S6 Ep.135: Two Jobs, One Paycheck- Exploiting Employees

Comment on the Show by Sending Mark a Text Message.

The workplace landscape has fundamentally shifted, with a disturbing trend emerging across American businesses: employees are increasingly being forced to perform two full-time jobs while receiving just one paycheck. This exploitation operates under the seemingly innocuous phrase "adjusting duties," buried in employment contracts that courts have traditionally interpreted with alarming breadth.

Recent research reveals the devastating human cost of this practice. The SHRM's Employee Mental Health 2024 Research Series found 44% of surveyed workers feel burned out, 45% emotionally drained, and a staggering 51% completely depleted by day's end. Most telling, 40% report being required to perform more work in the same hours. These aren't just statistics—they represent millions of Americans trapped in an impossible situation.

What many don't realize is that even at-will employment constitutes a contract with inherent limitations. The doctrine of unconscionability exists precisely to prevent unreasonable contract terms that no rational person would accept under fair conditions. When employers demand one person perform multiple full-time roles without additional compensation, we've crossed from reasonable business discretion into exploitation. Courts should recognize that employment contracts aren't licenses for unlimited extraction of labor, and principles like proportionality, human capacity limits, and good faith should guide judicial interpretation.

For employees caught in this situation, proactive negotiation remains essential. Document increased workloads, build trust relationships with management, and present the business case for fair compensation. Approach these conversations from a holistic perspective that acknowledges company challenges while firmly advocating for reasonable limits. Remember that no employment relationship can sustainably function when one party extracts everything while providing nothing in return.

If you enjoyed this episode of the Employee Survival Guide please like us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. We would really appreciate if you could leave a review of this podcast on your favorite podcast player such as Apple Podcasts. Leaving a review will inform other listeners you found the content on this podcast is important in the area of employment law in the United States.

For more information, please contact our employment attorneys at Carey & Associates, P.C. at 203-255-4150, www.capclaw.com.

Disclaimer: For educational use only, not intended to be legal advice.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:02):
Hey, it's Mark and welcome back to another exciting
episode, and today we're goingto be talking about two jobs,
one paycheck, how employment atwill became a license for
exploitation.
Employers are generally freeunder the law to adjust the
duties of an at-will employee asthey see fit.

(00:23):
Adjust the duties of an at-willemployee as they see fit.
There is almost no exception.
I submit, however, that whenadjusting the duties of an
employee amounts to doublingtheir workload, it's time to
rethink some fundamentalprinciples of employment law.
Picture this You're hired as adirector of XYZ Global Sales
Department.
Six months later, your employerannounces you'll be also taking

(00:46):
on a second full-time positionas Director of Operations, a
position formerly held by afull-time employee.
Sound familiar?
Everyone?
It should be.
We see this a lot Same salary,double the work.
When you object, you're shownthe door.
That sounds outrageous becauseit is Under current employment

(01:09):
law.
It's perfectly legal.
In fact.
As a practicing employmentattorney, I have recently seen a
marked uptick in the number ofemployees who are terminated or
threatened with terminationbecause they are unwilling or
unable to take on multipleadditional job roles which were
not included in their jobdescriptions at the time they
started working.
In a tightening economy,employers are tightening up

(01:31):
their organizational charts byrequiring few employees to do
more work than they wereoriginally hired to do,
sometimes imposing double oreven triple positions on
unsuspecting employees alreadyoverburdened.
Posing double or even triplepositions on unsuspecting
employees already overburdened.
This is happening right nowacross America, dressed up in
corporate euphemisms likerestructuring or optimization

(01:53):
and increased responsibilities,to name a few.
The legal justification a toxiccombination of employment at
will doctrine and a boilerplatecontract provision that grants
employers virtually unlimiteddiscretion to quote-unquote
adjust the duties.
Recent data paints a disturbingpicture.
According to the Trades UnionCongress, 55% of workers report

(02:18):
their jobs have becomeincreasingly intense over time,
with 61% feeling exhausted atthe end of most working days.
Shrm's Employee Mental Health2024 Research Series, released
for Mental Health AwarenessMonth, found that 44% of 1,400

(02:41):
surveyed US employees feelburned out at work, 45% feel
emotionally drained from theirwork and 51% feel used up at the
end of a workday.
A staggering 40% report beingrequired to do more work in the
same amount of time.
Further, us employees who feelburned out are nearly three

(03:04):
times more likely to be jobhunting.
These aren't just statistics.
They're symptoms of afundamentally broken employment
contract system.
The culprit employmentagreements that routinely
contain provisions like thecompany reserves the right to
require you to work during otheror further days or hours for no

