Slashdot Mirror


Electronic Arts Facing Possible Class Action Lawsuit

As a follow-up to yesterday's story about a frustrated EA employee's spouse, several readers wrote in to report that EA is now facing a possible class action lawsuit from disgruntled employees. Besides the Gamespot coverage, Kotaku has a discussion of it as well. To add to the "frustrated EA worker" momentum, a former employee named Joe Straitiff has posted about his experiences as well. From his post: "So I'm posting under my real name -- you have to stand up to this type of thing or it will continue. And every company will become EA so that can compete... Remember, you can't spell ExploitAtion without EA."

1,060 comments

  1. Former EA Employees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Isn't that like, the whole gaming industry?

    1. Re:Former EA Employees? by Bull999999 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Maybe the geeks can boycott EA and donate the money saved from not buying their games to FOSS organizations and charities that help the poor.

      --
      1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
    2. Re:Former EA Employees? by flibuste · · Score: 5, Insightful
      It's like that in the WHOLE industry...Those 2 blogs entries sound so familiar. To sum up:
      • No overtime paid
      • Abnoxious hours
      • Stressed-out teams
      • Incompetence in management
      • Conflicts of interest
      • HR non-sense
    3. Re:Former EA Employees? by SilentChris · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      If EA's the whole industry, then the industry is apparently full of ranting whiners.

      Read through this guy's story. The whole thing. He went to work for a company (Maxis) that he knew was being slowly drawn into the EA collective. He was given a 6-digit relocation package because he complained about the move.

      I don't know about you, but if I'm upper management and offer a 6-digit package to an employee, I expect 6-digit work. None of this "I'm late because of my sick daughter" crap. None of this "I don't need to do these extra tasks given at the last minute, but were clearly written down and assigned to me". You're paid to do what I assign you.

      Not to mention, this guy is a game programmer. He's not coding for NASA or nuclear scientists, he's putting together a few SimCity expansions. His "complaint" about getting moved to the Urbz project from the Sims was particularly laughable. Management doesn't need to "consult" with programmers before they change projects. Any programmer that thinks that has an extremely big (nay, unrescuable) ego.

      I can understand complaining about the hours, or thinking the workload is rough, but you don't sit there and *not do work* because you don't like it. This guy was basically giving the middle finger to management, and management gave him more than enough chances to put his finger down and realize a) he's getting paid a damn fine salary for being a game program and b) you need to lose the attitude if you want to survive at any company. If I was in EA's shoes, I would've fired his ass, too.

    4. Re:Former EA Employees? by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

      None of this "I'm late because of my sick daughter" crap

      Yeah because clearly the company that you work for is more important then your children. If my boss ever gives me shit about showing up late or leaving early because of a sick child I'll hand in my resignation on the spot. Your family is a million times more important then your company.

      What kind of hours do you suppose the executives work? Do you think they'd be doing this if they had to pay these people overtime? If I was working for EA I'd start talking to local union reps. See how fast they change their ways when they are threatened with unionization.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    5. Re:Former EA Employees? by Dr+Caleb · · Score: 4, Insightful
      None of this "I'm late because of my sick daughter" crap.

      One day, you and people like you are going to have to decide if all you want to be is a consumer; Is everything you do with the focus of earning money to buy things. Or, are you going to stop along the road and enjoy things like the innocence in your childs eyes.

      You decide, work like the Japanese and die an early death from the stress, or live and love longer and enjoy yourself along the way.

      --
      "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
    6. Re:Former EA Employees? by gowen · · Score: 1
      if I'm upper management and offer a 6-digit package to an employee, I expect 6-digit work
      Anyone like to offer me odds that SilentChris (452960) is a college kid, from a relatively afluent background, who has never worked a 9-5 job for longer then 3 months at a time.
      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    7. Re:Former EA Employees? by Taco+John · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're assuming that they want to unionize. While these working conditions sound horrible, and as this story develops I'm sure that it will become clear that these are not isolated incidents, there is a certain cost to unionization. I would say that game developers are in a similar situation to graduate students. Poor working conditions with inadequate (grossly inadequate for grad students) compensation. Also, grad students are only employed by the university for 2-3 years. With a transient workforce like that, as some have described the game developer workforce here, unions are often not approved, because the formation of the union actually gives the employer unfair bargaining power over the employees due to unstable leadership, only a short term vision for the union, etc. Becaues of that, at some universities there are pushes for grad students to unionize, but the vast majority don't want to. Also, there are limits as to who can unionize. In some states contract employees may not be able to. And if EA can find enough people to fulfill a 50% turnover rate, I'm sure they can find enough people looking to work as "independent contractors" to skirt the union. There either has to be a shift on the part of the employees to demand the overtime or an hourly wage, and/or to get EA to change its tune through this litigation.

    8. Re:Former EA Employees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea...
      Or we could go out and buy TheSims 2....
      I just do not know what one to do...

    9. Re:Former EA Employees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I've said it once, and I'll say it again:

      The technology sector is ripe for unionization.

    10. Re:Former EA Employees? by danger_boy_13 · · Score: 1

      Your family is a million times more important then your company. I totally agree with you, but you have to think of it the other way, too. The company that you work for and are supposed to show dedication to is what allows you to support your family. So, going to work on time and doing your job is really putting your family first by putting a roof over their heads and food on the table.

    11. Re:Former EA Employees? by SilentChris · · Score: 1

      Wrong, 9-5 and then some network administrator. If a boss calls me in on the weekend to finish the job, I do it. No need to pussy out.

    12. Re:Former EA Employees? by Trespass · · Score: 1

      No, it's not. Not the whole industry, at least. Definitely the majority, though. Not here, however. If you love games but want some job stability, take a look at some of the smaller companies. That's where I found my niche. I don't mean a team working in their spare time on a title hoping to find a publisher, nut rather a company that's trying to fill a niche themselves and already has a stable income.

    13. Re:Former EA Employees? by David_W · · Score: 5, Insightful
      This is every "exempt" salary position in corporate America. Get over it.

      And this attitude is the problem in a nutshell... how do you expect things to get any better if the answer is always "it's like this everywhere, get over it?" Change has to start somewhere. If you don't like your working conditions then you should do every reasonable thing in your power to fix them.

    14. Re:Former EA Employees? by the_mad_poster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You must be a manager. Nobody else could possibly have posted something as stupid as "get over it". Here's a better idea: walk the entire team right the fuck out halfway through the project and watch the idiots in upper management scramble like a bunch of helpless, headless chickens to try and replace the people who's backs they break to make their $3000 mortgage payments in between day time trips to the golf course and porking their secretaries on the Italian leather sofa in the office they're in for 5% of the week.

      The country doesn't need white collar workers to "get over it", it needs workers to stand up and tell managers to go piss up a rope. Remember people: management doesn't actually DO anything. No company can run with only management because they don't actually do any of the work. If enough people get up and walk out at once, they're screwed.

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
    15. Re:Former EA Employees? by rogueuk · · Score: 4, Informative

      I thought the japanese had the highest life expectancy.

      This says they are #1 on the list while the US is #24...

    16. Re:Former EA Employees? by doinky · · Score: 1

      It's even worse: Americans work MORE hours than the Japanese, and have for quite some time.

    17. Re:Former EA Employees? by gowen · · Score: 1

      Fair enough. I appreciate that some people feel obliged to be a corporate drone.

      I do however, find it somewhat peculiar that you take such a sense of pride from that your spinelessness, mixed with having nothing better to do on a weekend.

      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    18. Re:Former EA Employees? by adewolf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Exactly. Kind of like being in Nazi Germany where those who knew it was wrong and yet did not do/say anything about it are just as guilty as the preptrators.

      --
      "The Brady Bunch is back...working homicide"
    19. Re:Former EA Employees? by mobiGeek · · Score: 1
      Ah, so he's wrong about the 9-5 thing.

      But the college kid, from a relatively afluent background, who has never worked ... for longer then 3 months at a time ??

      :-)

      --

      ...Beware the IDEs of Microsoft...

    20. Re:Former EA Employees? by doofusclam · · Score: 1

      No girlfriend or social life eh?

    21. Re:Former EA Employees? by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, I'm sorry, leaving your sick daughter at home by herself for a few hours while mom goes to get groceries is *not* putting your family first.

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    22. Re:Former EA Employees? by DeusExMalex · · Score: 1
      where did the article say he was not doing work? from what i read, he was doing his work plus some. sounds worthy of a 6-digit salary to me. and no, managment doesn't *need* to consult a programmer before relocating him/her, but it's a nice formality to say "hey - we're moving you from project x to project y. we know you liked project x but we really need you on project y right now."

      maybe i should be pre-emptively fired for having a working brain.

    23. Re:Former EA Employees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good luck affording that medicine Tiny Tim needs without an income and without your insurance.

      Employers have you by your short-n-curlies, and they know it. Things like this happen because you apparently don't.

    24. Re:Former EA Employees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      If enough people get up and walk out at once, they're screwed.

      You know, "Prisoner's Dilemma" would be a totally kickass name for an RPG.

    25. Re:Former EA Employees? by psamty · · Score: 1

      Maybe so, but action has to start somewhere. If they make an example of EA, other companies will soon learn that they can't get away with this level of exploitation.

    26. Re:Former EA Employees? by iamacat · · Score: 2, Funny
      Do yourself a favor and join a big company. You will get:

      • No overtime paid
      • Incompetence in management
      • Unimpressive salary for your job description, but Ok for living.
      • A risk of a layoff for outsourcing reasons or just to make balance sheet look good to shareholders.


      but probably will not be tortured otherwise. Just medical liability lawsuits for repetitive motion injury would kill them. Hopefully we'll see EA part with their ill-gotten profits soon enough.
    27. Re:Former EA Employees? by saintp · · Score: 1

      The problem is that the guy in TFA started out working for a smaller company (Maxis), which got swallowed by EA. If you read yesterday's TFA (RYTFA?), it was noted that the computer game industry has undergone massive consolidation in the past year, with dozens of small publishers folding and getting swallowed by multinational behemoths. So that little shop with a soul today could easily become just another arm of Evil Assrapers tomorrow.

    28. Re:Former EA Employees? by jinxidoru · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So, going to work on time and doing your job is really putting your family first by putting a roof over their heads and food on the table.

      And the cat's in the cradle and the silver spoon
      Little boy blue and the man on the moon
      When you comin' home dad?
      I don't know when, but we'll get together then son
      You know we'll have a good time then

    29. Re:Former EA Employees? by Jim_Maryland · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The technology sector is ripe for unionization.

      Now why would I want to get my pay based on seniority rather than performance? I have several family members (father included) in construction unions and I don't see how the benefits would help in the technology sector. If anything, I'd see unionization as a sure way to move jobs out of the country even faster.

    30. Re:Former EA Employees? by rah1420 · · Score: 5, Funny

      My grand-dad was a railroad telegrapher. He once told the supervisor that he was going to take the afternoon off and go fishing. His supervisor said "Dick, I'd appreciate it if you ASKED me if you can take the afternoon off."

      My grand-dad looked at him witheringly. "I will NEVER ask you if I can leave work. I may, however, ask you if I can come back..."

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.
    31. Re:Former EA Employees? by flibuste · · Score: 1
      You should consider yourself lucky. "Niches" are difficult to find nowadays. Big bucks have taken over the IT industry. In 10 years, IT came from rockstars-packed companies to wannabe-nothing-disgruntled people.

      That is sad

    32. Re:Former EA Employees? by megarich · · Score: 1

      Exactly! Mangement are never the ones who deal with the consequences directly so they can care less. It's like that all over.

      I say for their punishment the judge should make them work 80+ hours 7 days a week for 3 months and let them see how they like it...

      Sometimes the best way for change is to put yourself in the other guys shoes.

    33. Re:Former EA Employees? by Altus · · Score: 1



      for further examples of this see Bungie

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    34. Re:Former EA Employees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lazy good for nuthin' programmers! Get back to writing my buggy contentless(it's a word now) games!

      BTW - How much does a ticket to India cost?

    35. Re:Former EA Employees? by Tim+C · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If my boss ever gives me shit about showing up late or leaving early because of a sick child I'll hand in my resignation on the spot. Your family is a million times more important then your company.

      That's pretty-much my attitude in a nutshell. My first duty is always to my family. In the event of my employer and my family simultaneously having equal need of me, my family wins.

      I'm lucky in that that view is pretty-much shared by everyone I work with. That's not to say that we don't work long, hard hours sometimes - of course we do. When neccesary I will work through the night to get someting done in time. I've put in a 24 hour shift or two in the past to get the project finished in time for a deadline, and I'm not the only one.

      My dedication to the project, if perhaps not the company, cannot be questioned. Yet I won't think twice before coming in late or working from home if my daughter or girlfriend need me more than the company does.

      What kind of hours do you suppose the executives work?

      To an extent, that's immaterial. While I guess I'd object less to working stupid hours if I knew that everyone, all the way to the very top, were doing it, at the same time that's not enough justification for making me do so. I have a young daughter, who misses me enough as it is without making me work 70+ hour weeks. It's tolerable, when necessary, for the short term, and especially if it's actually going to be paid. If it starts becoming expected too frequently, then something would have to change, whether that be conditions at the company, or the company I was employed by.

      Life's too short to spend it all working to make someone else richer, with little or no benefit to you and your family.

    36. Re:Former EA Employees? by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Trouble is...recent legislation is trying to narrow even further what is and is not exempt! Taking away the option of being hourly, and being paid for every hour. They're making it to where software and IT types are no longer eligible to be non-exempt, which is detrimental to our earning potential. I like to work and work hard. I don't like to work for free.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    37. Re:Former EA Employees? by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      ...or Westwood Studios.

      EA bought them up and liquidated them.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    38. Re:Former EA Employees? by ShadowFlair · · Score: 1

      Not to mention, this guy is a game programmer. He's not coding for NASA or nuclear scientists...

      How are these so different? The many engines (3D, speech, SFX, animation...) that run in a game are incredibly sofisticated with lots of concern for physics. There are many people researching the optimization of things that likely will be most useful in the gaming industry (or have application in, well, the research field) and game companies hire these people for their ideas.

      I find that very demeaning. A game programmer has much the same integrety as a science programmer or a nuclear scientist. Programming a game is fun because you're working with the game, but the work involved is just as difficult as any other programmer's work.

      Plus, coders usually expect to put in some unpaid overtime every once in a while to fix emergencies. But the consistent long hours are definitely not part of the contract.

      --
      To iterate is human; to recurse, divine!
    39. Re:Former EA Employees? by Trespass · · Score: 1

      It's the bucks that have caused a lot of the problems. I make under the industry average, but I live somewhere with a low cost of living, so it evens out. Getting out of California was the best this I ever did.

      Seriously, they're out there, but you have to look, and it never hurts to make friends.

    40. Re:Former EA Employees? by shotfeel · · Score: 1

      Actually, based on his previous post, no kids.

      Either that or he's making enough his significant other can stay home with the kids.

    41. Re:Former EA Employees? by Trespass · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't really call Maxis a small publisher, at least in relation to my employer. :)

    42. Re:Former EA Employees? by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      6-digit isn't necessarily impressive. It all depends on the situation. What kind of cost of living increase is involved? Does any real estate have to be liquidated? Does the programmer have any troublesome attachments?

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    43. Re:Former EA Employees? by silverbolt · · Score: 2
      Its one thing to talk about boycotting EA products. But why FOSS ? Why does that even come into the picture ? Why not talk about supporting other smaller game dev studios ?

      FOSS concept is admirable, but let's not bring it into every unrelated thing.

    44. Re:Former EA Employees? by TheLogster · · Score: 1

      Fucking A - my man

    45. Re:Former EA Employees? by Loco3KGT · · Score: 1

      Hey there buddy. Management does actually DO something. You've just been heart broken by the bad managers. Good managers recognize the employees under them as their "customers" and as such do everything they can to make sure they can do their job. They also make sure YOU have a job.

      So that's it. Managers make sure you can do your job to make sure you make the customer happy to make sure the company makes money. Some people are better at it than others. There are probably good managers at EA but they've been destroyed by the atmosphere created by the head exec's at EA.

      Which I'm sorry, but a lot of people here helped create. Employment is a supply and demand market. There's a butt load of supply for very little demand in the gaming industry. That means things aren't in your favor.

      I feel obligated to mention I worked for EA as a tester 4 years ago in Virginia and have few if no negative things to say about my job, my hours (40/wk), or my management. However, your post pissed me off from the management point of view (what I studied in college, when working for EA for a summer).

      --
      Blessed be he who reads this post, Cursed be he who tells my boss.
    46. Re:Former EA Employees? by bludstone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Thats okay. But remember, its us without kids that are picking up your slack. YOU OWE US.

      Make it up to us. Please.

      It is very difficult to be compassionate when, 3 days out of the week, I'm covering for someone who has to leave early because of their kid.

      In short, be appreciative, buy us a lunch, offer to pick up some of our work. PLEASE.

      --

      no .sig
    47. Re:Former EA Employees? by SilentChris · · Score: 1

      Read between the lines. "Sick with daughter, up until 7 AM" and then he says "Overslept until 10". It was a lie.

    48. Re:Former EA Employees? by acvh · · Score: 0

      Yeah, a six figure relo package is JUST LIKE getting beaten and gassed at Auschwitz.

      Far too many people think they DESERVE the job they want. My take is that this guy is one of them.

    49. Re:Former EA Employees? by arivanov · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well... It depends what are we talking about. People keep talking about the IT industry and unions without actually realizing that the differences in the industry are vast. Unions in a high level design department in a Telco - give me a break, unions in an architecture group in a software house - once again give me a break, unions in a "Mr Wolf" pulp fiction style consultancy - you gotta be kidding. Unions in a sweatshop cubicle XP farm where people are cranking out dull code and being payed by the hour - definitely.
      Actually, it is the same in the constuction industry - how many architects, interior designers or planners are unionized? Dunno about US, but here - about 0.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    50. Re:Former EA Employees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jerk

      Can YOU code anything? In VB??

      No? Shut up!

      (Yeah)

    51. Re:Former EA Employees? by idontgno · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I totally agree with you, but you have to think of it the other way, too.

      In logic, this is called a "false dilemma". In case you're wondering, it's a logical fallacy.

      No, going to work to feed your family and staying at home to take care of them aren't inherently contradictory. Sane employers will accept the minor temporary hit to productivity, knowing that their ROI is an employee who's actually productive when he/she comes back. Trust me, sitting there at your desk worrying whether the kid is OK only fulfills the "sitting at the desk" portion of what management pretends is "productivity".

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    52. Re:Former EA Employees? by GoChickenFat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "walk the entire team right the fuck out halfway "

      That's a great idea if everyone will do it...problem is there will always be someone who will stay behind and in this day there are plenty of people waiting in line to take over. I've seen contracted developers try this only to find themselves looking for another contract.

