighting can shift from being a debated topic to a well-organized opportunity hence aligning with the objective of the modern workforce. This shift requires empathy, to understand the pressures of employees and innovation, to create an agreement supporting the dual employment system without exploitation.

References

[1] Tejaswini Kaushal, Legality of Moonlighting: An Analysis Under Indian Labour Laws, Available Here

[2] Indian Contract Act, 1872

[3] Niranjan Shankar Golikari v. The Century Spinning & Mfg. Co. Ltd [1967] AIR 1098

[4] Kalra, Utkalika et al. Moonlighting and Employee Productivity, Available Here

[5] The Factories Act, 1948

[6] Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946

[7] Indian Laws Relating To Working Hours, Conditions Of Service And Employment, Available Here

[8] The Code on Social Security, 2020

[9] Analysis of Labour Laws with respect to gig workers, Available Here