Moonlighting in the context of remote work refers to the practice of employees taking on additional employment or engaging in secondary work activities outside their primary job, often without the knowledge or approval of their primary employer. In a remote work setting, where individuals have more flexibility in managing their schedules and may not be physically monitored during working hours, moonlighting can be more challenging for employers to detect.
Why Moonlight? The Motivations Behind the Second Shift
Plan B: In times of economic uncertainty, having a backup plan becomes crucial. Moonlighting often serves as a safety net for individuals insecure about their present jobs, especially in industries facing layoffs and understaffing.
Multiple Sources of Income: Financial advisors advocate for diversifying income streams. For some, a second job provides an additional source of revenue, complementing their primary income and contributing to overall financial stability.
Paying off Debt: Job losses during the pandemic have left many with financial burdens. Moonlighting becomes a means to pay off debts accrued during challenging times, whether it’s a home loan, a laptop purchase, or other financial commitments.
Change of Career: Individuals contemplating a career change often engage in moonlighting to gain experience and skills in their desired field. It allows them to explore new opportunities without fully committing to a transition.
Pursuing Passion: Moonlighting isn’t solely driven by financial motives. Some individuals take on a second job to pursue their passion projects, allowing them to explore creative outlets or engage in activities they love.
Creativity Boost: Mundane jobs can stifle creativity. Moonlighting provides a way for individuals to keep their minds engaged, overcome challenges, and tap into their creative sides, fostering innovation.
Impact on Mental Health
The pressure of managing dual careers can take a toll on mental health. Burnout, stress, and anxiety may arise if individuals struggle to find a balance between their primary job and moonlighting activities. Employers need to be mindful of the well-being of their workforce, recognizing the challenges associated with moonlighting and offering support where needed.
The Controversy Surrounding Moonlighting in Remote Work
Remote work has opened new possibilities for moonlighting, with some employees taking on additional roles or pursuing side hustles. However, it has also sparked debates, particularly in industries like tech, where companies have varying stances on employees working for competitors or engaging in secondary employment.
Ethical Dilemma: Moonlighting has sparked ethical debates, with some arguing that it amounts to “cheating,” while others see it as a legitimate way for employees to monetize their skills and build financial stability.
Conflict of Interest: Companies often include exclusivity clauses in employment contracts, prohibiting employees from engaging in activities that may conflict with their primary job or compromise the company’s interests.
Nuanced Perspectives: While some condemn moonlighting outright, others acknowledge the potential benefits, citing instances where successful companies originated as side hustles. Striking a balance and defining clear boundaries become critical.
Whom to blame: employees who moonlight or employers who are ineffective in assigning tasks in a remote environment?
The question of blame in the context of moonlighting often involves a nuanced assessment of both employees and employers. Moonlighting can result from various factors, including economic uncertainties, personal aspirations, or the need for additional income. Employees may seek secondary employment as a response to challenges faced in their primary job, such as job insecurity or financial strain. On the other hand, employers bear responsibility for creating an environment that promotes effective task management, especially in remote work settings. If employers fail to provide clear expectations, proper task assignments, and adequate support, employees may feel compelled to seek alternative sources of income. Therefore, the blame cannot be solely attributed to one party; instead, it underscores the importance of a collaborative approach between employees and employers to foster a work environment that addresses challenges and supports mutual success.
Task Reporting: A Tool for Employers in Remote Work Environments
Task reporting plays a pivotal role in addressing the challenges posed by moonlighting in remote work settings. Employers can leverage effective task reporting to:
Ensure Visibility and Transparency: Task reporting provides transparency into an employee’s workload, reducing misunderstandings and allowing employers to assess time allocation effectively.
Enhance Accountability: Regular reporting fosters accountability, motivating employees to meet deadlines and fulfill their commitments to both primary and secondary roles.
Facilitate Communication: Reporting offers a structured communication channel for employees to discuss progress, challenges, and resource needs. Open dialogue helps prevent misunderstandings.
Prioritize Tasks: Employers can work with employees to prioritize tasks, helping them manage workloads across multiple commitments more effectively.