      "No company can run with only management because they don't actually do any of the work."

      I realize slashdot folks spend more time bashing management then supporting but this is a rediculous statement. Of course companies cannot run with only management but to think management doesn't do any work is completely wrong. Projects don't get funded or selected without management. Conflicts don't get handled, people don't get hired and fired, organizations don't get formed, good teams don't get put together, training programs don't get established, status reports don't get handled...I could go on... the point is, unless you have been a member of management you cannont know the struggles that go on. Just keep in mind that everyone thinks their job is the hardest and most important.

      btw...I agree with the "over worked" premise that the former EA employees have presented. The problem is that this is a society issue and not one that is specific to EA. I've been studying the "over worked American" for a couple years and I can tell you that the issue is not exclusive to the IT or gaming industries. As long as we Americans strive to live in excess we will work in excess.

    53. Re:Former EA Employees? by pthisis · · Score: 1

      You decide, work like the Japanese and die an early death from the stress, or live and love longer and enjoy yourself along the way.

      United States:
      Average number of hours worked yearly, 2001: 1979
      Female life expectancy: 79 years
      Male life expectancy: 73 years
      Japan:
      Average number of hours worked yearly, 2001: 1842
      Female Life expectancy: 84 years
      Male Life expectancy: 77 years

      In fact, the Japanese have the highest life expectancy of any nationality according to all the figures I've seen.

      --
      rage, rage against the dying of the light
    54. Re:Former EA Employees? by eric76 · · Score: 1

      When the work is piled up to the point I can't possibly handle it, I stop caring whether it gets handled.

      I handle what I can and do it well and leave the rest until later. I don't feel that anyone can ask anything more.

      If I get to it today, fine. If not, that's fine, too.

      If you want me to care about whether everything gets done, then it has to be physically possible to get everything done.

    55. Re:Former EA Employees? by ChaosDiscord · · Score: 2, Insightful

      VANESSA: Mr. Boy 13, my job is to acclimate you to the Nineties. You know, a lot's changed since 1967.

      DANGER_BOY_13: Well, as long as companies still are dedicated to their employees, only asking for hard work in exchange for life-long employment, and secure retirement benefits, I'll be sound as a pound.

      (Original)

    56. Re:Former EA Employees? by 2old2rockNroll · · Score: 1

      I say for their punishment the judge should make them work 80+ hours 7 days a week for 3 months and let them see how they like it...

      That's not much of a punishment since what they do isn't really "work". What they do is _supervise_, attend communal back-patting meetings with other managers, and make more work for the people who know how.

    57. Re:Former EA Employees? by DM9290 · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the plethora of lame video games which are over priced, overhyped and aren't fun.

      --
      No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
    58. Re:Former EA Employees? by idontgno · · Score: 2, Insightful
      You decide, work like the Japanese and die an early death from the stress, or live and love longer and enjoy yourself along the way.

      Hmmm... how do you reconcile the "Japanese never take vacation" stereotype with the "Japanese tourists all over the place with the newest photography equipment hanging off their necks" stereotype? One must be wrong!

      Here's a hint. Japanese take a lot of vacation. Their work days seem long, but that's because they socialize (i.e., hang out and drink) extensively with their cow-orkers after official hours. Off the clock, of course, but most are salaried and and anyways it's a good way to schmooze the boss and whatnot.

      The Japanese "die an early death from stress" thing is actually associated with secondary school and college, by the way. Graduate and you're in like Flynn. But you may die (or kill yourself) trying to get there.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    59. Re:Former EA Employees? by idontgno · · Score: 1

      Judging from visible evidence of his attitude, I hope for society's sake no kids evar.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    60. Re:Former EA Employees? by SilentChris · · Score: 1

      People rely on me. I don't find anything "spineless" about keeping a communications center running, so Joe User can work, so Joe User can get money to feed his family. When you have a large number of people you care about (and yes, I do care about my coworkers), a little inconvenience on a weekend is a small price to pay.

      It's one thing to be a "corporate drone". It's quite another to be responsible and care about one's work. I am quite disappointed that you didn't take more responsibility in your own, so that you would've chosen a more satisfying job. If you did, you would realize that it's far better to fill one's workday with something you care about, than take any old job and complain about "spineless corporate drones".

    61. Re:Former EA Employees? by gowen · · Score: 1

      I do fill my workday with something I care about. Then I go home, and fill my personal time with something I care about more.

      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    62. Re:Former EA Employees? by eclectro · · Score: 1

      I thought the japanese had the highest life expectancy

      What he meant to say is "work like the Japanese and never get any sleep."

      I would submit that life expectancy does in fact decrease rather dramaticlly when you fall asleep in the road

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    63. Re:Former EA Employees? by 2old2rockNroll · · Score: 1

      Good managers recognize the employees under them as their "customers" and as such do everything they can to make sure they can do their job. They also make sure YOU have a job.

      You apparently have far more experience with "good" management than I do. In my experience, it's the managers who walk the working employees to the door when the budget gets cut. It's interesting that the managers all keep their jobs even when there are fewer people to _manage_.

    64. Re:Former EA Employees? by Yo+Grark · · Score: 1

      You never hear about the soldiers who questioned the system. Actually, they were never heard from again.

      Yo Grark

      --
      Canadian Bred with American Buttering
    65. Re:Former EA Employees? by Peter+La+Casse · · Score: 1
      This is every "exempt" salary position in corporate America.

      Not mine. I don't even remember the last time that I worked more than a 50 hour week.

    66. Re:Former EA Employees? by Jim_Maryland · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I realize that unions have benefited workers in the past and do help some industries (particularly ones where the working conditions are physically dangerous and implimenting safety protocols will cost money to the company). I disagree though about "Unions in a sweatshop cubicle XP farm where people are cranking out dull code and being payed by the hour - definitely." being one of the appropriate places to have a union though.

      (Maybe my understanding of unions is a bit biased so please forgive me, and feel free to point out, if I am mistaken on the details.)

      Don't unions collectively bargain for pay rates? Doesn't that ensure that every employee at a position category will receive the same pay no matter how well/poorly they perform? This doesn't exactly encourage people to put forth their best effort.

      Unions protect the employees by making employee termination much more difficult to the employer. While the advantages are probably pretty obvious, this puts additional burden on the employer to build a case against an employee for termination if the employee truly deserves termination? In extreme cases, this could lead the employer to additional risk if the employee is endangering people or projects.

      Unions typically prohibit companies from hiring non-union employees. If you as a software programmer want to work for company X, you can only do so by joining the union, even if you don't want to. Union's will look at any attempts to hire a non-union employee as "stealing a job" from a union worker.

      Unions see overtime as potential for another worker rather than an opportunity for current union members to pick up additional income. (This is the case with my father, a plumber, who made more money as a non-union plumber due to being able to work overtime. When his shop was unionized, his annual income went from about $54K to $32K. Sure, he didn't have to work any overtime, but now he can't possibly make enough money to maintain his lifestyle. As pointed out above, he can't potentially make any more money due to the union setting the rate.)

      I guess if I were an underachiever, I'd probably welcome a union. For what it's worth, I've worked places (construction - plumbing and concrete finishing and geospatial data conversion shops) where at the time I probably would have welcomed a union, but looking back, I believe it would have been a mistake. If the jobs were unionized, I might have made a little more money (of course paying a bit of that back to the union), but I might not have been as driven to find better opportunities.

    67. Re:Former EA Employees? by gowen · · Score: 2, Insightful
      It's quite another to be responsible
      You are not responsible for things that happen in your work outside your contracted hours. That's your boss's responsibility.

      If your boss wants his network running on weekends, he should pay a network admin to work weekends, or at least pay one of his present ones to be on call. If he wants a service, he should pay the market rate for that service. Would you ring a plumber on a saturday and ask him to fix your faucets out of the goodness of his heart?

      You're not a doctor or a firefighter, you're not saving lives here, so stop imagining there's a pressing moral element to your vocation.

      At the moment, your better nature is being taken advantage, and you're so wrapped up in this (false) sense of indispensibility, you haven't even noticed.

      PS : Try ringing your boss up on a saturday and asking him to mow your lawn.

      Joe User can work, so Joe User can get money to feed his family
      Wow.
      You're prepared to work for nothing so someone else can get paid. So, presumably, if you got fired, your sense of fair play would mean that you'd keep turning up anyway (at least until you found a new job) in order to keep food on Mr User's table. How munificent!
      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    68. Re:Former EA Employees? by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I know many executives, and they ALL work insanely hard. I think we need to be fair, most of them are not porking their secretaries on an italian leather couch in the office they stay in 5% of the time. Almost all of them, even the horrible ones, really work their asses off. I respect that. The problem I think is that respect is not reciprocated. What I do not appreciate is the opinion of one such executive, "I'll never ask my employees to do anything I wouldn't do". He finds it acceptable to live 6 weeks in China away from his family. He also expects that of his employees. Some cannot say no very easily. Why is this attitude wrong? Clearly the boss has a totally different value system. Maybe it's more money, probably he'd do it just for the emotional gain. Either way, it's bad. Most of the time the people at the top of these mammoths base their entire identity, ego, finances and ambitions around their company (or more often "career"). In their eyes the company/career is more their child than their actual children (which I have found they are not often very involved with). Some would quite literally do anything for their company. This is where the problems are. Most of the people they hire simply want to do a job, get paid, and go build their own shrines to personal immortality (i.e. children, projects, etc). Somehow boundaries need to be set, but it's hard to do when so much of the labor force is out of work (or in countries so desperate for money they'll do almost anything). It's clearly not in the best interests of our society for everyone to abandon their family for their job.

    69. Re:Former EA Employees? by danila · · Score: 1

      No company can run with only management because they don't actually do any of the work.

      This is a blatant lie. In fact, there are many companies, such as management agencies, management consultants, etc. that can be run filled almost entirely with managers, who would do most of the work. :)

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    70. Re:Former EA Employees? by SilentChris · · Score: 1

      "If your boss wants his network running on weekends, he should pay a network admin to work weekends, or at least pay one of his present ones to be on call."

      Uh, I am paid that. Who said I wasn't? It's part and parcel of my salary and contract.

      "You're prepared to work for nothing so someone else can get paid."

      Uh, no. Again, where did I say this?

    71. Re:Former EA Employees? by mutterc · · Score: 2, Interesting

      True... a few years ago this factor got Scott Adams accused of being a (possibly unwitting) tool of "The Man". The guy's point was that, since Dilbert hit the scene, a lot of energy that disgruntled workers might have spent organizing, fighting for change, or storming the executive offices with torches and pitchforks got redirected into simply making fun of the evil practices, and sighing "it's like this everywhere; what can you do?"

    72. Re:Former EA Employees? by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Now why would I want to get my pay based on seniority [unions] rather than performance?

      Since when have cubicle jobs rewarded for "performance"? You are rewarded by how well you play their weird kiss-up game.

    73. Re:Former EA Employees? by DM9290 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Now why would I want to get my pay based on seniority rather than performance? I have several family members (father included) in construction unions and I don't see how the benefits would help in the technology sector. If anything, I'd see unionization as a sure way to move jobs out of the country even faster.

      How do you measure "performance"?

      As for Unionization moving jobs out of the country.

      Environmental safety standards = sure way to move jobs out of the country.

      Workplace safety standards = sure way to move jobs out of the country.

      human (and worker) rights = sure way to move jobs out of the country.

      abolishing child labour = sure way to move jobs out of the country.

      Property Taxes = sure way to move jobs out of the country.

      Corporate taxes = sure way to move job out of the country.

      Public healthcare = sure way to move jobs out of the country.

      paid lunchtime and bathroom breaks = sure way to move jobs out of the country.

      minimum living wage = sure way to move jobs out of the country.

      compensation for workplace injuries = sure way to move jobs out of the country.

      What can we do to insure jobs stay in the country?

      Encourage or compell all nations in the world to have the same (or higher) standards as America.

      Dropping the standards locally is what corporations would like because corporations have no interests in human life or happiness.

      Don't believe the hype. American consumers still have a lot of spending power. Once that spending power is gone, then absolutely nothing except dropping all standards will ever get jobs back into the country. Prior to that time, you can keep jobs in country by imposing tarrifs on all countries which fail to live up to "american standards" of decency and employee/human rights and environmental protection. Corporations still want to sell stuff to Americans. And if necessary they will hold their noses and manufacture things here if that is the most profitable way to do business here.

      If china was to suddenly comply with all american standards including free speech, labour unions, workplace safety conditions and human rights. Do you think it would be so cheap to do business in china?
      For that matter.... do you think so many people would flee china and risk their lives packing themselves into shipping containers for the dream of living as an illegal alien in the USA.

      Tarrifs on china and other countries which do not meet American human rights and environmental standards will have the effect of raising the standards abroad until corporations will have no where left to exploit labour or the environment unfairly. And then it would not seem so difficult to compete.

      We are competing against the total exploitation of human life. How can you compete against that? Will you sacrifice your life and the lives of your family just so that your boss (for those of you who work for an outsourcing company) can make more profit?

      Throwing away the right to unionize isn't going to stop outsourcing. Only a relative equalization of standards between nations. You can equalize it high, or equalize it low. Don't let the corporations choose.

      --
      No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
    74. Re:Former EA Employees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Things like the innocence in your child's eyes"? WTF? You do realise that all the people trying to make you into slavish consumers were once "innocent" children" too, right? Perhaps their parents tried as hard as you did, also. I'm sorry, I'll take the car/other "consumerist" item, a tool which can only do the good or damage I cause with it, over a child, the decision to have which and subsequently "enjoy" is nothing but your giving in to your most selfish, primitive urges.

    75. Re:Former EA Employees? by gowen · · Score: 1
      Well you said
      If a boss calls me in on the weekend to finish the job, I do it. No need to pussy out.
      from which I inferred that your job was in some way comparable to the EA employee mentioned. He is forced to work long, unsociable hours for which he is not paid. You are contracted to work long, unsociable hours for which you are paid.

      I assumed you were contrasting the two different reactions to similar circumstances, which would have been an intelligent, constructive and interesting thing to do. In fact, you were contrasting two different reactions to equally different circumstances (you doing what you're paid to do, him having to do what he is not paid to do), which made the comparison so utterly irrelevant as to be a complete waste of your and my time.

      I thought you had something relevant to say.

      I see now that I was wrong.

      Mea maxima culpa.
      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    76. Re:Former EA Employees? by Analogy+Man · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Unions can reflect the personality of the employees they represent. I used to be a member of SPEAA (?sp?) for aerospace engineers and techs. In the actual aero organization the educational split was about 10%PhD,30%MS,40%BS,20%associates degrees. I had favorable impression of the organization and compensation was performance/market based. The Union negotiated the size of the raise pool, medical coverage, retention (yes they acknowledged the cyclic nature of the industry).

      If you were unlucky enough to have a conflict with a particular manager or escallated issues you had recourse and representation.

      Unions stagnate and die when they take the dues of the many to force a company to keep the worst. A union is a good thing when they keep a company honest and are there to remind them that abuse of the hearts, minds and souls of the company is not a good long term business model.

      --
      When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
    77. Re:Former EA Employees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's pretty-much my attitude in a nutshell. My first duty is always to my family. In the event of my employer and my family simultaneously having equal need of me, my family wins.

      Yes, everybody has multiple demands, and your big decision is on when they overlap. However, it's not always as simple as, "my family ALWAYS comes first". For instance, you may have planned a movie date with your wife, but now your boss calls and asks you to work late. If you discuss this with your wife, she might be totally OK with postponing the date until the following night since she's realistic. On the other hand, if you boss wants you to work on the night of your daughter's graduation, you say to him, "look, my daughter's graduating tonight, it's only going to happen once, and I certainly can't miss it." I can't imagine a boss that wouldn't be understanding in that scenario.

      Both your family and your employer have to be realistic, and so do you. One side can't ALWAYS win on every issue. After all, your employer should know that destroying your family life will make you less productive as an employee, and your family should know that you having a successful career is critical to the happiness of the family.

      This is the essence of a balanced life.

    78. Re:Former EA Employees? by Jim_Maryland · · Score: 1

      Since when have cubicle jobs rewarded for "performance"?

      As my follow up to the other poster indicates, I've worked in the cubicle farm environment. I did data conversion projects (hard copy maps to digital datasets primarily) and while the rewards were not what I would have wanted, relative to other coworkers (I had 10% raises while many others were in the 3-5% with a few getting 0%. Please note though that 10% of a low salary isn't exactly much to brag about though, no matter the spin the my manager put on it.), I didn't do too badly. In fact, the first "real" company I worked for probably paid the worst but provided the best learning opportunity for me. I of course looked for other opportunities where I could continue to advance my career, financially and technically. I knew that the company couldn't pay much beyond what I was already getting without passing the cost along to the customers. Then again, the cubicle farm is generally an environment where you are hiring a lot of similarly skilled employees to do bulk work and want to keep the cost level. The pay level is generally dictated by what the company can afford to pay while continuing to bring in new work. By overpaying one employee, they'll have to make it up elsewhere or they won't remain competitive. If they can't compete, the company won't have any jobs to offer and then you'd have people in the unemployment line.

    79. Re:Former EA Employees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Arrgh! You parents! You think you deserve special treatment because you managed to breed. It was your decision to have a child, deal with the concequences and stop making the others around you suffer for your mistakes.

      And the desire to have children first place I just don't understand. All I see is work, pain and sacrifice in childrearing and absolutely no benefits. Other than birth control/abortion malfunctions, I see no reason to have a child.

      Is it that much of an ego stroke that an uninformed and ignorant human (a child) trusts your judgement implicitly and looks up to you? Do you get jollies from being the absolute authority for a child, at least until it grows a brain and backbone? Or is the child just another marketing checkbox in your competition with the Joneses?

      Explain this to me, please. Why would I ever want a child? Why would anyone? I just don't get it.

    80. Re:Former EA Employees? by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      I guess if I were an underachiever, I'd probably welcome a union.

      Yeah, because your boss would never take advantage of you and demand extra work for no pay, not even in a lousy job market.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    81. Re:Former EA Employees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Americans live to work, while Europeans work to live.

    82. Re:Former EA Employees? by mutterc · · Score: 2, Interesting
      When neccesary I will work through the night to get someting done in time. I've put in a 24 hour shift or two in the past to get the project finished in time for a deadline, and I'm not the only one.
      The problem with this is that eventually the requests come faster and closer, until you're doing this all the time. Why bust your butt just because management doesn't feel like staffing enough (and/or customers don't feel like paying enough to get it Done Right)? My current manager (maybe he'll understand this stuff more when he gets to be my age) tried the old line of "we don't care how many hours you work, as long as the work gets done." To this I responded "bullshit! If I can do all of my work in 40 hours, you'll simply assign me more things to do."