(03:25):
additional consideration, andphrases like duties,
responsibilities and reportingrelationships may be adjusted at
any time.
End quote Courts havetraditionally interpreted these
clauses in employment contractsboth express and implied
employment contracts with absurdbreadth, essentially holding
that as long as you're stillreceiving your paycheck, your

(03:48):
employer can pile on unlimitedadditional responsibilities.
After all, you're at will.
If you don't like it, you canquit or just be fired.
Here's what courts seem to haveforgotten.
Even at-will employment isstill a contract.
Courts seem to have forgotten.
Even at-will employment isstill a contract and contracts
have limits.
The doctrine ofunconscionability exists to deny

(04:11):
the enforcement of harsh andunreasonable contract terms.
An unconscionable bargain isone which quote no man in his
senses and not under anydelusion would make, under the
one hand, and no honest andfair-minded person would accept,
on the other hand.
Unconsciousness is determinedby reference to the relative
benefit of the bargain to theparties at the time of its

(04:33):
making, the nature of themethods employed in negotiating
it and the relative bargainingpower of the parties.
When an employer demands thatone person perform two full-time
positions for a single salary.
We have crossed from adjustingduties into exploitation.
At that point employmentcontract, at the heart of every

(04:55):
employment relationship, hasbecome an agreement that no
reasonable person would make andwhich no honest person would
accept, in which no honestperson would accept this isn't a
reasonable interpretation ofcontractual discretion.
It's an absurd result thatcourts should refuse to enforce.
Our courts, both state andfederal, have long held that

(05:17):
contracts which purport toimpose commercially unreasonable
results will be void as amatter of law.
Where the result of the party'sinterpretation of a contract is
both absurd and the opposite ofwhat the parties intended, that
agreement cannot be justlyenforced.
It would be an absurd result tointerpret the contract in a
manner that leaves one partywithout a remedy in the event of

(05:39):
a breach by the other.
As the courts cited in casesthat I've worked on and cases
that I've read, where a party isprevented from reaping the
obviously intended benefit ofthe contract and where an
obviously unforeseen windfallwill result to one party, the

(05:59):
contract is void as absurd.
Consider the reducio adabsurdum Latin phrase.
If adjusting duties permits anemployer requiring an employee
to work two positions, why notthree, five, ten positions?
At what point does a courtfinally say this has gone too

(06:20):
far.
The answer should be never.
In reality, one person canperform two full-time jobs.
It is not commerciallyreasonable to be paid one salary
for what amounts to twopositions.
The very fundamental principleof an employment agreement,
either express or implied, isone job, one salary.
Every employment contract inNew York and Connecticut

(06:43):
includes an applied covenant ofgood faith and fair dealing and
it's a famous court case from1983.
It's called Murphy versusAmerican Home Products Corp and
the Murphy case limited thecovenant's application to
at-will employment.
It didn't eliminate it entirelywhen expressed contractual

(07:06):
discretion exists.
Requiring an employee to performmultiple full-time roles isn't
exercising discretion and goodfaith.
It's weaponizing contractlanguage to extract maximum
labor for minimum compensation.
Even broad contractualdiscretion must be exercised

(07:27):
with a modicum of common senseEncompassed within the implied
obligation of each promisor to acontract to exercise good faith
.
Are any promises which are areasonable person in the
position of the promisee wouldbe justified in understanding?
Were included?
Would be justified inunderstanding?
We're included.

(07:47):
The research is clear Workintensification is destroying
American workers.
The always-on culture enabledby remote work means 36% of
workers spend more time outsidecontracted hours on work emails,
while 32% complete more coretasks on their own time.
Economic uncertainty drivesworkers to accept these

(08:08):
conditions, fearing thatresistance means unemployment.
But here's the thing Acceptingthe unacceptable should be the
price of employment or shouldn'tbe the price of employment.
When loyal, hardworkingemployees refuse to take on
multiple roles for the samesalary, they are not being lazy.
They are imposing human limitson otherwise inhuman and

(08:30):
patently absurd expectations.
They're making the rationalchoice not to sacrifice their
health and well-being for unfairwages and impossible workloads.
Courts should protect theirright to do so without suffering
economic disaster.
Courts should protect theirright to do so without suffering
economic disaster.