Adapt to Changing Circumstances: Task reporting allows for adaptability. If an employee is taking on additional commitments, employers can adjust priorities and redistribute tasks to maintain a balanced workload.
Conclusion: Striking the Right Balance
Moonlighting, while presenting opportunities for financial gain and personal growth, comes with ethical considerations and challenges for employers. In the remote work landscape, effective task reporting emerges as a valuable tool to navigate and address these challenges. By fostering clear communication, transparency, and adaptability, employers can create a work environment that accommodates moonlighting while ensuring productivity and ethical standards are upheld. As the debate on moonlighting continues, finding a nuanced approach that aligns with the evolving nature of work remains key to striking the right balance.
Menstruation is a natural biological process, but for many women, it comes with severe pain that can interfere with daily activities. According to the American Academy of Family Physicians, up to 20% of women suffer from menstrual cramping severe enough to affect their daily lives. This article argues for the need for paid leave for menstruation, citing the challenges women face in addressing extreme period pain in the workplace.
Reasons for Paid Menstrual Leave: Medical Validity:
Dysmenorrhea, the medical term for extreme period pain, is a common issue affecting a significant percentage of women.
The pain can be debilitating, making it difficult for women to perform their regular work duties.
Medical Disparities:
Women’s pain, in general, is sometimes not taken as seriously as men’s, leading to delayed or inadequate medical attention.
Studies, such as “The Girl Who Cried Pain,” reveal biases against women in the treatment of pain, further underscoring the need for acknowledgment and support.
Workplace Challenges:
Women already face numerous challenges in the workplace, including biased performance reviews and promotion disparities.
The societal stigma surrounding menstruation can contribute to women hesitating to speak up about their painful experiences, potentially hindering their professional growth.
Menstrual Leave Policies:
Some companies, like Coexist, have implemented menstrual leave policies to allow women to take time off during their periods.
These policies aim to address the specific needs of women experiencing extreme menstrual pain.
Paradox: Negative Impact on Women in the Workplace: While advocating for paid menstrual leave is crucial for addressing the immediate needs of women, there exists a paradoxical argument suggesting that such policies may negatively impact women in the workforce.
Employer Bias:
Introducing menstrual leave policies may lead to increased biases against hiring or promoting women, as employers may view them as potential liabilities due to the perceived need for additional time off.
Preferential Treatment:
Some argue that it is more equitable to provide paid leave for both men and women to avoid singling out women for a specific type of leave.
Equalizing leave policies for both genders may promote fairness and discourage potential biases against women in the workplace.
This approach avoids singling out specific groups for leave and ensures that all employees benefit from a more flexible work schedule.
Conclusion: While advocating for paid menstrual leave addresses the immediate needs of women experiencing extreme period pain, it is essential to consider the potential paradoxical impact on women in the workforce. Striking a balance by promoting equal leave policies for both genders or exploring alternatives like reduced working hours can contribute to a fair and inclusive work environment.
Dave Fleischer told me that people don’t get a chance to reflect like this very often. Daily concerns take up people’s cognitive resources: providing lunch money for their kids, evaluating their performance at work, planning who will take the car to get repaired. Without a chance to introspect, we remain overconfident in our understanding of the issues about which we are most passionate. That overconfidence translates to certainty, and we use that certainty to support extreme views.
One of the most striking examples of this comes from experiments into what psychologists call the illusion of explanatory depth. When scientists asked subjects to rate how well they understood things like zippers, toilets, and combination locks, most people tended to say they had a pretty good grasp of their mechanics. But when experimenters asked those same subjects to explain how they worked in detail, people tended to go back and update their answers, admitting they had pretty much no idea how those things worked.
The same was true for political issues.
When asked to provide opinions on health-care reform, a flat tax, carbon emissions, and so on, many subjects held extreme views. When experimenters asked people to provide reasons for their opinions, they did so with ease. But if asked to explain those issues in mechanistic detail, they became flustered and realized they knew far less about the policies than they thought they did.