      (from parent):

      What kind of hours do you suppose the executives work?
      Executives that I have seen tend to work a lot - it's a dirtier job than many realize. You're expected to be married to the company. However, they do also have incentive, in that they actually have a chance to cash in on this.

      In my opinion, the best place (as a grunt) to draw the line is at the standard, 40 hours. If it can't get done in 40 hours, it doesn't need to get done. So far (for some reason) I have yet to get fired for holding this viewpoint. Try it! Just like the vague promises of rewards are unlikely to materialize, so are the vague threats against job security. It's not like you'll actually have better job security if you bust your butt. Really.

    83. Re:Former EA Employees? by SilentChris · · Score: 1

      It's completely relevant, in that most programmers are pussies compared to network support. We're on call 24/7. We're the lifeblood of an entire organization. We don't complain about salaries, and certainly don't wimp out of assignments.

      Contrast that with this guy: a game programmer. Paid to sit by himself and code all day for entertainment purposes. His boss hands him a long list of assignments, some of which come last minute. A network administrator would say "fine" and finish the job, regardless of the fact that it ate up some of us weekend.

      His job is not an hourly assignment: it's salaried. He's expected to get the job done, whether it's working a "standard" 8-hour shift or working ridiculous hours right before E3. That's pretty much known throughout the industry. If he *didn't* expect that, he obviously didn't take the time to research that industry thoroughly enough.

      I knew going headfirst into system administration that I'd work some crappy hours. Things break, people mess up, it happens. But I don't sit around like a pussy programmer and complain that my 6-digit salary isn't enough, or I have "special needs" when the company moves. He wasn't part of upper-management, he doesn't have the right to make those decisions. Again, I'd fire his ass.

    84. Re:Former EA Employees? by Beek · · Score: 1

      LOL, yeah, your money and workload (for your entire) is sooooo much tougher than someone who has kids.

      LMAOnnaise

    85. Re:Former EA Employees? by deanj · · Score: 1

      You got that right about managers. After having many bad managers, having a good one can really open your eyes. It's like night and day.

      Only problem is that once you have to move on and you're back to bad managers again, it's really frustrating.

    86. Re:Former EA Employees? by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 1

      So, you can get sick days for when you're sick but you can't take time off for when your kid gets sick? Just the fact that the parent has to leave early implies that the parent came to work while the kid is sick, doesn't it? How about looking at it from a positive perspective: "My employee came to work to spend as much of the day as possible with the company despite having a sick kid, thus minimizing unproductivity. I appreciate that."?

      Here's the perspective that I seem to be getting from you: the person is "allowed" to work unpaid overtime when there are "unforeseen" circumstances, but he isn't allowed to go home a few minutes early for a sick child?

      You people make me sick. You unjust, inequitable, and immoral attitudes are examples of what it means to be evil.

      Yes, you said that you agree with him, but why would any of us have to think of it from the company's perspective? Just the fact that people work hard and/or smart implies that we already have thought about it from their perspective.

    87. Re:Former EA Employees? by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 1
      Why is this attitude wrong? Clearly the boss has a totally different value system.
      I totally agree with that. Doing unto others as I would have others do unto me is only a good standard for generosity. Also, what he defines as work for himself could be totally different for what he defines as work for us.
    88. Re:Former EA Employees? by Loco3KGT · · Score: 1

      Not only that, I work with managers who are responsible for growing their area of the company from 17 million USD per year to ~80 million per year. And they did it without slave driving.

      Alas, I'm only 23. But I spent my entire time in business management classes going "Why are you teaching me to not be an asshole?" The unfortunate truth was that that's what managers have turned out to be in a lot of cases. This is just like every other story though, where you only hear the bad and not the good.

      I really doubt I'm the only one who experiences good managers, after all I work with 150 other people all reporting to the same group manager and everyone seems to love this guy. I also work for a company that shifts people between jobs temporarily in efforts to secure them a new long term job within the company.

      I work for Alion Science and Technology ( http://www.alionscience.com ), they're a defense contractor that hires mostly retired military but they hire geeks too. It's an employee owned company that's growing like crazy.

      --
      Blessed be he who reads this post, Cursed be he who tells my boss.
    89. Re:Former EA Employees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Without management how would I know which cover sheet to put on my TPS reports? I'm sure I would screw it up. Some people just don't know when to be thankful

    90. Re:Former EA Employees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      Remember people: management doesn't actually DO anything.

      The hell they don't! If managers didn't do anything, then they wouldn't exist. Maybe you can't decipher what it is they do, but that doesn't mean their contribution is worthless.

      Managers are extremely important in that they can take a more high-level view of activities, make stategic (not tactical) decisions, ensure important work gets done, set priorities, etc. Their jobs are just different than yours.

    91. Re:Former EA Employees? by asoap · · Score: 1
      It worked at Ferrari, whenever all the engineers left becuase they were sick and tired of Enzo's wife putting her nose where it didn't belong, and also the extremely long hours that are involved in racing development.

      So they all got up and left. After that Ferrari learnt the error of there ways.

      -Derek

      --
      Treat me like a marketing stat, and I'll treat your movie like a series of ones and zeros
    92. Re:Former EA Employees? by the_mad_poster · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      You must have an MBA... don't you have resources to go waste?

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
    93. Re:Former EA Employees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea, I never got it. Japanese have very high smoking rates, high drinking rates, and one of lowest sex rates in the world (read stress). Not to mention the long hours of the average salary man. According to the US docs, that should all mean they die early.. So what is going on?

    94. Re:Former EA Employees? by AltaMannen · · Score: 1

      Yes, but even if you know the differance between a good and a bad manager you can't simply trade them. That would be a neat solution though, I'll give you 2 grade C managers for your grade A manager and a lunch.

    95. Re:Former EA Employees? by jbich · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well I'm glad someone spoke out for management!

      I think you're a little off on what they do though ..

      I've had really good managers, had really bad (and I mean REALLY bad) managers, and I've even been a manager a few times..

      Speaking from my experience managers do not and should not treat employees as customers .. wtf? Customers? No. A manager treats his employees like soldiers working under his command.

      It's their job to organize tasks and projects, find the strengths and weaknesses of all his employees, and assign people to appropriate challenges.

      A good manager will challenge you, but not burden you and if done right, proper management can not only keep morale high, but should also keep a constant state of progression in the team.

      --
      ---- How absolute the knave is! We must speak by the card, or equivocation will undo us. -Shakespeare
    96. Re:Former EA Employees? by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 1

      If my company unionized, I'd quit.

    97. Re:Former EA Employees? by dgatwood · · Score: 2, Insightful
      This is every "exempt" salary position in corporate America. Get over it.

      The real problem is the existence of "exempt" employees. Exempt employees are essentially those who had to get a degree in order to get the job. So people who went the extra mile to get a degree to make something of themselves get screwed while people who could be easily replaced by robots get paid overtime. Something's wrong there.

      However, unions aren't the answer. The only reason unions ever existed is that that our government is so corporate-friendly that they are incompetent when it comes to protecting the workers. The problem is that unions just replace one slave master with another. Instead of being beholden to a company that mistreats you, you're beholden to a union that takes a chunk of your pay and may or may not actually improve your pay and/or working conditions in exchange, depending on when you enter the industry. (There's usually a big bump at the beginning and negligible improvement thereafter.)

      As far as I'm concerned, what we need are not unions, but more reasonable labor laws like those of Europe (though probably not that extreme). Specify a minimum amount of time off that applies regardless of industry. Specify a maximum number of weekly hours regardless of industry. Mandate that anything beyond that must be A. voluntary (mandatory overtime should not be allowed in -any- industry) and B. for additional pay above and beyond the base pay.

      I'm okay with salaried employees having to work extra hours when there's a release coming up. That comes with being a salaried, rather than hourly, employee. But most employers that do that end up abusing the privilege, and don't give employees comp time to make up for it when things are light. As far as I'm concerned, that's employee abuse, and it's about time that our government grew some and cracked down on the practice.

      Only when our labor laws strike a reasonable balance between employee and employer rights will employment in the tech sector be fair and reasonable.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    98. Re:Former EA Employees? by AltaMannen · · Score: 1

      "That's a great idea if everyone will do it...problem is there will always be someone who will stay behind and in this day there are plenty of people waiting in line to take over. I've seen contracted developers try this only to find themselves looking for another contract."

      But right now is a good time - go around the job listing pages for videogame developers on the west coast. There are a lot of openings for people with enough experience.

    99. Re:Former EA Employees? by DownTownMT · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's not the point, it was your or whoever's choice to have the kids, and to fulfill the additional "workload". You having kids shouldn't have to affect someone with out them.

      --
      "Insert Sig Here"
    100. Re:Former EA Employees? by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 1

      You, sir, are a middle manager's wet dream. Why? You love your work and you don't care how masochistic it is, you'll put up with anything as long as you get to do it.

      Please stop speaking for the rest of us, who work because we have to and would rather be just about anywhere but our jobs, save a homeless shelter, Fallujah, or prison.

    101. Re:Former EA Employees? by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 1

      I'm fortunate enough to have a great manager right now who thinks like you describe. However, I know better than to think he's anything like the norm, and I feel for my brothers that have to work under slave-drivers like the ones at EA.

    102. Re:Former EA Employees? by some+damn+guy · · Score: 1

      Step 1: Work slavishly hard at large game company for a few years, learning everything you can about the right and wrong way to make games

      Step 2: Get fired and start own game company, easily coax utterly miserable ex-coworkers to join you

      Step 3: Profit!

      (Yes, they might send lawyers after you, but 90% of this will be so scare you. The other 10 you can handle. Promise.)

    103. Re:Former EA Employees? by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 1

      I had never heard that. I now see Dilbert in a wholly different light. Thanks.
      (seriously)

    104. Re:Former EA Employees? by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 2, Interesting

      btw...I agree with the "over worked" premise that the former EA employees have presented. The problem is that this is a society issue and not one that is specific to EA. I've been studying the "over worked American" for a couple years and I can tell you that the issue is not exclusive to the IT or gaming industries. As long as we Americans strive to live in excess we will work in excess.

      There is much truth in this. The happiest, most content people I've met were near-homeless, lived check to check and had next to nothing in material wealth. The reason they were happy was because they didn't want anything more. At the risk of sounding Marxist, the consumerist BUY IT NOW society plays right into the exploiters' hands.

    105. Re:Former EA Employees? by TykeClone · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Remember that when (and if!) you're drawing social security - it will be the kids of others that are paying your freight then.

      --
      A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
    106. Re:Former EA Employees? by UNIX_Meister · · Score: 1

      Hmmm. My experience was different. I'm taking MS-CIS classes and there is definitely more management than CS. All the time I kept fighting the feeling, "Why are they trying to turn me into an asshole?"

    107. Re:Former EA Employees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Us single people don't have to be either consumers or parents. We too, can enjoy things along the way. I don't particularly want to see the innocence brutally extinguished from my child's eyes by the cold cruel world.

      http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/I-DON'T-W AN T-TO-GROW-UP-lyrics-The-Ramones/560A181595073C9E48 256A0D002FC846

      I don't wanna put no money down
      I don't wanna get a big old loan
      Work them fingers to the bone
      I don't wanna float on a broom
      Fall in love, get married then boom
      How the hell did it get here so soon
      I don't wanna grow up

    108. Re:Former EA Employees? by FurryFeet · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Don't unions collectively bargain for pay rates? Doesn't that ensure that every employee at a position category will receive the same pay no matter how well/poorly they perform? This doesn't exactly encourage people to put forth their best effort.

      Neither does the current system, where brownnoses and incompetent fools get the raises, while good programmers with poor social skills get the shaft. Plus, programmers who are paid well enough WILL produce their best code out of sheer pride (or peer pressure).

      Unions protect the employees by making employee termination much more difficult to the employer. While the advantages are probably pretty obvious, this puts additional burden on the employer to build a case against an employee for termination if the employee truly deserves termination? In extreme cases, this could lead the employer to additional risk if the employee is endangering people or projects.

      Please. Tell me how can a programmer "endanger people or projects". Bulldozer operators or truckers are way more dangerous, and nobody seems to have a problem with their being unionized.
      Yes, unions make it harder to fire an employee without good cause and that is a Good Thing. The contract always specifies when an employee can be fired (and if you think that the employer will not fight for this tooth and nail, you don't know employers).

      Unions typically prohibit companies from hiring non-union employees. If you as a software programmer want to work for company X, you can only do so by joining the union, even if you don't want to. Union's will look at any attempts to hire a non-union employee as "stealing a job" from a union worker.

      And why in hell would you not want to be unionized? To get less pay? More work hours? What am I missing here?

      Unions see overtime as potential for another worker rather than an opportunity for current union members to pick up additional income. (This is the case with my father, a plumber, who made more money as a non-union plumber due to being able to work overtime. When his shop was unionized, his annual income went from about $54K to $32K. Sure, he didn't have to work any overtime, but now he can't possibly make enough money to maintain his lifestyle. As pointed out above, he can't potentially make any more money due to the union setting the rate.)

      This would be a good point... except it's crap. No programmer gets extra hours anyway. To follow with your father's example, his income would not have come down... he would have been earning 23K for the get go, while working extra hours anyway.

      I get the feeling that you are sincere, but can't help to take the employer's point of view. See it from the worker's and it will all make a lot more sense.

    109. Re:Former EA Employees? by arivanov · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Very good points. I will just add a few touches.
      • Don't unions collectively bargain for pay rates. Well... I said something about high level architect and cubicle farm ant. The first is singular (or small number). The second is plural. There is no such thing as collective rate bargaining as far as the first is concerned. This actually seriously pisses of the ants. Especially the unionized ones. As a result most unionized industries are considerably more hostile towards a specialist that calls his own rates. In most branches of the computing industry there is a natural progression to this status if your qualification increases. In many other industries this progression does not exist. There is an upper limit to what you can do as a tiler, plumber or machinery operator. You cannot get into the next "white collar" level by learning on the job. In many branches of the computing industry you can still do that.
      • Unions protect the employees by making employee termination much more difficult to the employer. It is difficult as it is in the EU. The union ability to complicate it further is actually quite limited.
      • Unions typically prohibit companies from hiring non-union employees. This part of unionization is something which we have already experienced. Ever tried to get a job in a network shop that has suffered a CC** infection or a software shop that has suffered a MS** infection? The certification serves a similar function in our industry without bringing all the other benefits.
      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    110. Re:Former EA Employees? by icebergdeep · · Score: 1

      Isn't it like that? Some things yes.

      - bribing a mastering facility to jump an EA burn ahead of another company to meet a Wall Street expected ship date

      - firing people 2 weeks before Xmas

      - demanding 24 hr testing, but refusing to expand team sizes

      - rewarding cronies when other people actually did the work

      - stress people into nervous breakdowns or divorces. (It's hard to have a personal life when you're not allowed to go home.)

      - promise people a bonus for completing a particularly difficult chore. Fire them when it's done and the skill is no longer needed - without the promised bonus.

      - dismiss people without warning, then tell them they have to sign the severance package on the spot or the company will withdraw its offer

      Some things, no.

      - the CEO's mother becomes the head of HR

      - the CEO's uncle becomes an executive producer whose idea of people management is to scream

      - employees are fired for breaching porn posession policies, but senior developers and producers have collections too big to burn on a single CD.

      I'm not making this up. I joined EAC when the staff size was counted in double digits, so I know a lot of the skeletons. They weren't as slick then at hiding their sins.

      EAC was (not) fondly nicknamed EA Mexico because staff saw themselves as powerless peasants serving the owners. People used to sleep under their desks because travel time wasn't useful when you had to be back at work in 5 hours.

      EAC execs were even involved in discussions with the government before the new law was passed to reduce the requirement to pay OT. The idea was "OT wasn't paid in lieu of a bonus".

      The CEO had a bonus of 24 million last year. Take a guess at what the total bonus payout for the entire staff was.

      I hold no grudge because moving on was one of the best things that happened to me, but I remember a lot of pain and heartache dished out callously in the name of meeting dates. Something EAC was especially diligent in. On many occasions, other studios were slipping their dates, so EAC brought one of it's products in ahead of schedule to keep the overall books balanced. Sorry, let me rephrase that. The hard work and sacrifice of the teams brought the games in ahead of schedule.

      It also explains why some products shipped with up 800 open bugs.

      For the record, I have no axe to grind. My time at EAC was a mix of pleasure and pain - with the creative talents of artists, programmers and musicians responsible for 99% of the pleasure. You can guess who provided 99% of the pain :-)

      Just my 2 cents to add to the record.

    111. Re:Former EA Employees? by Harinezumi · · Score: 1
      All of these things are luxuries that no nation can afford in the long term. The European economies are already bleeding jobs like mad due to labor becoming prohibitively expensive with their 35-hour work weeks and 6 weeks of yearly vacations, while companies stick around only because they get massive government subsidies.

      As an economy advances, some regulation and taxation becomes necessary to improve the quality of the labor pool (since automation makes most unskilled labor worthless), maintain law and order, and prevent inefficiencies from market failures, but those should be kept at the barest efficient minimum for the economy to remain truly competitive.

      Any attempts at protectionism only make things worse, since imposing tariffs gets you matching tariffs from everyone else, and no modern nation's economy can survive having the world's markets closed to it (that's why embargoes are such a devastating punitive measure in world diplomacy). As big as our economy may be, the world's is bigger still, and we need it a lot more than it needs us.

      What we really need to do is cut back on the frivolous regulations, break the unions, and prevent new ones from forming. Corporations are not our enemies, they are the hands that feed us, and biting them is highly inadviseable.

    112. Re:Former EA Employees? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      The European economies are already bleeding jobs like mad

      No, they have always had high unemployment. But the flip side is that it does not matter as much because they have protections for the unemployed.

    113. Re:Former EA Employees? by danger_boy_13 · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying that staying home with a sick kid is wrong. I have 1 kid and another on the way and if one was sick, then I would stay home to care for them. That is the point to having sick time. But you people act like going to work isn't putting your family first. You have to have a job to put food on the table. Yeah, if you don't like your job, then quit, but if you have a family, you better find another job first, because you are just going to fuck yourself over. Oh, and by the way, it is no longer the nineties. And I've never fucking live in 1967, I'm only 21 jackass.

    114. Re:Former EA Employees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Don't unions collectively bargain for pay rates? Yes they do.

      ... Doesn't that ensure that every employee at a position category will receive the same pay no matter how well/poorly they perform? This doesn't exactly encourage people to put forth their best effort. No. That depends on what type of contract they settle on. Some contracts simply specify what the performance bonus will be. My boss shouldn't be able to pay me less because I'm female, even though I perform as well.