(08:53):
When employers selectivelyimpose dual positions on female
employees while sparing theirmale colleagues, they add
discrimination to exploitation.
This selective enforcementdoesn't just violate Title VII
of the 1964 Civil Rights Act andstate law and city law.
It highlights the arbitrarynature of these quote-unquote
adjustments.
If the business truly neededone person to fill two roles,

(09:13):
wouldn't that apply regardlessof gender?
This discriminatory applicationof strengths strengthens the
unconscionability argument.
Oppressive terms, selectivelyenforced, reveal bad faith,
transforming what we might bedefended as business necessity
which we hear too often, andfrom the courts and my pet peeve

(09:35):
to the courts into targetedexploitation.
Let's reimagine contractuallimits here.
Courts need to remember thatemployment contracts, even
implied and at-will ones, aren'tlicenses for unlimited
exploitation by employers.
Several principles should guidejudicial interpretation.

(09:56):
Number one reasonable scope.
Adjusting duties should meanmodifying existing
responsibilities, notmultiplying entire positions.
Modifying existingresponsibilities, not
multiplying entire positions.
Two proportionality Additionalresponsibility should bear some
relationship to additionalcompensation.

(10:17):
It seems fair, right, butemployers are trying to, you
know, get a bank bargain fortheir situation because they
realize, especially in 2025,that employees are what Without
leverage, to say no Human limits.
Number three Contracts cannotrequire the impossible.
Two or more full-time positionsexceed one person's capacity

(10:39):
Just makes sense.
Four good faith boundariesDiscretion exercise to extract
maximum value while providingminimum compensation violates
good faith.
Everybody understands thatinherently when they see it, but
are powerless.
Given the current socioeconomicpolitical environment like now,

(11:00):
where employees don't have anyeconomic power at the workplace
and employers are juststeamrolling over them the path
forward.
The current moment offers aunique opportunity.
With burnout reaching crisislevels, courts should reconsider
their reflexive deference toemployers.
For employers' discretion, thequestion isn't whether the

(11:24):
employers can require anythingunder at-will employment.
It's whether they should bepermitted to demand the
impossible.
Some courts are beginning torecognize these limits the
growing acknowledgement ofconstructive discharge claims
when working conditions becomeintolerable suggests judicial
willingness to find boundaries.
The next step is recognizingthat requiring multiple

(11:47):
full-time positions for a singlecompensation crosses that line.
Of course it does.
Judges interpreting implementcontracts should ask themselves
would I accept this bargain if Iweren't economically coerced?
Would I want my child to signthis agreement?
Of course not.

(12:09):
Perhaps it's time to dust offthe inconstability doctrine and
give it some teeth.
The employment at will doctrinewas never meant to be a blank
check for exploitation.
Contract law provides tools toprevent abuse.
We just need courts braveenough to use them.
Abuse.

(12:30):
We just need courts braveenough to use them.
Because when flexibility meansworking yourself into the ground
while your employer postsrecord profits for the sake of
Wall Street and shareholders,something has gone fundamentally
wrong with our understanding offair exchange and reasonable
commercial expectations.
The next time an employer claimsthe right to transform one job
into two, three or more, courtsshould remember employment is

(12:51):
always a contract and contractshave limits, and those limits
exist precisely to prevent thepowerful from extracting
everything while providingnothing in return.
After all, if requiring someoneto work two full-time jobs for
one salary isn't unconscionable,what is?
This is a very near and dearissue for myself.

(13:19):
I have a family member who'sexperiencing this issue
currently and that person isreally powerless to change it.
I don't step in as theemployment lawyer father.
I just allow that person tofigure its way out, but I know
what the end result is.
The end result is exactly whatthe article describes and in

(13:42):
most cases we've seen this inour clients as well that the
employee is really powerless,especially now.
Let's see, it's September of2025, and employers are in full
control of the workplace.
There is really no leverage.
Employees have Wall StreetJournal reports.

(14:04):
Employees are clinging to theirjobs, staying put.
Employers are using the jobperformance improvement plan to
try to send the signal toemployees to get out, but that's
not working.
Improvement plan to try to sendthe signal to employees to get
out, but that's not working.
And employees are just stayingput to see what's going to

(14:26):
happen next.
Because we're kind of aneconomic turmoil.
Both corporations and politicsare intertwining themselves, and
so we have this now new change,where you know we've gone and
everybody remembers that we hadthis for a very brief time this
kind of horizon of new employeevalue.

(14:48):
I want to call it that humancapital that employees were able
to jump ship and bargain forbetter pay not too long ago in
the last five years, and thenthat's gone away and employers
are seizing more control becauseit's economically beneficial to
them.