A truth sandwich is a technique in journalism to cover stories involving misinformation without unintentionally furthering the spread of false or misleading clams.
Berkeley linguist George Lakoff recently came up with the strategy that he decided to call the truth sandwich. Here’s how to build one: Lead with the truth. In the middle of the report, briefly describe the falsehood. And then fact-check the misinformation and repeat the truth.
Amplification Give them Power:
Lakoff has said that he thinks media organizations are unintentionally spreading misinformation when they repeat lies or quote politicians who are asserting falsehoods.
“Avoid retelling the lies. Avoid putting them in headlines, leads or tweets,” Sullivan wrote of Lakoff’s advice. “Because it is that very amplification that gives them power.”
3) Learning Strategies
Use pairing graphics with words, linking abstract concepts with concrete representations, posing probing questions, and retrieval practice (asking people to explain) etc to explain things.
The things that we would like to spread often fail to diffuse. At the same time, the things that we want to prevent from spreading often succeed despite our best attempts to stop them.
This basic problem of diffusion—that is, the failure to spread behavior—occurs whenever behavior change encounters resistance. At tempts to spread everything from vaccinations to innovative technologies to environmentally friendly business practices have faced similar difficulties. The less familiar an innovation is, and the more inconvenient, uncomfortable, or expensive it is, the greater the resistance will typically be, and the less likely it will be to diffuse.
Weak Ties
The basic idea of the strength of weak ties is that while our strong ties that is, our friends and close family—all tend to know each other, our weak ties—that is, our casual acquaintances – connect us to remote parts of the social network. As the sociologist Mark Granovetter famously put it, Whatever is to be diffused can reach a larger number of people, and traverse a greater social distance, when passed through weak ties rather than strong.
Strategic complementarity: The value of a behavior increases with the number of others who adopt it.
Credibility: The more people who adopt a behavior the more believable it is that the behavior is beneficial or that it is worth the cost of adoption.
Legitimacy: The more people who adopt a behavior, the greater the expectation is that other people will approve of the decision to adopt and the lower the risk of embarrassment or sanction.
Emotional contagion: The excitement associated with adopting a behavior increases with the number of others who adopt it.
Casting Hindus as victims and promoting nationalism.
Positioning Congress as the opposition and trolling Rahul Gandhi. Portraying Modi as a supreme leader ( but a cult leader in disguise) and discrediting Rahul Gandhi as unfit for the PM role. It’s crucial to note that the opposition is not the Congress, which currently holds only 50 seats in the Lok Sabha and may at most reach 150. Moreover, Rahul Gandhi is not PM candidate; the INDIA bloc is a coalition of regional parties, requiring a nuanced narrative.
Propagating unrealistic dreams, such as inflating the GDP with excessive zeroes and aiming for a 5 trillion-dollar economy in five years.
Distributing freebies and money during campaigning.
More than 10,000 WhatsApp groups are actively involved in disinformation campaigns, leveraging national media for Hindu-Muslim narratives.
People need to understand the intensity of the problem. We are just in a small margin to dictatorship. Opposition and people need to make no mistake. We need to break the brute force majority of one party. Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha are safeguards of the constitution. Now, Lok Sabha is completely useless. Rajya Sabha is in a small margin. We need not give more than 20% of seats to BJP again.
In Hindi states like Gujarat, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, Uttarakhand, Haryana, and Himachal Pradesh, the BJP secured almost 100% of seats, with Congress only holding one or two seats. The absence of other opposition or regional parties in these states allows the BJP to effectively use the tactics of trolling Congress and promoting the Hindu victim narrative. Limited options for voters make these strategies particularly effective. Using Hindi states, the BJP managed a one-party dictatorship with 300 seats in the Lok Sabha, sidelining all opposition parties and democratic values.
Why is there no other opposition in these states? The First Past the Post (FPTP) voting method maintains a biparty political system. Even if Congress garners 30-40% of votes, it may end up with zero seats because only candidate with highest vote wins, and other votes get waste. What if these 30% seats would have gone only to few constituency? A potential strategy for Congress could be targeting specific constituencies, especially those with weaker opponents, to secure a few seats. Winning a seat with just 1% of the vote is possible under FPTP, emphasizing the importance of strategic planning.