      Unions protect the employees by making employee termination much more difficult to the employer. Again it depends on what is negotiated. My boss shouldn't be able to fire me for the wrong reasons. Public safety concerns are is one of the right reasons to fire someone. Even if there are union rules to require a process before firing someone, if there is a real safety concern then someone can be taken off the job until an investigation can be completed. It makes a little bit more work in 1% of firings.

      Unions typically prohibit companies from hiring non-union employees. Yes, unions frequently make paying union dues a condition of employment -- which is fair since you are benefiting from the pay, working conditions and medical insurance that the union has fought for. You should also view this as requiring a minimum level of competency -- since many professions are not adequately regulated by the government, it is important to make sure that endanger people on the job. Whether you're pouring a concrete foundation or dispensing drugs, mistakes can kill.

      Unions see overtime as potential for another worker rather than an opportunity for current union members to pick up additional income. That's not true for many unions. Nurses regularly work overtime. The unions help make sure that not working overtime is an choice. What is far more common is for companies to replace one full-time worker with two part-timers so they don't have to pay benefits.

    115. Re:Former EA Employees? by earthforce_1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      IANAL, but you might have a case even if your job is classified as "exempt", if it reaches such extremes that it becomes a health and safety issue.

      For example:
      - Employees driving home after working 100+ hour week. Anybody at work get injured in a wreak driving home from the office under such condition? Did they harm anybody else in the process? Imagine the lawsuit if a trucking firm or airline was found forcing their drivers/pilots to work these hours that led to an accident.

      - Employees suffer from ill health and mental breakdown, especially if it requires hospitalization.

      I also wonder if there might be a constitutional challenge here - unlike military/police/fire/hospital workers, it is pretty hard to argue that video game programmers are "essential", and must be kept working long hours at all costs.

      From a managerial perspective, it is just plain dumb as well. I know I am not fully there if I have been working more than 12 hours straight, and you are fooling yourself if you think you can write/debug solid code with 4 hours sleep.

      --
      My rights don't need management.
    116. Re:Former EA Employees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Alas, I'm only 23. But I spent my entire time in business management classes going "Why are you teaching me to not be an asshole?"

      Because stress turns you into an asshole (the general you, ok?). It's easy to be nice when you're mellow. Keep that in mind.

    117. Re:Former EA Employees? by bludstone · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Of course it isnt, but in this society having a child is a choice. I should not be punished for your choice to have a child.

      I'll be happy to throw you a favor, but favors are to be repaid, and more often then not parents do not recognize our efforts.

      I dont give a shit that you gave yourself more work and less budget by having a kid. Thats not my problem. I'll be happy to cover for you if youve got some problems though, but I expect some consideration for it.

      --

      no .sig
    118. Re:Former EA Employees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AC, please never have children. It's likely they'd turn out just like you -- only looking out for yourself.

    119. Re:Former EA Employees? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Since executives can count going out to a fancy resturant for a meal with some friends and a few drinks as work, then I wouldn't be surprised to find they were working long hours as what THEY counted as work. But they don't count the same actions as work when YOU do them.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    120. Re:Former EA Employees? by CliffEmAll · · Score: 1

      Interesting that you add grad students to this. I am a grad student, and I definitely would not consider myself underpaid. I mean, I make $13,000 a year, but that is enough to pay the rent for a small apartment and eat for a year. Sure, it would be nice to have more money, but after paying out the ass for my undergrad education, it seems amazing to be paid to attend classes and perform research. On the other hand, I can definitely agree that students may be overworked. I am fortunate enough to have a very understanding research advisor, but I have still spent entire nights in the lab rather frequently. I guess the real issue is that I don't have a wife and kids. If I did, I can't imagine living this way.

    121. Re:Former EA Employees? by beanlover · · Score: 1

      Workers with kids don't owe you anything. If the boss asks you to cover for someone with kids then it's the boss that owes you...not the other worker. Tell the boss no if you don't like it...but stop demanding or thinking that you are owed by someone who doesn't owe you a thing.

      Now...if the worker with the kid(s) asks you to cover then you have a valid point.

    122. Re:Former EA Employees? by 2old2rockNroll · · Score: 1

      I work for Alion Science and Technology ( http://www.alionscience.com ), they're a defense contractor that hires mostly retired military but they hire geeks too. It's an employee owned company that's growing like crazy.

      Good for you. There is another employee-owned DoD contractor (the largest), and I can guarantee that management in that company has no resemblance to the management in your company.

    123. Re:Former EA Employees? by peg0cjs · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Neither does the current system, where brownnoses and incompetent fools get the raises, while good programmers with poor social skills get the shaft. Plus, programmers who are paid well enough WILL produce their best code out of sheer pride (or peer pressure).

      I love this example. At what point in life did social skills become irrelevant? It's a reality that appearance & how well you play with others plays just as large a role as the quality of your work; accept it.

      I'm sure there are remote examples of coders there working in closets pumping out reams of code built to specs provided by some abstract concept called a "customer", but I have yet to see it. I have worked in pure development shops, consultancy companies, product companies, oil & gas, government, etc, etc, and I have yet to see a SINGLE example of a coder sitting in a basement all day long.

      Tell me how can a programmer "endanger people or projects".

      There are lots of ways a coder can "endanger a project". Bad code = broken product that people don't buy or extra cycles spent debugging. As for endangering people, that will depend on the nature of the project. Of course, it is quite possible that the code may do something unexpected. I worked on one system that tracked every life (pets included) in a 50 km vicinity of a sour gas well in case of a break out. Tell me that a failure of that system wouldn't endanger lives (for those that don't know, a sour gas well means that there's sulfur in the gas, usually in the form of H2S, highly toxic in even small amounts).

      This would be a good point... except it's crap. No programmer gets extra hours anyway.

      My last job was as a Senior Consultant for one of the largest IT consultants in north america (15,000 plus consultants), and trust me, extra hours came with the territory (especially billable hours). But there was always a tradeoff. It was never in straight pay, but I was rewarded after a project was delivered, be it a token gift or extra time off or bonus package. If you do great work for a company, don't be afraid to stand up for yourself. 'No' is not a swear word if you phrase it properly.

      I realize that there are complete morons out there, and I have encountered the stupid '9:00 - 5:00 presence even if you were up to 3:00 am fixing a problem' policy. From the article it sounds like this guy hit an extreme example of this, but the truth is, we've gotta stop being cows. If you are in the top 10% of your company, you should have an easy job of proving your worth to the company, and you have to exact some career management on your hugher-ups. Don't assume that your supervisor or boss is looking out for you. They're looking out for the company ('Ask yourself: is this good for the company?') because that is their job requirement. But profits and employee happiness are not mutually exclusive, and we, collectively, have to present this to management in a positive way.

      --
      Karma: Excellent (Mainly due to Bill & Ted's Karma Adventure)
    124. Re:Former EA Employees? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      A lot of this depends on age and condition. Someone who is seriously bewildered can't ever be left alone for any reason, but that's not a usual illness. (Altzheimer's is the only one I've ever encountered...Father not daughter.)

      Sometime you CAN'T leave them alone. Sometimes you can. Specific circumstances mean a lot.

      But if you MUST be in attendence, and your job requires otherwise, then you need to get a new job fast. And you might not be able to give notice to your current one. Difficult and unpleasant for them, but moreso for you. However if they aren't willing to be flexible and you can't be, what are your choices?

      Choice # 1 is:
      Don't run up any high interest debts. Pay off your credit card each month. Skip purchases to do this. Never let debt get ahead of you, or you'll be in an inescapably vulnerable position.

      Choice # 2 is:
      Save ahead. And not all in one place. Banks still fail, and when they do, your insured account may take a considerable time to reappear. Also, be sure that where you save is both secure and has interest higher than inflation. (You can't manage this, so spread your risks.)

      Notice that these choices need to be made LONG before the emergency appears. Sorry, that's Life in the USA.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    125. Re:Former EA Employees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. The problem seems to be that over time, any union is going to be subject to the temptation of corruption and oft succumbs to it. It's hard having a leadership who isn't going to one day decide they deserve more and that the best way to get more is to screw everyone under them. Nature of the beast.

      My hometown of Philadelphia is out of control with unions. It drives businesses away and many of the members don't even live in the state. Instead of the union protecting workers from companies, companies are now under attack. Complete power structure reversal. The balance was lost.

      Can't we all just get along?

    126. Re:Former EA Employees? by superflippy · · Score: 1
      Except that, in the original LJ post, the spouse points out that most of the people at EA who are working these ridiculous hours don't earn enough to be considered "exempt."

      The relevant paragraph:
      The interesting thing about this is an assumption that most of the employees seem to be operating under. Whenever the subject of hours come up, inevitably, it seems, someone mentions 'exemption'. They refer to a California law that supposedly exempts businesses from having to pay overtime to certain 'specialty' employees, including software programmers. This is Senate Bill 88. However, Senate Bill 88 specifically does not apply to the entertainment industry -- television, motion picture, and theater industries are specifically mentioned. Further, even in software, there is a pay minimum on the exemption: those exempt must be paid at least $90,000 annually. I can assure you that the majority of EA employees are in fact not in this pay bracket; ergo, these practices are not only unethical, they are illegal.
      --
      Your fantasies contain the seeds of important concepts.
    127. Re:Former EA Employees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Managers are there to look at the big picture not nitpick about the daily details that employees worry about. It's your job as an employee to bring these small important issues to light so Management can make the proper deciscions. They put their ass on the line daily so you can have a coomfy job.

    128. Re:Former EA Employees? by mrlpz · · Score: 1

      "Any attempts at protectionism only make things worse, since imposing tariffs gets you matching tariffs from everyone else, and no modern nation's economy can survive having the world's markets closed to it (that's why embargoes are such a devastating punitive measure in world diplomacy)."

      Are you smoking Rose Petals or what? Why do you think the Chinese tried so hard to GET "Most Favored Nation" status ? For their people's health ? Hell no, it's because an embargo imposed on them KEPT them cycled down. Sure with the EU things are a bit different matter. But by any measure the U.S. economy drives much of the world economy. Not the other way around.

      " As big as our economy may be, the world's is bigger still, and we need it a lot more than it needs us."

      Not only is that naive of economics theory, but naive about societies in general.....ever heard of "General Dynamics" ( the subject that the main character in "A Beautiful Mind" developed. I can't remember his name....the man was a Nobel Laureate ). IF you FSCK with one of the cornerstones of a building, you're FSCKing with the building as a whole. If you chip away at the U.S. economy, you are in essence chipping away at the world economy. As soon as morons like you start using those excess neurons to realize this, MAYBE you can contribute, until then, sit down in the peanut gallery, shut up, and continue eating your popcorn while the rest of us try to get something done.

    129. Re:Former EA Employees? by CarrionBird · · Score: 3, Interesting
      You dont have to be a marxist or other kind of wingnut to realize that we have grown a instant gratification addicted generation. The TV tell them what they want and they go buy it. Now the online media does the same thing faster.

      Buy more! Don't worry about the cost, just use this card! Don't worry about those credit card bills, just refinance your house! Don't worry about that mortgage payment, just work more! The 50" plasma screen is worth it! Trust us! ...and so on...

      Our standard of living has increased, but at what cost? We can get dvd players for $30, but you have to buy a new one every six months. Would it possibly be better to pay twice or three times that but have something that lasts? What about the jobs that had to be sent overseas to make that player so cheap? Would we be better off paying a little more yet having fewer unemployed?

      Hard to say, there's lot of variables, but it seems to me that noone in any kind of position of power is even looking at these questions. Everyone is stuck in short term thinking.

      Gotta get the numbers up for the next quarterly report, worry about the long term later. Problem is, later never comes. There's always another market cycle to optimise.
      --
      Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's
    130. Re:Former EA Employees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Um, you actually think they'll be social security to draw from by the time we retire? *pats TykeClone on head* You go keep on believing that...

    131. Re:Former EA Employees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh? What the hell was that supposed to mean?

    132. Re:Former EA Employees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I disagree entirely.
      • Unions have been ofcused on seniority-based pay in areas where that makes sense (assembly line). Unions need not bargain for contracts that operate soley on seniority-level if that is undesireable.
      • Forcing an employer to build a case for firing an employee forces them to be serious about it. If an individual is demonstrably endangering the lives of others or the success of a project then no judge in America would back the idea that a truly worthless individual should be retained. If it results in a little extra paperwork so long as I cannot be fired carpricously I'm in favor.
      • Of course unions prohibit them fropm hiring non-union. That is how the uniuons retain meaning as an organization. You cannot expect them to welcome it.
      • That is not necessarily the case for all unions.


      I do not consider myself an underacheiver. But I do welcome the rise of unions in the software industry. The whole reason that we have workforce protection laws, eight-hour days, no child labor in this country, women in the workforce, indeed any rights at all as employees is due to Unions. While there exist many "bad union" stories and, indeed some genuine uniion corruption that is not necessarily the case with all unions.

      At a basic level all that a union is, is an organization of employees. A collection of individuals seeking to protect their rights as employees and to prevent themselves being dependent upon the boss's good will. To that end they will employ the one tool that they have, their right not to work.

      Dislike unions if you want, tell all the bad-unions stories that you want, in the end you benefit from the fact that they have existed in this country and, depending upon your situation, you'll want to form one of your own.
    133. Re:Former EA Employees? by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, I'm raising mine right. Thanks to here you'll have social security benefits in your old age (just as you're paying for your parents/grandparents benefits now). What? You aren't going to rely on SS? You're not in the US?

      Okay, the offspring of this generation are going to: pay taxes, buy houses, and buy stock when you're old and need to sell those things 'cause you need the money to live. Wihtout them, your assets would be of zero value (no buyers=no value).

      As much as I rail against the bene's we give to parents, and the fact that we really don't need more people than are already here, most of our economics is based on the fact that the next generation will be at least a large as the current one.

      My question to you is: How are you going to make up for the fact that you aren't doing your share to keep the world economics afloat? Do you really think picking up the slak for a couple lost hours every month makes you even? I think not.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    134. Re:Former EA Employees? by horza · · Score: 1

      As for Unionization moving jobs out of the country.

      You raise a number of interesting points. I'm going to jot down a few comments in the hope it may be of interest.

      Environmental safety standards = sure way to move jobs out of the country.

      Bush certainly believes in this equation. This is why the USA is now the only major country left in the world (now Russia has signed up) not to be part of the Kyoto treaty despite being only 4% of the population yet producing 25% of the worlds pollution. However, the rate of people getting allergies and asthma has rocketed up. The toll on the health service will probably balance out what you've saved by poisoning people for a quick buck

      Workplace safety standards = sure way to move jobs out of the country.

      Different societies place different values on human life at different times. In the UK train crash last week, the company ruled out replacing all crossing with bridges as they've only a budget for $1.5m per potential life saved. I found this interesting story where to build a Canadian line they decided to outsource to Chinese labour as it was cheaper. Around 9% of the asian workforce were killed in its construction.

      human (and worker) rights = sure way to move jobs out of the country.

      This is what is happening in Germany. The big unions refused to give up any of their 'rights' and the entire economy went spiralling downwards and is now in a bad way. Unemployment is at a record high. It's fine if the economy can afford it. Eg in Sweden and Norway you get one year paternity for the mother and one month for the father on full salary.

      abolishing child labour = sure way to move jobs out of the country.

      Indeed. But as we take this seriously morally, there is a concerted effort to make this global to force a level playing-field. When corporations find loop-holes, wide-scale consumer boycotts (fortunately) fill the void. Ala "sweat shop" Nike.

      Property Taxes = sure way to move jobs out of the country.
      Corporate taxes = sure way to move job out of the country.


      They certainly do. As a result those countries with high corporate tax do lose thousands of jobs. The government then tries to lure back (or new) corporations by offering them millions in incentives (incentives, not bribes, incentives) by way of tax breaks and subsidies. The moment those run out the corporation then tells the government that unless they get more they will close the factory and tell the people it was the governments fault that thousands will lose their jobs. Probably better to lower the corporation tax in the first place and hit the money when they and try and take it out of the country.

      Public healthcare = sure way to move jobs out of the country.

      This tends to hit the employee in the pocket more than the employer.

      paid lunchtime and bathroom breaks = sure way to move jobs out of the country.

      I live in France where there is a maximum 35 hour working week. It was done to reduce unemployment by forcing companies to take on more part-time work. Unemployment has effectively gone up, but on paper unemployment (ie people "not working") has gone down. Hmmm.

      minimum living wage = sure way to move jobs out of the country.

      Indeed. This is why the UK has one foot in and one foot out of Europe. We consistently undercut the EU minimum wage and 'steal' jobs from abroad.

      In response to your further comments, I would like to offer an alternate perspective from a totally unionised country (France). There is just as much exploitation here. This is because of the union attitude and the lack of capitalist skills: learning how to negotiate a salary, improving you career by joining another company at a higher position, being willing to move where a good job is, discussing salary with fellow employees, investing your own money in training yourself, etc.

    135. Re:Former EA Employees? by a+whoabot · · Score: 1

      This is preposterous. How come every post that starts with a sarcastic "yeah" or "yep" are always the most pathetic posts I read. Maybe because these people don't understand that sarcasm is supposed to be used for at least some sort of humor(even if it is an argument) and using it otherwise is just being a mean-spirited asshole. As if the person they're responding to doesn't even deserve to be talked to seriously

      He plainly said, "kind of like." And yet you are saying "JUST LIKE." What the fuck kind of mindest were you win to interpret "kind of like" as "JUST LIKE?" That is just so depraved of any sensibility, it's disgusting.

      Here's my sarcasm. It's me writing a post like you in response to some Walt Whitman:

      "Let death be inaugurated! / Let nothing remain but the ashes of teachers, artists, moralists, lawyers, and learn'd and polite persons! / Let him who is without my poems be assassinated!"

      Yeah, not having your poems is worthy of being murdered.

      Far too many people think they DESERVE to be respected. My take is this guy is one of them.

    136. Re:Former EA Employees? by nameer · · Score: 1

      Look at white colar unions to see what it would likely look like. For example SPEEA, or maybe SAG. The point is, in professional unions, pay is often still determined by your manager (+ a garunteed COLA) and layoffs don't necessarily hapen by seniority. In a union, you would be the membership, and the goal would be to collectively bargain what works best for the membership.

      --
      "Uh... yeah, Brain, but where are we going to find rubber pants our size?" --Pinky
    137. Re:Former EA Employees? by jiffyjon · · Score: 1

      But are you really making the big bucks?

      Let's say you're pulling in $80K as a developer (40 hour work week). That's $41.60/hr. Not bad!

      But now you're working 80 hours a week (no compensation), so really you're now making $20.80/hr. Wait, that kind of sucks... especially if you're making less than $80K.