(15:09):
What will change to resurrectthis?
I do not suspect, and norshould you, even though the
article calls out the judiciaryto take a more positive,
interactive role with employersin cases.
So legal cases are referencingjob discrimination typically,

(15:30):
where this dual you know, twojobs for a price of one salary
situation come up Generally inthe discrimination context.
You won't see it in thewhistleblowing context, but you
may.
But courts themselves are.
They're slow to react.
They don't want to engage inpolicymaking, especially telling
employers what to do.

(15:51):
This rollover inter-evolvementbetween the judiciary, economics
and business all at the sametime, and courts have what's
called a business judgment rule.
A business judgment rule meansthat they give discretion to
employers, and so I know I notedthe issue of the court's role

(16:15):
in this, but that's the last toprobably change because the
courts are so slow to react.
I know you're probably saying,well, hell, they're reacting

(16:37):
very quickly at the price of one.
It really takes the employeethemselves to self-advocate, and
that's why I want to bring thatlast portion up and employees
who want to bargain with theiremployers to essentially saying
pay me more compensation so likeback to the family member I'm

(16:59):
watching go through this.
It takes a bit of courage to dothat because people now fear,
in this kind of clinging to jobs, environment approach, to rock
the boat.
They're more likely to take twopositions for the price of one
instead of saying I'm going togo elsewhere and work elsewhere.
But nonetheless, I think a verythoughtful and proactive

(17:23):
approach to saying to yourmanager, who also are under
stress these days becausemanagers are.
You know, there's fewermanagers these days.
We've had many layoffsinvolving managers, so they're
under stress as well.
So you have to think of ascenario of positioning yourself
as a A-game leader type ofemployee who's the Michael

(17:44):
Jordans or LeBron James types.
Just think like that and, withthe corporation's profit mind
and your mindset, make theargument to your employer that
you know I can do these two jobsand will do them successfully,
but I need more pay and so younegotiate and you know you run

(18:04):
the risk that they'll say no,but you have to ask.
So I suggest people negotiatebecause and treat negotiation
not as a one-time ask.
Be deliberate about it, followup multiple times, make it known
to them that you're unhappyabout the current arrangement,
force them to examine the issuethat they damn well know what

(18:26):
they did to you.
You know what I'm talking abouthere.
You have two jobs now for theprice of one, because they
realize they can exploit you andeconomically exploit you, until
you say no and the only fearyou have is they'll replace you
with somebody who will do thatjob.
But it only runs a shortdistance before employees decide

(18:47):
.
No employee will do two jobsfrom one and the employee will
back off and you'll see newhiring take place.
So it's a really weird shiftinglandscape that employees find
themselves in.
I would advocate that employeesnegotiate, negotiate, negotiate
and document things via emailevery time.
You do it.
So have a verbal conversation,document an email and build that

(19:09):
case for why you should be paidmore.
Or if it's a director who hadleft and you're now doing the
director's job in addition toyours, the director was your
former supervisor.
You should make the argumentthat you should be entitled to
the director's level of pay.
And maybe the argument is well,you're getting one person doing

(19:31):
two jobs, but you're not havingto pay the lower level, you're
just having to pay the lowerlevel.
You just have them to pay thehigher level, so maybe it's a
one-third less of a benefit thatthey're going to have to
receive in terms of salary.
They're going to have to payyou, but they're still getting
two jobs, but they're getting amore loyal employee.
Maybe that's where you anglethat.
You say, listen, I'm down forthe long haul for this employer.

(19:52):
I need trust.
It's a bargain relationship.
You need to trust me to do myjob.
You need to pay me what I'm themost accurate and reasonable
pay scale for these two jobs youwant me to do and work that
angle that works every singletime and point out the negative

(20:15):
side of what can happen ifthings go not according to their
plan.
They predict that you're goingto do it, but maybe you point
out the issues that well, bydoing these two jobs with one
salary, we're going to point outthe negative side effects and
sell it that way.
So that's my brainstorming justhow to get out of this

(20:36):
conundrum of a problem that'soccurring a lot.
The courts will again be slowto react.
The article is designed toprompt judges to think about
this.
They do listen to the podcast.
They do receive the mailings wesend out.
We can see them on our list,and so you know someone's got to

(20:58):
say this, so I'm going to sayit.
And so try to negotiate,negotiate, negotiate and develop
the trust relationship withyour employer.
Understand the dynamics that'scurrently playing out at that
particular job and in thecompany.
You know be don't think youknow single-minded, think you
know holistically.
You know, look above and beyondyourself and your position,

(21:20):
look across the field of playwithin the employer and figure
out the best path forward forboth parties, because it's a
win-win it should be as a result.
So, with that, enjoy, talk toyou soon, thank you.