States with more opposition include Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and Delhi. The INDIA bloc must address this challenge by avoiding vote splitting, fostering unity, and strategizing effectively. Leaders like Priyanka Chaturvedi in Shivsena, Akhilesh Yadav in Uttar Pradesh, Nitish in Bihar, and Arvind Kejriwal in Delhi play crucial roles.
In Delhi, even if AAP wins the Assembly Election, people haven’t traditionally voted for them during the Lok Sabha polls because they typically don’t favor Congress at the center. However, this time things have changed. AAP is now part of a national party coalition. It’s crucial to remember that the INDIA bloc is not synonymous with Congress. Congress currently holds about 50 seats, and it’s unlikely to surpass 150 or 200 only after they win in Hindi states. The INDIA bloc is, in fact, a coalition of regional parties, characterized by decentralization and power-sharing. Nevertheless, winning in Hindi states remains crucial for achieving a majority. So, the INDIA bloc needs to work hard to secure Congress’s victory and must address the situation if Congress doesn’t cooperate.
South and East India states, including West Bengal and Odisha: These states pose less of a threat. West Bengal has leaders like Mamata Banerjee and Mahua Moitra, who align with the INDIA bloc. Odisha has Naveen Patnaik, though he has no alliance with anyone, but he is a bit pro-BJP and anti-Congress. The BJD party is a bit more opportunistic toward the state rather than involving itself in national politics. As long as the center benefits them, they hardly care about who is in power at the center. In South Indian states Modi is hardly liked.
Here is real data on vote wastage in elections. In Madhya Pradesh 109 out of 230 constituencies, the election outcome would be reversed if we consider the count of vote wastage. This indicates that the majority have voted against the winning candidate.
Further dissatisfaction by voters, in the form of NOTA, is also evident. They cannot vote for independent candidates because they have almost no chance of winning, and they have preferred NOTA.
In Madhya Pradesh, 193 constituencies recorded more than 1000 votes for NOTA. More than 2000 votes in 79 constituencies, more than 3000 votes in 35 constituencies.
In Chhattisgarh, 64 constituencies recorded more than 1000 votes for NOTA. More than 2000 votes in 46 constituencies, more than 3000 votes in 23 constituencies.
In Rajasthan, 178 constituencies recorded more than 1000 votes for NOTA. More than 2000 votes in 70 constituencies, more than 3000 votes in 30 constituencies.
In Telangana, 81 constituencies recorded more than 1000 votes for NOTA. More than 2000 votes in 22 constituencies, more than 3000 votes in 4 constituencies.
Mizoram has zero NOTA with more than 1000 votes. But it has worst impact on vote splitting.
Similarly, in Punjab, 89 out of 117, the majority have not voted for the winning candidate. Punjab is a different case, as it has recently been taken over by AAP. One can imagine how difficult it is for a new party with a voting method like FPTP.
In the First Past the Post (FPTP) system, a two-party system predominates, and third parties and independents are viewed as spoilers. People are hesitant to vote for them, fearing that it might result in a wasted vote and inadvertently contribute to the victory of the least favored candidate—someone whom the voter actively wishes not to see win.
There are 2303 spoilers in Madhya Pradesh, 1650 spoilers in Rajasthan, 1090 spoilers in Chhattisgarh, and 2053 in Telangana who have almost no chance of winning due to the use of the FPTP voting method.
In other words, FPTP doesn’t give a fair chance to every candidate, which goes against the preamble of the constitution. This voting method can be considered unconstitutional.
Who is evil, whether it’s the people or the voting method?
In Madhya Pradesh, the BJP would have lost 63 seats, and the Congress would have lost 45 because in these constituencies vote wastage has won, or if we could consider the majority decision. In Rajasthan, the Congress would have lost 42 seats, and the BJP 65 seats. In Chhattisgarh, the BJP would have lost 24, and the Congress 21 if we consider majority decision.