    138. Re:Former EA Employees? by VultureMN · · Score: 1

      Yes, because the most important thing in the world is to keep corporations happy. All Hail the CEO, for he is the Caesar.

      Screw that. Unions are just as much a part of capitalism as anything else. Unions are the -people- demanding something, not the government, so I can't see why you laissez faire types keep complaining about them. If unions ask too much, they companies they target go away, and then they do also.

      Anyway, by your logic, let's get rid of pollution laws, minimum wage, workplace safety laws, food safety laws, and legalize crack. You see, companies could me making a lot more money and be a lot more profitable if we let them sell crack. So, in the interest of making our corporate masters happy, we should let them do so.

    139. Re:Former EA Employees? by rgmoore · · Score: 1
      Now why would I want to get my pay based on seniority rather than performance?

      Why do you think that forming a union would require that pay be based on seniority rather than performance? While it's common for unions to adopt that stance, unions that represent highly talented people, such as actors and professional athletes, generally have only a minimum rate and allow their members to negotiate for whatever they can get above that. There's no reason that the gaming industry union couldn't do things the same way.

      --

      There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.

    140. Re:Former EA Employees? by bludstone · · Score: 1

      Then I have a valid point. :P

      --

      no .sig
    141. Re:Former EA Employees? by HungWeiLo · · Score: 1

      While it may be relevant, there's no direct and complete causation.

      Keep in mind Americans munch on trans fats, red meat, and carbonized sugar water like there's no tomorrow, while the Japanese eat considerably less bad foods (even though they're slowly catching up to Western diets).

      --
      There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
    142. Re:Former EA Employees? by bludstone · · Score: 1

      So.. you think I am "not doing my share" by not having kids?

      Jesus, thats really fucking preachy. You are making EXTREME life changing demands on someone you dont even know. Besides, there is no gaurentee that the child will even be a positive influence on the economy, and not a massive drain. (could be next Einstein, could be next Dhamer, who knows?)

      I dont much like children, nor am I under any obligation whatsoever to have them. Nor did I force someone else to have kids, so I dont see why I should take up the responsibilities having one entails.

      Selfish? I dont think so. I made the distinct choice not to have kids. Selfish is having children, and then expecting the entire world to revolve around. It doesnt.

      Btw, I assure you, I am doing my share to keep economics afloat. More then just "picking up the slack for a few hours."

      Much, much, much more.

      Besides, I am not obligated to you, like you are to your child.

      (can you tell I am really sick of people telling me I should have kids, when I really dont want one?)

      --

      no .sig
    143. Re:Former EA Employees? by Garse+Janacek · · Score: 1
      No, people with kids do not owe you as long as they are working hard and fulfilling their contractual obligations to the company. As another poster said, the only person who could be argued to owe you is the person who asked you to do the work (which is most likely your employer).

      The reason these things seem uneven is because, while some companies will be more flexible with people who have families, they expect single people to devote themselves heart and soul to the company. This is unreasonable on the part of the companies, not the people with families. Single people also have lives, friends, hobbies, and so on, and companies should not feel free to take that away.

      Sometimes at my current job, when there's a deadline but I've already finished all my work, I'll kind of hang around to make sure nothing else comes up. But as it gets later and I have no work to do, I'll sometimes ask if there's anything else I can do to help, or if I can leave. The typical response is, "Why, do you need to be somewhere?" That question always seems strange to me. Well, no, I don't have any explicitly scheduled meetings tonight, and if it's important that I be here then I'll stay, but I do have a life and I would like to go home sometime tonight. Why does the company think I should be expected to stay there indefinitely, without any work to do, just because in their eyes I "don't need to be anywhere"? If they want to say their work is important, that's okay, but it frustrates me when they dismiss my life as though it were unimportant.

      Bottom line, if you don't think the work you're expected to do is fair, don't do it. Make up excuses if you have to, whatever. But the fact that companies are unfairly prejudiced against single people doesn't mean the people with families need to make it up to you. This is an issue that people need to take up with the companies themselves.

      --

      I am the man with no sig!

    144. Re:Former EA Employees? by zymurgyboy · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Fine. You can work for the rest of us who would rather continue seeing IT go the way of a new profession.

      Don't get me wrong, unions on the whole have done a lot to improve everyone's working lives that could never have happened without them. However, do you aspire to information work that is akin to factory work, or construction, or truck driving? That's what an IT workers' union will turn our budding profession into.

      I personally want to see our gig rise to the level of doctor, lawyer, professor, etc. I want to do meaningful, creative work. Not cookie-cutter, templatized, stoop-labor.

      --
      If you never make mistakes, it's probably because you're not doing anything.
    145. Re:Former EA Employees? by OtakuHawk · · Score: 1

      Sounds like the UAC. /Been playing too much Doom.

    146. Re:Former EA Employees? by pthisis · · Score: 1

      Sure, I was just refuting the statement "You decide, work like the Japanese and die an early death from the stress, or live and love longer and enjoy yourself along the way.", which seems like it requires a high level of proof in the face of the fact that the Japanese work shorter hours than Americans and live longer.

      I'm not saying that there is any causation, merely disputing that sentence.

      --
      rage, rage against the dying of the light
    147. Re:Former EA Employees? by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 1

      you're totally preaching to the choir. It's just that defending labor unions (my dad's a retired steelworker, it's in my blood) gets you branded as Marxist more often than not these days, especially among the kids of white collar parents, which seems to be most of /.'s readership.

    148. Re:Former EA Employees? by mrlpz · · Score: 1

      "I realize slashdot folks spend more time bashing management then supporting but this is a rediculous statement. Of course companies cannot run with only management but to think management doesn't do any work is completely wrong."

      Boy, you're as clueless as much as you are a bad speller. You obviously haven't met over 80% of management in this country. What ? You though that the "Peter Principle" was the concept of the office tootsie doing the boss to get a promotion. Wrong,it's the process whereby THAT clown got to BE in the position where the office tootsie would be giving him a knob job for free. But I digress, since it's always the 20% of the good managers that end up paying for the sins of the restant ( Yes, it's a word you moron, look it up ).

      "As long as we Americans strive to live in excess we will work in excess."

      You know what, you might've started to make just a scintilla of sense, up until you dumped this euro-trash notion of "Conformity". Wake up and smell the quagmyre putz. The wholeidea of the United States was to NOT conform. It was to WORK HARD, and REAP....yes..actually RECEIVE COMPENSATION, for that labor. I don't doubt that any of those folks really DIDN'T necessarily want to put in the hours..IFF ( that's IF and ONLY IF, for you Discrete Math weenies ) there is ( say it with me kids )...COM-PEN-SATION. The case is that clearly the vast majority of folks weren't being compensated for it. What EA and many other employers are espousing today is that it's OK to operate your programmers/developer/engineers are though they ARE working in a sweatshop. Guess what ? We're not. It's not.

      Just like an earlier poster said..I throw right back at him......

      Get over it. You can't have your twice weekly round of golf with the CEO from "OtherSoft". You have to pay for your own damn expenses ( gimme back that cell phone with 3000 minutes you spend talking to your mistress on anyway ). You can't have you super inflated stock options whenever you want, because hereafter, the rank and file, not the stock holders will be voting on what stock options, if any, you can have. Oh, that's right, we'll have no dumping of those options immediately, you have to hang on to them for a minimum of two years, and you must retain 50% of them for two years AFTER you've left our hallowed halls for supposed shinier digs at "OtherSoft".

      I dare say that the stock holders will get a MUCH fairer shake on their investment if the people actually DOING the work they helped fund, than if they heard all the pumped plans, overbloating expectations that are already on anorexic schedules ( no offense meant to those afflicted by this malady ).

      And furthermore, ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY, you cannot have the prettiest girl in the office reporting to you directly. At least not until you post pictures of your kids, your wife, your mother, and your MOTHER-IN-LAW, all within plain sight of HER desk.

      Any questions ? Yes, sign there on the dotted line. Oh, how silly of me, here's a lancet. What ? No one told you that you had to sign in blood ? Ha, ha, ha, those funny, crazy folks in the back office, such kidders....nobody at "Euthenasia Artists" uses pens for legal documents anymore.

      Welcome aboard.

    149. Re:Former EA Employees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh My God? They made him do something he didn't want to? A manager showed up and gave him a pile of work to do! The horror. The horror.

    150. Re:Former EA Employees? by richieb · · Score: 1
      What kind of hours do you suppose the executives work?

      Tne number of hours you spent in the office is about as valid measure of productivity as counting lines of code.

      --
      ...richie - It is a good day to code.
    151. Re:Former EA Employees? by mrlpz · · Score: 1

      Not until you compensate me for staying up past midnight FROM HOME with a coughing child, while fixing the bugs YOU introduced into the system.

      I suppose my son will come looking to you for compensating him when you get to be my age, and YOU have to run because your wife says "You won't believe what YOUR son just did !".

    152. Re:Former EA Employees? by sirReal.83. · · Score: 1

      It's a song. Your family doesn't give a fuck about the money you bring in if you're not around enough to spend time with them.

    153. Re:Former EA Employees? by bludstone · · Score: 1

      Its not my fault you have a coughing child, and have to stay up past midnight at home.

      It is your fault.

      You chose to have a kid. Staying up to take care of them is part of the deal.

      Cry me a river.

      And, guess what. Im not having any kids. Its very presumptuous of you to assume so.

      --

      no .sig
    154. Re:Former EA Employees? by TykeClone · · Score: 1
      --
      A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
    155. Re:Former EA Employees? by Loco3KGT · · Score: 1

      Not all of them at EA are bad. Like I mentioned, I worked for EA, my managers were two wonderful guys. I even played EverQuest with them in my free time (and occassionally lunch breaks). They would frequently reserve a movie theatre for us to see the latest sci-fi movie on company time - although I was only around for the Final Fantasy movie that came out.

      --
      Blessed be he who reads this post, Cursed be he who tells my boss.
    156. Re:Former EA Employees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are an idiot of the highest order.

      Your solution to the US losing jobs overseas, is to make every country on earth the US? Ah, no thanks.

      Your solution to all of those FREE TRADE agreements that you keep signing all over the planet, is to ignore them, until the countries meet your expectations of workers rights/human rights/environmental rights etc? If thats what the US wants, then why are you signing these trade agreements? If you think there is imbalance, then don't sign.

      This is typical US thinking. You want the benefits of a trade deal (you think every dirt farmer in the far east will want a new XBox at home), then you realize, hey, these guys actually have some skills, and much lower costs (or standards if you like) of living. Now, your comsumer products are out of reach for your new market, but their cheap labour sells great in the US. Now you scream "no fair", we didn't realise that not many Congolise bushmen could afford a Caddi (who on earth would actually buy one of those pieces of shit is beyond me, but thats another story).

      However, in the end, here is what is happening. You are getting fucked with a wire brush, by your government. Do you really think if they gave half a shit about your job, that they would let the export happen? Remember, its not like your american company is getting driven out of business. They are making more money than ever before, they just won't pay an American to do the work. It is SOOOO funny watching this! You are losing your job, because your company doesn't want to pay your wages. Your wages pay for 6 people overseas to do the same job, 6 times. The production cost of the "item" has just dropped, but not the price (profits go up). The "item" is out of reach of the worker in the country that produced it (who don't care, they can get the knock off for 1% of the cost of the original), so it gets brought back to the US for sale to you, the unemployed US worker. Best part is YOU STILL BUY IT!

      Now who has benefited? The ultra wealthy owners, who are huge supporters and lobiests in Washington, who spend their time and money getting the government to ensure that this kind of shit can continue to happen. And when you all get a chance to put and end to this crap, you sell out to some flimsy argument of "I have a banana in my ear, it has been there since sep 12 2001, if you don't re elect me, I will remove this banana, and terror will reign.". Too funny. I really believe I could sell a couple million shit sandwiches a day in the US. All you need is a good name (freedom lover sandwiches) and a wrapper that looks like the stars and stripes, and Americans will throw common sense out the window, ignore the taste, and buy them by the dozen.

      I love your comment how you are trying to compete against the exploitation of the human race. You retard, who the fuck do you think is in charge of these corps? Thats right, the same guy in charge of your company. Its your companies that are leading this charge. What is the penalty for using slave labour to manufacture products outside the US? Who knows, ask Nike, or MS, or CathyLee sweatshop, or Ford, or GM, Coke, or any of the thousands of US companies that take advantage of dirt cheap, un-protected labour markets. My guess would be, the lobbiests have made good and sure, that there is NO penalty at all. That is the way the companies want it after all.

      Good job America, thanks for 4 more of Bush. I think the guy is as dumb as the day is long, I think he hurts the US more and more every day, however, keep on exporting those US jobs. It may be for less pay than I would get working in the US, but my money spends just fine here, and goes further than it would in the US!

      One last bit. Many many countries already have much higher labour standards than the US does. You are one of the few countries to NOT ratify Kyoto. Many countries have much higher taxation than the US does. Many countries have higher minimum wages than the US does. In fact, on your list, I can not find one thing there that my cou

    157. Re:Former EA Employees? by Loco3KGT · · Score: 1

      I hate to see you use the word "soldiers" because of the image that immediately creates (due to what's been drilled into us by the media).

      But, the military makes some of the best leaders in the world, and you have to be able to manage if you want to lead. That's probably why my company has so many great managers, almost all of them are former military officers.

      --
      Blessed be he who reads this post, Cursed be he who tells my boss.
    158. Re:Former EA Employees? by bwcbwc · · Score: 1

      I was with you up to the point where you said if we impose tariffs on countries that don't uphold American labor and environmental standards, the corporations and low-cost countries would roll over and live with it.

      It might help a little, but it would probably increase smuggling, grey market products and counterfeiting/piracy.

      And finally, what do we do about the US itself? Corporations in the US don't adhere to what the public perceives as the environmental and labor laws of this country. That's why EA is able to get away with stuff like this for so long.

      I don't have a solution. We have to hold corporations to the fair practice standards we've established over the years, without enabling the "race to the bottom". As you mentioned, once our spending power is gone, nothing except dropping all standards will get jobs back into the country. Maybe we need to tax all offshore payments and conversions from dollars to foreign currencies, offset by credits for receipts or conversions from the corresponding country. This would also serve as a disincentive to the ballooning trade deficit.

      My one hope is that the emerging Chinese middle class will revolt against the one-party state similar to the way the US revolted against the British after a mercantile and craftsman class was established here.

      --
      We are the 198 proof..
    159. Re:Former EA Employees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The company would love it if your child died and you never had to take any more unforseen days off.

    160. Re:Former EA Employees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not where I work.
      I'm not in the US, so I get a lot more annual leave than my US counterparts. We don't work long hours unless something is going wrong, and that's usually in the last few months of the project when we're pulling everything together. HR practically insists that people take a week or two off in the month after we go gold. Yes, I have worked through the night to get something done, but there's always been a reason for it, not just because some manager thinks it makes his schedule look better. I can walk into my manager's office and say, "I can't get this done by the next milestone", and we sit down and work out what I can do, what can be done by someone else, and what needs to be redesigned to something simpler. The flip side of that is that it's my responsibility to tell my manager that, while there's still enough time to work out a solution.
      So, I've never worked on a hit game. The last 4 games I've worked on have all shown a profit though, and gotten mid-range reviews, and in particular, have all been as good or better than the games developed in a sweatshop mentality in the US. The US studio managers come out to study our management structure, and go away saying, "If you worked them twice as hard, you'd be getting twice as many games, you guys are so slack." They just don't seem to understand that we can work a lot harder during our working hours, when we know we'll get a real chance to rest up outside work.

    161. Re:Former EA Employees? by Thangodin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The solution lies somewhere in the middle: labour involvement in management. The "Union Rep" is actually a member of upper management, how communicates the state of the company accurately to the employees, and carries grievances right to the upper levels of management, and the Board of Directors. Lack of involvement breeds apathy. Eventually you have a business staffed by noobs who don't know what the fuck they are doing, or by burned out veterans who do but couldn't care less. Any company who manages the balance between employee and company needs will do better than EA. The problem is, there were almost none out there in the early days of game development. I worked for one of the oldest game companies in the world before they went down, and it was obvious that they were even more incompetent than EA. The early companies crunched and gouged their people to make their start, and kept on doing it. Others just didn't have the urge to build an empire like EA. Now EA is too big to break easily, and it uses that clout to break up better companies before they can become large enough to be a threat.

      Unfortunately, you can hear this same tune in virtually every industry now. Wal-Mart, for example, will open a store in a neighborhood and slash prices to the point that even they don't make any money on it. Once all the local retailers have gone bankrupt, they close the store, having a proviso on the original lease that the space cannot be rented out for retail purposes for a decade or two. The huge box stands empty (there is almost nothing else you can do with it), the contractor who built it loses his shirt, everyone is forced to go to the Wal-Mart across town, which now sells its goods at regular or inflated prices, because it no longer has any competition. And thousands of people are thrown out of work--or forced to work at Wal-Mart for low pay, because the job situation is so desparate. So the behaviour of a company like EA should come as no surprise--it amounts to pretty much the same thing.

    162. Re:Former EA Employees? by Hinhule · · Score: 0

      The problem with this standpoint isn't job security, they can't really fire you for doing the 40 hour workweek.
      The problem is if something unexpected comes up and extra work is needed to take care of it, if you then stand by your 40 hour work week and just go home you will not be considered a team player and advancement/pay increase may be lower or nonexistant.
      Is not working 5-10 hours extra / month really worth it? Not to me it isn't.

    163. Re:Former EA Employees? by Hinhule · · Score: 0
      If it starts becoming expected too frequently, then something would have to change


      Then it probably starts becoming expected by your coworkers too, sometimes just pointing out to the management that there is enough work here to employ another person. Since that person will not be payed overtime for his normal hours it would make the company save money. A bonus is showing management you can think of resonable solutions to the little problems that can come up around the workplace.
    164. Re:Former EA Employees? by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1


      not to be part of the Kyoto treaty despite being only 4% of the population yet producing 25% of the worlds pollution.

      Pollution is caused by industry just as much, if not more, than it is to population. That's what's wrong with the Kyoto treaty. It doesn't take that into account. The USA produces a disproportionately large amount of pollution because it produces a disproprotionately large amount of commerce. Anyone buying any US product in any foreign country is contributing to US pollution indirectly, just as much as someone living here is. Don't get me wrong, the US does need to be more careful with production methods, and implement better pollution controls, but the Kyoto treaty's methods would only work if the US became a less efficient producer, and produce less commerce per capita. Why, in American politics, do I have to pick between people with no heart who don't care about environmental issues, or people with no brain who care about the environment but don't have a clue about basic science or economics? (For example, an intelligent environmentalist should *favor* nuclear power.)

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    165. Re:Former EA Employees? by DrCode · · Score: 1

      True, but they might not like it much either if you spend all your time with them and don't bring in any money.

    166. Re:Former EA Employees? by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 2, Interesting
      You know, for some reason I'm not surprised that such an ignorant post got modded up as +5 insightful instead of -1 flamebait.

      First, to address your concerns about managers with large mortgage payments, golf outings, and office sex on fine Italian leather, well...it really is hard to mask your jealousy. If you're jealous, say so. But it seems to me that all these statements are drawn from stereotypes, and very few actual experiences.

      Let me explain something to you about management that will address your ridiculous comment about how we don't need managers.

      Large numbers of employees don't organize themselves, and when they do, there tends to be leaders that rise the top and direct everybody. Guess what these people are called? MANAGERS! They come in all different shapes and forms, and while I don't disagree there are some truly horrendous examples (especially at EA), management is absolutely crucial for business. People need to handle HR, finance, shareholders, customers, distributors, marketing, etc. And while I'm sure you think marketers are "t3h evil" and that a CEO just spends his days galavanting around the country in his lear jet, you obviously have no real understanding of business otherwise you would recognize how necessary it is to have marketers to make your product that you slave over sell, or how necessary it is to have a charismatic public face to address the media, shareholders, and customers when the shit hits the fan.

      But aside from your obvious jealousy (although based on false notions of what management actually does), and your complete lack of knowledge of what makes a business work, what irks me the most about your post is that you think you are a better person than the people above you. Ever wonder why there's such a disconnect between management and programmers? I'll give you a hint, its not just because some managers don't give respect to programmers. It works both ways you know. You reap what you sow.

      Mods, this is not flamebait, this post is addressing a common misconception around here about management and what they do. I'm sure every manager on here read the parent and just wanted to fire him. I know if I had someone working for me with that attitude (assuming I'm adulterous, irresponsible, and don't do work) well, they'd be gone the second I found out about it.

      Get off your bloody high horse and realize that a good portion of management works just as hard as you do. They just do it in different ways. Pissed off that they golf too much? Bet you didn't know that they were doing all that golfing just to win over a venture capitalist to get more funding for your project, or that they don't even like golf.

      Remember folks, the grass is always greener, and you always remember the bad as opposed to the good, and in this case EA is definitely guilty as charged, but for the love of god, this stereotype of management has got to go. I mean, you don't like it when they stereotype programmers right? Two wrongs don't make a right.

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    167. Re:Former EA Employees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Don't unions collectively bargain for pay rates? Doesn't that ensure that every employee at a position category will receive the same pay no matter how well/poorly they perform? This doesn't exactly encourage people to put forth their best effort.
      How about when you have a company with clueless management that believes programmers are just interchangeable cogs, justifying treating their employees like crap because they can always get a replacement? That company's ripe for unionization because their attitude is a self fulfiling prophecy. Management gets the employees, and unions, they deserve.
    168. Re:Former EA Employees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Yeah, we all gotta buckle down and do our part to turn around this devastating world underpopulation crisis. A few more generations of slackers like bludstone and the human race will be extinct! Oh the humanity!

      Like it or not, he is helping you raise your kids (by taking up your slack at work so you can take care of them) and deserves some thanks for it. Yeah, maybe he'll get paid back 40 years from now when he's drawing Social Security, or maybe not, maybe he'll get run over by a bus on his way home from working late. It's never to early to express gratitude.

    169. Re:Former EA Employees? by blahplusplus · · Score: 1

      Your post makes a good argument in favor of planned economies or mixed socialism/capitalist policy because humans love inequity and love to exploit one another for personal gain since most people have no problems with letting go of their ethics as long as they get to exploit and steal from you.

      I lent someone (best friends for years) $5K and I got backstabbed and haven't seen a red cent from them in 3 years and am currently taking them to court. Wish me luck.

    170. Re:Former EA Employees? by Snaller · · Score: 1

      No the problem is that there will always be amoral slavedrivers who try to cut any corner they can. But what do you expect from an ultra capitalist country ;)

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    171. Re:Former EA Employees? by lashi · · Score: 2, Insightful
      >Our standard of living has increased, but at what cost?

      Our standard of living has only increased only in the monetary sense.

      Beside nitpicking on that, I totally agree with you. Personally, having lived overseas for a couple of years, I think our standards of living in America kinda sucks. Sure I make more money here but so what. Case in point is the vacation time.

      When I tell people in England I only had 2 weeks of vacation time each year in NA, they were all shocked. When I mention working overtime for free, they thought I was joking. I had 5 weeks of vacation each year there. People are much more easy going at work. Hourse are regular. A lot more socializing happens at the office. Life was definitely more enjoyable.

      My point is, people here put too much emphasis on money. Money is only something that represents value. It's not value itself. There are many other important things to have. Time for example.

    172. Re:Former EA Employees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Or, are you going to stop along the road and enjoy things like the innocence in your childs eyes.
      There's more to life than having children. Some people would do well to remember that. Even the most wonderful children grow up and move away, and what about those who are less wonderful? We all hear about teenagers who get drunk and high and have unprotected sex and generally destroy themselves spectacularly. What about their parents?
    173. Re:Former EA Employees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And your kids can thank me for not wasting resources by having more kids so there might be a few trees standing and a bit of unpolutted air left for them work with when I'm gasping for my last.

    174. Re:Former EA Employees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Thats okay. But remember, its us without kids that are picking up your slack. YOU OWE US.

      This is a bullshit generalization. My SO is a Sr. Technical writer for a well-known publicly-traded software company (not MS). She has been working 70+ hours a week for two months, while I care for our two toddlers. No one is picking up her slack, I assure you; quite the contrary, in fact. So if you have a problem with specific people on your team, deal *them*, and stop spreading FUD.

    175. Re:Former EA Employees? by beanlover · · Score: 1

      Haha!

      Well...if I were that coworker you would be treated to lunch on a regular basis. :)

    176. Re:Former EA Employees? by the_mad_poster · · Score: 1

      Don't you have some stock options to plunder?

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
    177. Re:Former EA Employees? by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

      if demand for a product such as 'money' increases, then people will pay 'more' for that product, and everyone pays with 'time'. But what does 'money' really give you? just more mass produced goodies to waste what little 'time' you have left on for now.

      People have to adjust and balance up whats more important.

      Yes we all need a minimum to be alive, like food+shelter(free if possible).

      Where the money problem gets more difficult is once we start having kids, then you need that larger place, and a bigger car, and good food.

      What the common man asks is enough 'cash' to sustain a healthy min life, and not live like a student forever.

      GNN once had a good article about how the globalism thing by world central banks and big elite are really there to maximize the amount of resources for less 'cash', resources being human labor. Cash ofcourse being created out of thin air by the banks via fractional reserve banking lending practices. Its this "MORE for ME" mentality that is like a virus destroying people.

      Perhaps people should 'share' the 'MORE' things with each other to maximize self time vs material goods.

      --
      Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    178. Re:Former EA Employees? by Tyreth · · Score: 1

      Yeah, those who are saying 80 hours is too much are not suggesting that you quit your job. They're saying: work a normal number of hours so you strike a _balance_.

    179. Re:Former EA Employees? by Anonymous+Luddite · · Score: 1


      From a managerial perspective, it is just plain dumb as well. I know I am not fully there if I have been working more than 12 hours straight, and you are fooling yourself if you think you can write/debug solid code with 4 hours sleep.

      You nailed it right on the head. As I read this stuff (and yesterday's thread) I keep thinking "what the hell good is code written by someone who hasn't had a day off or a full night's sleep in weeks?"

      Management doesn't know what the hell it's doing if it follows this business model. I think with most programmers, you can expect 20-25 solidly productive hours in a 40 hour week. Sure, you can make them work 80 hour weeks, but does it result in a net increase? Possibly, but only at the expense of quality/reliability/maintainability.

      moral concerns aside, this is just bad business....

    180. Re:Former EA Employees? by Flunitrazepam · · Score: 1

      I also wonder if there might be a constitutional challenge here - unlike military/police/fire/hospital workers, it is pretty hard to argue that video game programmers are "essential", and must be kept working long hours at all costs.

      You should try joining #FFXI on efnet when one of the game's servers is down..

      --
      1) Your analysis is based on bad assumptions so your result is way off. 2) You're a sick bastard for fucking a horse.
    181. Re:Former EA Employees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Different societies place different values on human life at different times. [...]. I found this interesting story [cprheritage.com] where to build a Canadian line they decided to outsource to Chinese labour as it was cheaper. Around 9% of the asian workforce were killed in its construction

      Reading the article, I found out that it was in fact an american magnate who is responsible for that. His idea was to emulate the american way of building a railway to save money. Why an american? Because when the canadian government was managing it, the construction was slow and costly (but safe).

    182. Re:Former EA Employees? by jwilcox154 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Don't unions collectively bargain for pay rates? Doesn't that ensure that every employee at a position category will receive the same pay no matter how well/poorly they perform? This doesn't exactly encourage people to put forth their best effort.

      Unions are to protect the employees from getting shafted. In a non-union shop, someone could be the hardest working employees, completely outgoing, but doesn't get any pay raises because they're not the "Favorite" of the manager/foreman.

      Unions protect the employees by making employee termination much more difficult to the employer. While the advantages are probably pretty obvious, this puts additional burden on the employer to build a case against an employee for termination if the employee truly deserves termination? In extreme cases, this could lead the employer to additional risk if the employee is endangering people or projects.

      Actually, what a union is supposed to do is to make sure that the employer has a good reason to terminate an employee, without being unionized, an employer can terminate someone for no reason at all.

      Unions typically prohibit companies from hiring non-union employees. If you as a software programmer want to work for company X, you can only do so by joining the union, even if you don't want to. Union's will look at any attempts to hire a non-union employee as "stealing a job" from a union worker.

      That is called a "Closed Shop", of which the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 has made illegal.

      Unions see overtime as potential for another worker rather than an opportunity for current union members to pick up additional income. (This is the case with my father, a plumber, who made more money as a non-union plumber due to being able to work overtime. When his shop was unionized, his annual income went from about $54K to $32K. Sure, he didn't have to work any overtime, but now he can't possibly make enough money to maintain his lifestyle. As pointed out above, he can't potentially make any more money due to the union setting the rate.)

      That's funny, I have a sister that works in a union shop and has all kinds of opportunity to get overtime if she wishes. where she works, if someone misses 1 day because of something, they are not only docked 1 day's pay and possibly losing overtime, they also have a few points knocked against them. Once they get so many points against them "Which it takes 6 months from the time of occurrence to expire", They will get some sort of disciplinary action against them at first, then if it continues, they are eventually terminated.

      I admit, some unions do go too far and price the jobs so high that the company has to either move the jobs south of the border, lay a few people off, or go out of business. That's an example of when unions go too far, and there are even some unions that all they do is bow down to their "corporate masters" and are as worthless as a billion pesos in England.

    183. Re:Former EA Employees? by DM9290 · · Score: 1

      All of these things are luxuries that no nation can afford in the long term. The European economies are already bleeding jobs like mad due to labor becoming prohibitively expensive with their 35-hour work weeks and 6 weeks of yearly vacations, while companies stick around only because they get massive government subsidies.

      When you say "companies stick around". What exactly are you referring to? The board of directors? The shareholders? Certainly *not* the workers who are the only ones who actually do anything.

      Maybe companies will packup and take their natural resources with them? Take the land? You CANT take your property with you when you leave.

      "As an economy advances, some regulation and taxation becomes necessary to improve the quality of the labor pool (since automation makes most unskilled labor worthless), maintain law and order, and prevent inefficiencies from market failures, but those should be kept at the barest efficient minimum for the economy to remain truly competitive."

      I guess regulations to protect human rights are unimportant to you. Afterall the labour pool is "worthless". Just slabs of meat. ripened past their expiry date.

      And as for competition, what do you mean? Competitive with what? The extraterrestrials?
      Or do you mean competetive with corporations which abuse human rights? Those are the exact corporations we must do everything possible to insure are NOT competetive. And those are the corporations that tariffs must target.

      Humans all over the earth have human rights. Not simply europeans and North Americans.

      Any attempts at protectionism only make things worse, since imposing tariffs gets you matching tariffs from everyone else, and no modern nation's economy can survive having the world's markets closed to it (that's why embargoes are such a devastating punitive measure in world diplomacy). As big as our economy may be, the world's is bigger still, and we need it a lot more than it needs us.

      No. Tariffs do not make things worse. Tariffs make it more difficult to do business with human rights abusers. We don't worry about the economic costs of blacklisting terrorist organizations. Why is doing business with human rights abusers so sacrosanct?

      Moreover, you don't get matching tariffs from EVERYONE ELSE, only from the nations who choose to utilize human exploitation or destruction of the earth environment as a competetive strategy. Exactly the type of practice we OUTLAW at home. These are essentially ROGUE corporations who manufacture in third world countries to exploit cheap labour. They engage in what would be an illegal practice at home. Safety regulations and labour standards and environmental standards are not in place to save money or gain competetive advantage. They are there for ethical reasons.

      Tariffs are simply a less extreme version of flat out embargoes (which you don't seem to be opposed to). Mild enough that democratic forces in that country will likely be able to compell compliance rather than so extreme as to crush democratic forces and encourage totalitarianism.

      Moreoever.. tariffs prevent companies from simply packing up and leaving without requiring any subsidies. Seems to accomplish multiple purposes all with 1 fell swoop.

      And the draw back is that corporations can't sell american products to malaysia or india or china as cheaply unless they fix their human rights abuses first? Sounds great. It makes human rights a profitable enterprise.

      "What we really need to do is cut back on the frivolous regulations, break the unions, and prevent new ones from forming. Corporations are not our enemies, they are the hands that feed us, and biting them is highly inadviseable."

      I like the master-dog analogy you use because it is exactly what corporatists want you to think. Human beings are DOGS and corporations are the MASTER.

      Consumers FEED the corporations. And the consumers are human beings and the labour pool. And it is

      --
      No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
    184. Re:Former EA Employees? by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Now why would I want to get my pay based on seniority rather than performance?

      So they can't screw you over by saying your work isn't up to quality? Seniority is objective, unless they're pathological liars who falsify records, it's going to be a little hard to say you only worked there 3 years when you've really been there 15.

    185. Re:Former EA Employees? by cfuse · · Score: 1
      Yeah because clearly the company that you work for is more important then your children. If my boss ever gives me shit about showing up late or leaving early because of a sick child I'll hand in my resignation on the spot. Your family is a million times more important then your company.

      It's amazing how many managers baulk when you tell them that work isn't the most important thing in your life.

      You can always get another job, you can't get another life.

    186. Re:Former EA Employees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're WAY overgeneralizing unions.

      Professional baseball players have a union. Are they all paid the same based on length of service? Nope. Are they underachievers? Nope. The baseball union dramatically improved the salaries of baseball players. They're what I define as "fair" wages (their salary is in the ballpark, but less than, the money they make for their employer).

      A union does not have to impose such rules. A union's purpose is to protect workers' rights.

    187. Re:Former EA Employees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      of course it was a lie, god forbid he actually tried to get a little bit of sleep after being up until 7am, then slept longer than he intended. fucking moron.

    188. Re:Former EA Employees? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      walk the entire team right the fuck out halfway

      That's a great idea if everyone will do it.

      In an organization as large as EA you probably only need to walk about 5% of the employees off the job to cripple the entire company. You only need to get about 40% of the people on a given game to walk off the project if you get even vaguely the right 40%, meaning that you get at worst equal numbers of important and unimportant people to leave each department. You can retain whole departments if you lose enough of other departments.

      Working these kinds of hours make that sort of thing especially true. If everyone is working hard enough, including your most valuable employees, the loss of a few of those people ends up meaning that critical information and/or process goes missing. You certainly haven't had time to document everything you were working on at the time you abruptly stopped.

      Anyway, live in excess? What does that mean?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    189. Re:Former EA Employees? by BlueFashoo · · Score: 1

      I personally want to see our gig rise to the level of doctor, lawyer, professor, etc. I want to do meaningful, creative work.

      And they all have unions.

      --
      Nice Marmot
    190. Re:Former EA Employees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like every job I've ever had in the entertainment industry.

    191. Re:Former EA Employees? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I have two words for you, and put together they spell bullshit. This is bull because there is an act known as "consideration" which is the mental process of examining the results of a given action. Action: You stay home to take care of your children. Reaction: Someone else has to do your work or things get behind. If you are a considerate individual you want to minimize your negative impact on others. In order to balance the scales you might go so far as to offer to cover for the coworker you inconvenienced.

      Most people with kids seem to have too little time to be considerate. I can understand that but I don't have to forgive it if, when I have kids, I am sure to at least try to be considerate. Actually, I try now, so I'm practicing for when it's going to be difficult. However, I would feel the same way about a coworker with an unreliable car - whoops, that's me! If I miss a day, I do my best to make up the time, so that my workload is not forgotten. I expect no less of someone trying to raise a child. If you can't fulfill your obligations at work and raise a child simultaneously you need to come to an agreement with your employer about your workload. It's simply considerate.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    192. Re:Former EA Employees? by PickyH3D · · Score: 1
      The article said the boss was actually far more devoted to work than he was. The only problem is that they just spend their time as slave drivers that expect the impossible.

      Obviously that's not the best of working conditions, but you sometimes have good managers and sometimes bad managers. Apparently EA has more than its fair share of bad managers (probably because whoever hires them requires that style--that is the source of the problem).

      The same thing occurs with companies without management. No one would work. You may shoot back that "small businesses don't have management," but if whoever wants to try that argument would stop and think, then they would realize that the small business owner is usually a manager AND worker. That is generally the difference between big and small business. On the small end, the managers will be getting their hands just as dirty as you, AND be working longer, harder hours.

      With all of this said, I am actually surprised that this clash against EA did not come sooner. Their products have been slipping in quality for quite some time, and with the very short development cycles this MUST have been expected. Or am I just the only one that can put two-and-two together on Slashdot (and every other conservative ;))?

      Finally, I am not a fan of EA and I would not mind seeing them topple from the top. Especially since they got rid of Westwood Studios. Personally though, I do firmly believe the employees are as much to blame as the higher-ups (the people not so much in the know about individual development projects, or specifically the slave driving [assuming they do not know]). If you are too stupid to stand up for what is right, and stand up to being ridden into unachievable goals, then you are just as much at fault as those doing the ordering. This falls directly in line with the idea behind legally disobeying an order in the military.