Can you blame voters if you don’t even provide the option and instead force them to vote tactically, thus preventing them from voting for their sincere preference?
You can also advocate for a change in the voting method to single-winner Approval Voting in your constituency. However, independents and third parties need to collaborate and demand this change. You can follow the link to learn about the benefits of Approval Voting and how it aids third parties or independents.
How does the India bloc need to select constituency candidates?
India bloc has come a long way from partisanship to inclusiveness in the fight for a common cause. So, why do candidates need to be partisan? India bloc can also include candidates from Independent.
Here are some of the desirable attributes of a good candidate for an election:
1) Independent thinkers: Their goal needs to be to serve the constituency, state, or country, not strong loyalty towards parties. They work in a team or contribute to it, stay with the team even in difficult conditions, but that doesn’t mean supporting the wrongdoing within the parties. They need to take an independent stand and ask for practical reform within the team if things go wrong. Their work is not that of a marketing agent for some cult leader or supporting whatever the party does.
2) Some education: Understanding how the world functions has become highly complicated. One can’t decipher things without some education. Without a good education, you can’t formulate policies, whether in economics, addressing social challenges, or foreseeing the unintended consequences of policy-making.
3) Perseverance: A person serious about politics should be willing to fight for years with steady persistence
4) Rejecting Far-Right Ideologies: Candidates should steer clear of divisive ideologies such as racism, bigotry, xenophobia, or Islamophobia, as well as authoritarianism. Rejecting charismatic or cult-like leaders, like god-men or women, is essential. True leadership should prioritize democratic principles and the well-being of the people.
Tackling Vote Splitting
In the First Past the Post (FPTP) system, when multiple candidates with similar ideologies run in a constituency, votes are likely to split, which can make the candidate lose. To address this issue, they need to manage vote splitting by endorsing a single candidate and employing other marketing strategies, such as spreading awareness among the people about the workings of voting methods. Additionally, efforts should be made to reform the constituency voting system, considering alternatives such as Approval Voting or Proportional Representation to effectively tackle vote splitting.
With Single Winnner Approval Voting, if the INDIA bloc sends three candidates to contest an election in a constituency, the chance of any one of them winning increases substantially. However, with FPTP, the chance of any one of the three winning decreases due to vote splitting.
Who benefits the most from First Past the Post (FPTP)?
Political parties are commonly categorized into two main types: right-wing and left-wing. To understand these terms, let’s delve into their meanings. Right-wing and far-right-wing ideologies often lean towards radical conservatism, ultra-nationalism, and authoritarianism. On the other hand, left-wing politics is associated with principles of social equality and egalitarianism.
However, classifying political parties as strictly right-wing or left-wing can be an oversimplification. The distinction is more nuanced when we consider the diverse ideologies within parties. Political parties are composed of winning candidates, each with their unique set of beliefs and values. Consequently, a party may encompass a range of perspectives, making it challenging to neatly categorize the entire party as exclusively right-wing or left-wing.
The FPTP voting method centers around the candidate who secures the majority of votes, but who gains the most advantage from this system? Right-wing voters typically gravitate towards charismatic leaders, demonstrating strong and unwavering support for a single leader. Consequently, they are less likely to split their votes among multiple candidates. On the other hand, left-wing voters tend to embrace egalitarian ideals, expressing themselves more openly and not necessarily favoring a single leader. This makes them more prone to vote-splitting.
In light of these dynamics, it can be argued that FPTP disproportionately disadvantages left-wing leaders. The system, structured to reward the candidate with the most votes in each constituency, may not align with the diverse and expressive nature of left-wing voters. As a result, FPTP tends to favor the cohesiveness of right-wing voters, potentially impacting the representation of left-wing leaders in the political landscape.
No EVM in Election
EVM is one of the most insecure system of voting.
Without secure voting system, there is no point of constitution or democracy.
Paper ballot may take time for counting, but its much more secure. Counting is not a big problem, one can wait a bit for results, and it can also be automated with machine learning or optical scanner.