    193. Re:Former EA Employees? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Staying up past midnight with a coughing child indicates that there is a bug in their system and they usually get those from other kids they hang out with, so it's probably not the parent poster's fault anyway. it's your child, it's your choice, it's your problem. Making it someone else's problem is annoying. You know the people who take their children to the movie theater? And the kid makes noise and they don't take it out? They're the same as the people who talk at the movies, and won't shut up. The only difference is how they're being a pain in the ass.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    194. Re:Former EA Employees? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You're a little too full of yourself but you do have a point. When I've been a sysadmin/netadmin I've done a lot of bitching and complaining about having to work at fucked up times because everything was down but I was there working while I was bitching. Stuff worked, and if it wasn't working, I was in the middle of it. (Hmm, that sounded wrong.)

      This didn't include my first sysadmin job, where I was a newbie.

      Anyway the other hand is that I got consideration for my overtime in the form of comp time and in one or two cases small bonuses. Game developers usually get it in the form of the waxing and waning of game development schedules. They spend a few months working their asses off, and the rest of the time working well below output. At least, that's what I've seen... Maybe not all shops are like that. Plus, most of these people are doing things they really want to do, which helps a lot. It doesn't save you from wanting to keel over and die on the spot when you're working 12 hour days, but it does provide significant incentive.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    195. Re:Former EA Employees? by Thing+1 · · Score: 1
      Now why would I want to get my pay based on seniority rather than performance?

      If fortune(1) has taught us anything, it's that:

      Age and Treachery Will Overcome Youth and Skill.

      Perhaps joining a union now won't help us, but why not align ourselves with the equation such that we ultimately benefit from it? ;-)

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    196. Re:Former EA Employees? by DoctorHibbert · · Score: 1

      You forgot TPS reports don't get filed.

      --
      Arbitrary sig
    197. Re:Former EA Employees? by Justice8096 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, its mostly in the commercial sector... I work for a military contract, close to the customer, and I have reasonable hours... the customer even cares about my health. Work far away from the military's sight, and it's a different story...
      Now, when I worked for a commercial company that will not be named, employees only got pregnant when the went back to India, because that is the only time they got to sleep with their spouses... (as for us Americans, well...)

    198. Re:Former EA Employees? by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Honestly, I don't think so. With planned economies, they are doomed to fail or be locked in with governmental control and power. The Soviet Union was a prime example of what it historically intended to be, but rather turned sour with corruption.

      Obviously capitalist societies are not perfect (far from it), but it's the best system we have yet that I know of.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    199. Re:Former EA Employees? by Lips · · Score: 1

      "I know if I had someone working for me with that attitude...well, they'd be gone the second I found out about it"

      Maybe that's the problem with your class. You fire people for attitude. I don't see you mention poor work performance, you don't mention if the attitude has a negative affect on the busiess. noooo, you will fire for his ATTITUDE to YOU. Is your ego so precious to you? We are told if we work hard then we can get somewhere, but it seems that sometimes tools such as yourself get in the way. It's a sad state the world is in.

      And assuming that you were assuming "adulterous, irresponsible, and don't do work" then isn't this attitude towards you justified?

    200. Re:Former EA Employees? by blahplusplus · · Score: 1

      Thats why I said mixed. i.e. not every aspect of the economy functions under a planned model. Some economies only have one or few buyers or the same buyers always (i.e. food, shelter, etc).

    201. Re:Former EA Employees? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      The trick is finding the right balance. All jobs have ebbs and flows when it comes to workload. You don't want to make the low point 40 hours and then let your hours vary from 40-60. The trick is to make your average at or below 40, and find developmental or project-oriented stuff to do on lighter weeks, and focus on the critical stuff when your job seems to be ready to explode.

      If everybody is busy for a solid 40 hours on a non-busy week, then the company is understaffed. You can't staff for peaks either, obviously. However, management should be staffing for at least an average load.

      If I never left work when something important was being worked on, then I'd never come home. Most projects span months - and all the invested time is important. Importance should determine what you work on - not whether you lose your hair while working on it.

      Try scheduling developmental activites and longer-term projects into your workweek. Then when things flare up you can drop the non-urgent tasks to make room.

    202. Re:Former EA Employees? by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      I don't have to mention that it would have a negative effect on the business because that is assumed. You seem to be attempting to make a distinction between quality of work and personality as traits that make up a good employee.

      Guess what, welcome to the real world where people who have both traits succeed and the ones who don't have both get replaced by someone who does. Nothing irritates me more than people who think that they are a good employee if they just shutup and do their work. Guess what, I want an employee who is personable, because I have to work with them and so does everybody else.

      Stop thinking about your job as a solitary role where you are isolated from everybody else. You are all connected, and need to start thinking like a team.

      I shall reply no more to you troll.

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    203. Re:Former EA Employees? by NSash · · Score: 1

      "I don't want a union; unions are for blue-collar workers."
      "I don't want to wear a condom; only people with STDs wear those."

      Your post shows no sign of any actual thought process. No, strike that. Your post was so mind-numbingly stupid that it made me bleed ou of my ears.

      Let me try to approximate what you're saying: "Do you want to live in an ordered state like Singapore, or a hell-hole like Mexico City? Only societies with crime need police, so if we got a police force crime would go up."

      (Note that, in addition to capturing your idiotic logic, my analogy also duplicates your inadequate grasp of the facts. Singapore employs quite a large number of policemen -- just like doctors, lawyers, and college professors have unions.)

    204. Re:Former EA Employees? by Kadmos · · Score: 1
      Read between the lines. "Sick with daughter, up until 7 AM" and then he says "Overslept until 10". It was a lie.


      Perhaps if you had the slightest bit or compassion or decency you would understand. He had a sick daughter, he stayed with her during the night until 6AM. Surprise, surprise, he was tired from getting little to no sleep during the night, and slept until 10AM. Apparently you are such an asshole that you have difficulty understanding that. But then again you don't give a flying fuck that his daughter was sick (as you have expressed in other posts).

      I can only hope that you grow up (a lot), drop the attitude, and more importantly if you show the same amount of care and compassion to your children (if you have any) as you do to Joe and his children, then perhaps they should be in foster care.
    205. Re:Former EA Employees? by SilentChris · · Score: 1

      And who says I don't? The bottom line is, if you're going to spend much of your waking life doing something, why complain and fidget and have your finger grow tired from holding it up to the man all the time? Why not find a job you're comfortable in, with bosses you can trust, in an industry you're proud of? Not doing so is just doing yourself a great disservice.

    206. Re:Former EA Employees? by SilentChris · · Score: 1

      Uh, hey, asshole: I grew up in a very large family (5 children) with one parent. I know what it's like to have sick children -- I've been one of them, and I've had to comfort siblings as I grew older.

      You apparently have never dealt with a sick child overnight. Here's the deal: you stay up all night with the bucket, running back and forth, and having cold water compresses at the ready. If you DO stay up until 7:00 AM, you likely are in no position to fall asleep for 3 hours (and then claim to "sleep late"). At that point you likely make yourself some tea/coffee, call the school to tell them the child isn't coming in, and call your boss and say "Hey, sorry, I can't come in". If you have a 6-digit salary, you can afford to request this day off. Later on in the day, after you're sure the kid is ok, you get some sleep.

      This guy's story reeks with falsehoods. If someone were to stay up all night with their sick kid, why would they "oversleep" the following morning? How does one "oversleep" when they've only been in bed 3 hours (I don't know about you, but my definition of "oversleep" is that I've slept *more* hours than I expected). Why would he not call in to say he was late (hell, he was awake at 7; why not call then)? This guy obviously made this shit up and tried to fake things at the last minute. That's why he's tell two different stories: a fake child one, and a real "I actually just overslept because I don't care about my job" one.

    207. Re:Former EA Employees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reminds me when Catbert is telling Alice "You spemnt 80 hourslast week. That's less than half the week! Give us some balance you selfish hag!"

      My response would have been "Well, I can give you 100% of my sleep time and feeding."

    208. Re:Former EA Employees? by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      As said by another poster, its about balance. But I'll go one step further- why do you worry about advancement and raises so much? Are you unable to make ends meet now? Or are you unable to save anything for retirement? If both of these are no- fuck raises, its not worth the effort. If anything, I'd love to take a work cut- I'd love to make 4/5 of what I make now and have a 4 day work week. I'd value my time far more than I do the money.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    209. Re:Former EA Employees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, Codemasters will kick you out if you're not willing to live under your desk too.

    210. Re:Former EA Employees? by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      "Tarrifs on china and other countries which do not meet American human rights and environmental standards will have the effect of raising the standards abroad until corporations will have no where left to exploit labour or the environment unfairly."
      You make good points, but the way things work today, when do you think the US would deem China standards "good enough" if it was profitable for them to keep sanctions in place? Also, Germany (for instance) has a lot better worker protection than the US, should the US govermnent encourage Germany to sanction the US?
      The crux of the issue is: Who gets to decide which labor rights/human rights/workplace safety rules/whatever are aproppriate? Nations disagree on those issues! As I can see there is just one way ahead:
      Different sanction regimes should be controlled on the international level. If Norway thinks that Spain is subsidizing their ship production industry (they are, btw, just like everyone else), they should NOT call down sanctions on their beliefs alone. Then it would just be might makes right. Everyone could make up excuses for sanctioning whomever they wanted, but it would be the richer countries that won out in the end - this is not far from the status quo today. Instead,
      an international UN panel should decide if a certain human rights trangression warranted sanctions, and EU courts should do the same with respect to trade subsidies inside Europe, and I suppose NAFTA or something could do it over in the Americas. The important thing is that we have a rule of law when deciding whether sanctions are warranted, not just invoke them on the basis of our own biased bellies.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    211. Re:Former EA Employees? by zymurgyboy · · Score: 1
      "I don't want a union; unions are for blue-collar workers."

      "I don't want to wear a condom; only people with STDs wear those."

      Whoa! Calm down crazy anology guy!

      Your post shows no sign of any actual thought process. No, strike that. Your post was so mind-numbingly stupid that it made me bleed ou of my ears.

      It shows signs of my experience with unions. And for that matter, I don't think unions are for blue collar people either. I recall experiences of people close to me which amounted routine buggering of union members by their union; wasted time, money and paperwork to support a layer of buerocracy which amounted to entitlement pimping; excusers and rewarders of bad behavior and poor workmanship. But you couldn't opt out.

      Let me try to approximate what you're saying: "Do you want to live in an ordered state like Singapore, or a hell-hole like Mexico City? Only societies with crime need police, so if we got a police force crime would go up."

      (Note that, in addition to capturing your idiotic logic, my analogy also duplicates your inadequate grasp of the facts. Singapore employs quite a large number of policemen -- just like doctors, lawyers, and college professors have unions.)

      Thanks, but I don't need your help. In fact, I don't want it, which is more or less the point. It doesn't approximate what I'm saying very well anyway. I'd like something between Singapore and Mexico City. I don't want your order, your ordered society, or your orders. I can take care of myself just fine, thanks. I don't need you, so I don't care about you. I wouldn't enjoy your police state utopia. Got it?

      What exactly did anything I say have to do with crime anyway?

      It was an intersting display of psychotic behavior, if not analysis, in any case.

      [Reply to This]

      I'll waste no time reading it.

      --
      If you never make mistakes, it's probably because you're not doing anything.
    212. Re:Former EA Employees? by sydres · · Score: 1

      well I'll tell ya I've been in A Union for Five years and though it does have a few benefits it is also one of the most easily corruptible organizational structure ever to grace this earth, I have seen everything from Union cowing to the company, to the Union ignoring the needs of the employees so that it can provide a favor to the company, on top of that I pay 7.50 a week in dues so the Union can rent a Hall discuss business for ten or so minutes then eat and drink the rest of my money away,how would you feel about it if you were paying dues and found out it was being used so union officials could get liquored up, then those same officials come in to the work place and greet you with words like "How the Fuck are you doing?"I kid you not. Not to mention the bribery. No if the Technoogy sectors organize it will be more in the classic guild sense then a modern union

    213. Re:Former EA Employees? by dubl-u · · Score: 1

      Of course it isnt, but in this society having a child is a choice. I should not be punished for your choice to have a child. [...] I dont give a shit that you gave yourself more work and less budget by having a kid. Thats not my problem. I'll be happy to cover for you if youve got some problems though, but I expect some consideration for it.

      So you've already gone back and repaid every single person who helped your parents out when you were a kid, right? All their coworkers and friends, and everybody who paid for school for all the years you spent in it? Because otherwise that would make you a hypocritical, selfish prick, and I'd hate to think that of you.

      The deal is that every kid gets that kind of help from society, and they repay it when they turn into productive citizens. And honestly, it's not a lot to ensure that society can afford to take care of you in your old age. Which, given the current low birth rates in first-world countries, is not guaranteed at all, bucko.

    214. Re:Former EA Employees? by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      A union? Let me tell you about unions. I work for a major telecom, in a call center. We're unionized. In the last 2 months people have been let go for being late/calling off for:

      1. Husband had a heart attack, couldn't leave daughter alone.

      2. Person was pissing blood from kidney infection, went home early 2 days in a row.

      3. Hurricane flooded roads. 2 people were held responisble for the center not being staffed appropiately, because they were trapped at home.

      So yeah threaten unionization. I've paid 100 bucks so far this year and my union has done nothing but charge us an additional 13 bucks for an initiation fee.

    215. Re:Former EA Employees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell, set us up with your hot sister, more like! :)

    216. Re:Former EA Employees? by Jim_Maryland · · Score: 1
      So if you don't enjoy your job, why do you stick with it? Over my 10 years as a professional, I've worked for 4 companies (and two positions with the current employer) and migrate to work that is enjoyable. Working in a position where you don't get both monetary and personal satisfaction probably indicates a need for change.

      Please stop speaking for the rest of us

      I wasn't speaking for everyone. I was under the impression that this is a forum where everyone can express their ideas, even if others will disagree with them. In this case, I disagree with your statement that "I'm speaking for everyone".

      OK, so some questions for you then...

      Would belonging to a union really improve job satisfaction?

      Do you only work for a paycheck or do you want personal satisfaction from accomplishing a task?

      While an increase in pay would certainly be appreciated by anyone, would you stay at a job only for the pay if another challenging position were available? Consider people that choose careers (social services, teachers, church leaders, police, and many others) where they receive little or no pay and still choose the career because they get other satisfaction from the work.

      ...who work because we have to...

      I certainly "have" to work to cover bills (two kids - elementary and middle school so no college yet, but saving for it; a wife who is a returning adult student in college; and the usual expenses (shelter, food, utilities, vehicles, etc...) for family activies). I do work with some single people who have considered cutting back work schedules to part time status, just to enjoy life, but they haven't because they seem to enjoy the work too. Basically I'm trying to say that very few people could give up working all together and therefore most people (other than those with huge trust funds) end up having to work to make ends meet.

    217. Re:Former EA Employees? by mrlpz · · Score: 1

      How nazi of you. If you hate kids that much, great. Don't have any. However, should on one of your moon-lit romps you happen to half-stupored engender one such unfortunate, do the right thing and actually PAY your child support, rather than making the system have to hunt you down.

      That aside, carry on like a "good little nazi" that you are.

    218. Re:Former EA Employees? by mrlpz · · Score: 1

      That comment has absolutely NOTHING to do with what I said. While I agree with your assessment of folks who take their sick kids to the movies, or the grocery store ( even worse ), just don't forget you were once a dirty behind the ears little snot.

      The rest of will remind you when you have one of your own. And should you choose not to partake, great, less "counter nature" genes we'll have floating around in the gene pool.

    219. Re:Former EA Employees? by DM9290 · · Score: 1

      I am Canadian you self-rightous prick.

      Get an education.

      --
      No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
    220. Re:Former EA Employees? by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 1
      # Would belonging to a union really improve job satisfaction?

      It would for me, because I would know that I'd have some recourse when management decided it was my turn to be screwed. Not 'if', but 'when'. It happens to everyone, no matter how much of a professional you are or how much value you bring to the table. To think otherwise is delusion.

      # Do you only work for a paycheck or do you want personal satisfaction from accomplishing a task?

      I only work for this place for a paycheck. I have hobbies for "personal satisfaction." The vast majority of the people that I know that work or have worked in a corporate environment feel the same way. Of course, the vast majority of people I know aren't programming hotshots, either, and are closer to my age than college-age.

      # While an increase in pay would certainly be appreciated by anyone, would you stay at a job only for the pay if another challenging position were available?

      I plan to stay here until they kick me out. I don't think I could make money as good as I'm making at any other job, especially with the market as it is, because I do not have a bachelor's degree. I have a mortgage and a wife and possibly children someday. Paying the bills is financial priority #1, and financial priority #2 is preparing to open my own non-IT-related business when I lose this job.

      I seem to have given you the impression that I don't like my work. That's not the case, my work interests me a great deal, when I'm here. But when I'm not here, I don't want anything to do with it, and the less I'm here, the better. I have a home to enjoy and keep up, and hobbies that I wish I had more time to do. I don't want to live the IT Geek Lifestyle of 60+ hour weeks and obsessing over my work anymore. I can be self-actualized on my own time.
    221. Re:Former EA Employees? by Jim_Maryland · · Score: 1

      I actually read through some of the other parts of this post after having replied to your post. I probably should have read them before getting so critical.

      turn to be screwed

      I've only had this happen once. A manager went against my instructions and it cost the company about $5,000 in a printing mistake. The manager was only supposed to run off 2 copies of a mylar orthophoto plot for quality control and the manager ran off several hundred (NOTE: The printing was handled via an outside vendor as the plots were digital to plate and over 36 inches in the X and Y directions). I had a simple mistake (map tic marks out of position) that would have been caught on review of the two sample plots, but the manager, in the interest of saving time, decided to run all the plots. I took the blame for that. Fortunately for me, I already had a new job awaiting me.

      For the second point of paycheck vs job satisfaction, I too work for the paycheck and the job satisfaction. Maybe I'm an exception, but why not have both. I do have the fortune of living in the DC Metro area so jobs are a bit easier to come by. Of course that is why I moved to the area from Pennsylvania where jobs were scarce and employers could "screw" employees. As for age, I'm mid-30s and my hobbies generally involve activities with my kids, so work is not the only satisifaction. I coach various sports activities with them (soccer, football) so I'm not working all that much overtime unless necessary. Unpaid overtime is necessary at times. All I can hope is that any OT will reflect well on my performance reviews (which apparently it has). As an additional note (as I mentioned with my previous post), I switched positions within my current employer. If money were the only issue, I'd have stayed with the one position rather than my current position. I gave up about $14,000 (mostly shift differential and various position bonuses) to take a more interesting/challenging position. The position I gave up was a mindless job of watching systems to make sure they were available (services running, resources available, etc...) and the current one involves software research and development. In my opinion, pay isn't everything if the position doesn't provide some challenges or will bore you to death.