EVM is even more dangerous with FPTP voting method, because a single EVM manipulation can swing the result.
The introduction of malicious software into a VVPAT system can cause it to intentionally misrecord the voter’s selections. This attack could minimize detection by manipulating only a small percentage of the votes or for only lesser known races.
Another security concern is that a VVPAT could print while no voter is observing the paper trail, a form of ballot stuffing. Even if additional votes were discovered through matching to the voters list, it would be impossible to identify legitimate ballots from fraudulent ballots.
Alternatively the printer could invalidate the printed record after the voter leaves and print a new fraudulent ballot. These ballots would be undetectable as invalidated ballots are quite common during elections. Also, VVPAT systems that are technically able to reverse the paper feed could be open to manipulated software overwriting or altering the VVPAT after the voter checks it.
Effectiveness concerns: Hardly Anyone In India checks the VVPAT
Also problematic is that voters are not required to actually check the paper audit before casting a ballot, which is critical to “verifying” the vote. While the option to look at the paper may provide comfort to an individual voter, the VVPAT does not serve as an effective check on malfunction or fraud unless a statistically relevant number of voters participate.
Suggestion given by INDIA bloc
Here is a suggestion given by the INDIA bloc: “Instead of the VVPAT slip falling into the box, it should be handed over to the voter, who shall then place it in a separate ballot box after having verified their choice. 100% counting of VVPAT slips should then be done.”
So basically, it means using an Electronic Voting Machine (EVM) as a printer to print out votes instead of using an ink stamp to vote on a paper ballot. However, it still has flaws. Like a printer, an EVM can be programmed to print as many votes for a party that manipulated the EVM. Therefore, the possibility of ballot stuffing can still exist, and it’s may be hard to identify, as the voter may hide it while putting the vote in the ballot box. Remember, a few instances of ballot stuffing in FPTP can overturn the election result and cause the winning candidate to lose.
One way to solve vote stuffing is to allow only a single paper in the printer (VVPAT) during voting. Just like a secret ballot is provided by tearing off the serial number and voter signature, now the single secret ballot can go through the printer to print out the vote.
Also, voters, especially the uneducated ones, need to be trained to recheck their vote printed on the VVPAT. It’s double work for them; first, they have to vote on the EVM appropriately, and then check if the vote is the same or not on the VVPAT. Furthermore, if you are supposed to count all the VVPATs, what is the need for EVMs at all, adding unnecessary complexities?
One advantage of using a digital printer EVM would be a decrease in spoiled or invalid votes. Although I couldn’t find data on the number of spoiled votes in India, here is some information from Kenyan elections. In 2017, the total votes cast were 15,593,050, out of which 411,510 were considered spoiled. In the preceding election in 2013, the total was 12,221,053, with 108,975 considered spoiled.
The number of spoiled votes in a First-Past-the-Post (FPTP) election using ink stamp paper ballots can vary widely based on factors such as voter education, clarity of instructions, and ballot design.
EVM Hack Hypothesis
There is no doubt that EVMs can be hacked. If it is indeed susceptible to hacking, it is in the best interest of politicians, especially for the incumbent party, as they hold the power at the state or center.
The problem with EVMs is that it is hard to prove whether they have been hacked or not, due to reasons associated with how EVMs are manipulated.
Let’s consider the hypothesis: if parties can hack the EVMs, how will they change the ballot to ensure their candidate wins?
They can’t substantially increase the total vote count of a constituency because it is already declared on the voting day itself. They may not do mass manipulation, as its likely to be caught.
Instead, they may make the candidate win with a small margin. They could increase the votes for the candidate they want to win, decrease the votes for the candidate they want to lose, and manipulate vote splitting while keeping the total vote count of the constituency constant.
As given in data, there are many instances where the majority of people in a constituency have voted against a candidate, yet they have won. While it is very likely to happen with FPTP, EVM hacking can make it even worse.
It’s better for us to stop using the EVM and reform our voting system by doing away FPTP.
I am Brainstorming 