      I've had periods where I have to do the 60-80 hours a week (usually demo prep, product delivery, or critical milestones in the development process) as well as stretches where 40 hours is all I do. In most cases, I've found the managers to be quite flexible in working around any scheduling conflicts with personal activities.

      Maybe I'm addicted to IT (my wife would probably agree with that) but it's helped me tremendously in advancing my career which in turn greatly benefits my family.

    222. Re:Former EA Employees? by DM9290 · · Score: 1

      I was with you up to the point where you said if we impose tariffs on countries that don't uphold American labor and environmental standards, the corporations and low-cost countries would roll over and live with it.

      I did not say low-cost countries would roll over and live with it. I said the CORPORATIONS would roll over and live with hiring american workers in america if that was the cheapest way to sell products to American consumers.

      --
      No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
    223. Re:Former EA Employees? by DM9290 · · Score: 1

      You make good points, but the way things work today, when do you think the US would deem China standards "good enough" if it was profitable for them to keep sanctions in place?

      I can only say when I think the US "ought" to deem Chinese standards "good enough". I can't tell you when a particular administration would "deem" chinese standards good enough.

      However in order for any such tarriff to have any positive effect the law which creates the tarriff would probably need to have specific benchmarks in place which dictate when the tarriff will expire and how to modify the tarriff based on actual goals.

      A tariff which simply says "7% on metalwork goods" without any connection to actual human rights, environmental or labour rights issues is not going to achieve any of those aims.

      For example. A Tarriff could read "X% on all imports to be waived if mercury emissions are reduced to XXX", or "X% to be waived if the right to strike is granted to labour unions", "x% to be waved if women are granted the right to vote".

      etc....

      The law mandating the tariff should have built in rules for reducing or terminating it. Only that will encourage any specific action.

      Also, Germany (for instance) has a lot better worker protection than the US, should the US govermnent encourage Germany to sanction the US?

      German citizens should probably encourage their government to put tariffs on US imports until the US raises its standards to German standards. Presumably Germany would have even harsher standards against China than the US would.

      The crux of the issue is: Who gets to decide which labor rights/human rights/workplace safety rules/whatever are aproppriate? Nations disagree on those issues! As I can see there is just one way ahead:

      I say each nation should decide democratically what
      ethics it wants to impose on corporations.

      There is no need for agreement. China is not obligated to adhere to any American ethical standard. Likewise, American companies can go ahead and only give people 2 weeks of vacation, but if they want to import into Germany, then perhaps Germany would want to impose a tariff because German people believe 2 weeks vacation is unethically short, and they believe that 8 weeks is what is minimally necessary for human dignity.

      Corporations either way are still allowed to compete by any means which are ethically neutral.

      Different sanction regimes should be controlled on the international level. If Norway thinks that Spain is subsidizing their ship production industry (they are, btw, just like everyone else), they should NOT call down sanctions on their beliefs alone.

      If the people of Norway believe that subsidizing ship production is immoral then they are within their rights to put tariffs against countries which subsidize ship production.

      Then it would just be might makes right. Everyone could make up excuses for sanctioning whomever they wanted, but it would be the richer countries that won out in the end - this is not far from the status quo today.

      If the tariffs were put into law on the basis of achieving specific goals, it would be up to the courts of that nation to decide whether another nation was in compliance or should still be subject to a tariff.


      Instead,
      an international UN panel should decide if a certain human rights trangression warranted sanctions, and EU courts should do the same with respect to trade subsidies inside Europe, and I suppose NAFTA or something could do it over in the Americas. The important thing is that we have a rule of law when deciding whether sanctions are warranted, not just invoke them on the basis of our own biased bellies.


      I agree with the rule of law.

      I don't presume that the UN is any more lawful than any other national courts. However in this case notional courts have a vested interest in interpretting their laws properly.

      If the purpose of creating a tariff and

      --
      No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
    224. Re:Former EA Employees? by ph1ll · · Score: 1
      But some unions aren't called unions...

      Here in the UK, lawyers must be members of the Law Society. The Law Society regulates who can practise, regulates how many people enter the profession, regulates job titles etc etc.

      If this is not a union, what is?

      In addition, is this "union" a bad thing? If there were a union of software engineers that regulated who could practise and who could not, the "learn-X-in-21-days-cowboys" would be a thing of the past.

      When I asked a lawyer why the legal profession does not become a free market like the IT industry, he said that it was because of what goes on in the IT industry that law would never become a free market.

      --
      --- "We've always been at war with Eastasia."
    225. Re:Former EA Employees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      And I've never fucking live in 1967, I'm only 21 jackass.

      Er, I think it's a parody of Austin Powers, dude.

      (Jackass...)

    226. Re:Former EA Employees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lemming.

    227. Re:Former EA Employees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was also at EAC during this time, and everything he says is true.

    228. Re:Former EA Employees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She has been working 70+ hours a week for two months, while I care for our two toddlers. No one is picking up her slack

      You are a fucking retard.

      Reread that a few times.

    229. Re:Former EA Employees? by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I should have added a smiley to the comment. I didn't have my child until 10 years after I was married. We were DINKs in every sense of the word, and I resented those with kids, too.

      Personally, I wish more folks would think before they had kids. I also think its stupid that there are tax incentives for having kids...they cost a $#!+load of money to taxpayers.

      Nonetheless, there is an argument that there is a global benefit to having a next generation, even if it appears that there is none in your personal situation.

      And, of course, if you don't want one don't have one. They're like having a boat, but they take more maintenance, aren't as fun, and cost more. They do attract chicks though.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    230. Re:Former EA Employees? by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      I work in a two person engineering firm, and I'm the only engineer. There ain't no slack here.

      Oh, and I agree that there's overpopulation. Losing 4-5B would be a good start. But, again, there's that economics thing that prevents us from doing it too quickly. (I say we start with the lawyers. I've got a concrete mixer and can make up some forms for cast-in-place shoes in an afternoon). I still feel I've got the high ground, as I've limited my offspring to one (a 50% reduction, generationally).

      My point was that even the folks without children will benefit from the children of others indirectly. This is a global, macro style benefit, not a personal benefit.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  2. just quit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    if the company is so bad, quit. I'm sure there's plenty of people who will hire you.

    1. Re:just quit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, great idea. Let us never fight for what's right, just bow our heads and move on. I'm sure this new fanged "slavery thing" will just disappear if we move north!

    2. Re:just quit by pbranes · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem at EA is the same reason unions were first started, over 100 years ago. Employers would drive their employees to the brink of physical and mental exhaustion with little compensation (monetary or otherwise) to show for it. Today, unions have become nothing but organized gangs out for political power, but their original purpose was valid. There aren't an infinite number of jobs available out there, so if a person quits working at EA, they aren't guaranteed to get a job anywhere else, and then their family starves. Sometimes you have to keep working at a job that is terrible because the consequences of quitting are even more terrible. I think EA (like other gaming companies) should stop rushing junk out the door, and if they use a reasonable, efficient methodology (i.e. extreme programming, or something along those lines) then they will not have the infamous crunch time.

    3. Re:just quit by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      But surely if the company is breaking the law, they shouldn't be allowed to get away with it.

    4. Re:just quit by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Interesting
      This type of thing is why I'll never work a salaried position again. I don't work for free. I'll work hard....I'll work the hours needed. But, not for free. This is one thing I'm pissed at the Republican's for...trying to cripple the OT rules. This didn't start recently for IT, though. Years ago, my Dad (an EE), told me that 1.5 time for OT was common...and the Govt. put a clamp on that calling it 'professional' services...so, no longer subject to 1.5x pay for OT. Now, they're even trying to take away straight time.

      From now on...I prefer contract working...If I had to go direct, I'd push for hourly pay...if you get caught in this salaried thing...they'll kill you.

      I'm not a pro-union guy. They just seem to corrupt themselves, and start to operate only for their own benefit. You gotta be a good negotiator for yourself. I find that works best these days. You gotta look out for yourself, your company certainly is not.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    5. Re:just quit by Garse+Janacek · · Score: 5, Interesting
      People are quitting, that's not the point. If you'd read the story yesterday and this one, you'd know that EA has absurdly high turnover rates. The problem isn't that people can't quit, it's that EA keeps bringing in new people by lying to them, and then running them into the ground.

      The problem isn't (just) that EA was unfair to a lot of people in the past, it's that it continues to lie and manipulate new people into the same trap -- because as long as people ship a title before quitting, what does EA care? There are always more people who want to work there.

      What EA is doing is illegal, and they are pursuing it as a deliberate and continuing policy. This isn't just a couple employees who are upset because they had a bad experience and want to win money with a lawsuit, and individual employees quitting won't change things, since that is already factored into EA's strategy.

      --

      I am the man with no sig!

    6. Re:just quit by doinky · · Score: 1

      Macroeconomics matters, and the poor results of laissez-faire was responsible for the original advent of unions in this country. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to post cyberlibertarian tripe to slashdot...

    7. Re:just quit by Bull999999 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      EA keeps bringing in new people by lying to them, and then running them into the ground.

      As long as the consumers keep buying products from them and workers keep applying for their jobs, they have absolutely no incentives to quit their practice. Any geek gamers out there willing to boycott EA's products until they change their ways?

      --
      1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
    8. Re:just quit by woodsrunner · · Score: 2

      My Uncle used to tell me: Unions are the club workers have to protect themselves from exploitation.

    9. Re:just quit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. There is a telecomm company just like this. Its called 'MCI'. They force you to work long hours and get no comp time. Worse yet, if you don't have the skills to at least multitask 3 or more projects at the same time, you no longer will have a job.

    10. Re:just quit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Insightful?? How is this possibly insightful?

      Reactionary. Simplistic. Ignorant. Presumptuous. Yes.

      Insightful. No.

    11. Re:just quit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      This is another case where a geek boycott will do no good.

      Roger Retard will still buy his Nascar 200x and Suzy Shitforbrains will still buy her Sims.

    12. Re:just quit by Garse+Janacek · · Score: 3, Informative
      As long as the consumers keep buying products from them and workers keep applying for their jobs, they have absolutely no incentives to quit their practice.

      In a completely free market (which the US is not), that would be true. That's why there are federal and state laws to protect workers from these sorts of situations. While we may not know conclusively for a while, it looks like there's substantial evidence that EA is violating some of those laws. By all means, boycott their products, but there should be some other way of checking this behavior (such as this lawsuit, although there may be other approaches as well).

      Especially given the turnover rate, it seems like the only reason EA gets so many people who want to work for them is because they are a big name in a popular industry, and they lie to people about what the jobs entail. Hopefully the lawsuit, even if it fails, will bring more attention to EA's behavior, lowering the available pool for new hires, so that they are eventually forced to change their practices.

      --

      I am the man with no sig!

    13. Re:just quit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah and you probably believe what Upton Sinclair wrote was an accurate portrayal.

    14. Re:just quit by Dogtanian · · Score: 4, Interesting

      As long as the consumers keep buying products from them and workers keep applying for their jobs, they have absolutely no incentives to quit their practice.

      Uh... they would have an incentive if they started getting sued left, right and centre.

      If they were lying to employees, that would be (breaking) a verbal contract, right? (I am assuming the US allows verbal contracts, assuming they can be proven).

      If one employee is lied to, they're going to have a hard time proving it. If it is happening repeatedly and systematically to many employees, the case against EA would become stronger.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    15. Re:just quit by bmj · · Score: 1

      But it just doesn't work that way. Sure, we're free to work where we wish, but given the current market, these people aren't guaranteed to find jobs if they just up and quit from EA. The company has a responsibility to take care of its workers. I bet many of the disgruntled programmers would be less disgruntled if they received comp time, bonuses, etc in return for their work. The free market does not mean that employers can do whatever they please.

      --
      Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must be silent. --Ludwig Wittgenstein
    16. Re:just quit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus fucking christ! The guy had a six figure signing bonus and god knows what kind of salary! This is not god damned slavery!

      Are you really that god damned deluded? Perhaps you need to be shipped off to North Korea to be taught what real slavery is.

    17. Re:just quit by sangreal66 · · Score: 1

      Quitting is fighting for what is right. If EA's result in a failure to attract good talent, they will change.

    18. Re:just quit by Garse+Janacek · · Score: 1
      I bet many of the disgruntled programmers would be less disgruntled if they received comp time, bonuses, etc in return for their work.

      Not to mention their employers would be a lot less pushy about requesting overtime in the first place. Sane policies should provide incentives for employers not to be abusive (so they're less likely to demand overtime, since it costs them more) as well as incentives for employees to cooperate when something really is important (since they get paid extra for a harder push when there really is a deadline).

      --

      I am the man with no sig!

    19. Re:just quit by David_W · · Score: 1
      If they were lying to employees, that would be (breaking) a verbal contract, right? (I am assuming the US allows verbal contracts, assuming they can be proven).

      Interesting idea... however in most offer packages they include something you have to sign indicating there are no contracts (verbal or written) and your employment is at will. Although flat out lying to your employees may still be something you can go to court over, I don't know that the guise of a verbal contract will do the trick.

    20. Re:just quit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      XP is not a reasonable, efficient methodology. Some of it's practices somewhat useful, when used correctly.

    21. Re:just quit by f8free · · Score: 2, Funny

      I could do a boycott... I was getting tired of taking every damn sport to "the street," anyway.

    22. Re:just quit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      One possible tactic would be to claim you own copyright to the code in the game, since EA broke your employment contract, or didn't pay you for work you did. Start selling copies, and force it into court on the copyright issue, and only tangentially the employment issue. These things take a while and by the time you are in court, with EA's turn over, all your co-workers will be working elsewhere, and be more willing to testify.

    23. Re:just quit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      if the company is so bad, quit. I'm sure there's plenty of people who will hire you.

      What if we applied this to everything that we did?

      Live in a city with high crime - just move out.
      Have a spouse that's not making you happy - leave.
      Too much pollution, move somewhere clean.

      Sometimes you need to move on, but some times you need to clean up the place where you live.

    24. Re:just quit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I sympathize with your position, and what's obviously going on at EA. I'll agree it sucks.

      But I stand back, and I think... these people are making six figures. Look at doctors, look at lawyers, other six digit earners. There's a time commitment, and it's a trade-off.

      I don't like what EA's doing, and I'd probably quit if put in the same position. But have any of you considered taking a lower paying job with correspondingly smaller time commitment?

      On the other hand, it'd be nice to see EA really warn interviewees what the culture is like there. If there's dishonesty there, that's a separate issue that needs to be cleared up.

    25. Re:just quit by brittm · · Score: 0

      Salary carries the following definition (Websters)...

      fixed wages, as by the year, quarter, or month

      And in relation to origination of the term--set amounts of salt paid to Roman soldiers, the idea of overtime pay doesn't really even come into the picture. Overtime pay and salary are opposites.

      I'm not saying that people shouldn't be paid for overtime; I'm just saying that accepting a salaried position is, well, just that. In this case, I think the Republicans are simply viewing and treating "salary" by its definition.

    26. Re:just quit by canoe_head · · Score: 2, Informative

      My brother recently quit EA. He's a character animator, and worked on the Harry Potter series. He was recruited directly out of Classical animation at Sheridan college (Canada) and worked for them for 5 years in England. After lots of late nights and weekends he decided he needed a change.

      When he left they gave him a 6 month severance package so that he could find a new job. If you know anybody looking for a charactor animator trained in Maya drop him a line. His website (www.ray-guns.com) has some animations he did as well as sketches.

    27. Re:just quit by mobiGeek · · Score: 2, Interesting
      This type of thing is why I'll never work a salaried position again.
      This is an over-generalization. I know there are companies which pay a fixed salary and who do not abuse their relationship with the employees. My currently career path has me in a job with some crunch weeks, some "get on a plane in two hours" weeks, but after these crunches we are given the freedom to work less hours in off-weeks (and we're scheduled to have some off-weeks to catch up on training, refresh batteries, etc...)

      Now mind you, my management team is not in the U.S. ... hmmmm...

      :-)

      --

      ...Beware the IDEs of Microsoft...

    28. Re:just quit by Kierthos · · Score: 1

      If there are no contracts (verbal or written), then what the Hell is the point of signing something to that effect? Doesn't that negate the point of no written contracts?

      Kierthos

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    29. Re:just quit by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      Well, to clarify, I was speaking more from a contractors point of view...which is hourly.

      Unfortunately, even in the Govt./Contracting world...many contracting houses are bastardizing this set up. They bill the Govt. contract rates for hours billed....but,their 'employees' are often salaried. This sucks in that the 'employees' don't get the benefits of the higher bill rates, but, DO still have the risk of disposability from the job with virtually no notice. The high salaries are supposed to be the buffer for this. Problem is...so many projects now are hard to get for an indie contractor, and you almost HAVE to go through a contracting firm. Many newbies don't know they should opt and argue for being non-exempt...so, the Gov. gets billed, the worker doesn't see it...and the company pockets a whole lotta profit...

      The company I've been working for quite a while...has changed its culture from contracting, to employee's working on jobs. I have successfully resisted going salary, and will continue to refuse to. When I do OT, I get straight time bill rate...but, the new people coming in..poor guys...they just get 40 hours pay for work no matter if they work over....and there is no under working, you are required to work and bill for 40 hours unless on PTO.

      This trend is becoming scarely more prevalent....

      I generally lean more towards the Rep.s on traditionally fiscal matters...but, this one really chaps my ass. They're trying to re-classify people like IT and software types to where they can only be salaried...not elligible for hourly work with OT required for OT hours worked.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    30. Re:just quit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Today, unions have become nothing but organized >gangs out for political power

      Yes, and that's why Kerry is in the white house and the NDP are in power in Canada. Hey wait a second...

      In short, don't be a dumb ass.

      In Canada only 13% of unions belong to the NDP and I would say only 25% activity support NDP or any party. Unions have value today. Unions are about more then wages.

      If you don't like how union X talks, ie no overtime, not flexible enough, ect., make your own union. Anyone can. The union isn't one person, it's everyone. Get involed and change your union.

    31. Re:just quit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >I'm not a pro-union guy. They just seem to corrupt >themselves, and start to operate only for their own >benefit.

      So you seem to corrupt yourself? YOU are the union.
      The union doesn't become corrupt unless YOU let it.
      A union is only a group of people that get together. It can only become "corrupt" if you become corrupt.

    32. Re:just quit by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      If there are no contracts (verbal or written), then what the Hell is the point of signing something to that effect? Doesn't that negate the point of no written contracts?

      Brilliant! Just feed your contract into EA's HR computer (the one with a slot for paper, lots of big flashing neon lights, and randomly whirring reel-to-reel tape machines).

      Then watch as it terminally malfunctions, screeching "Does not compute!" in a robotic voice, and throwing out large amounts of smoke.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    33. Re:just quit by megarich · · Score: 1

      Believe it or not after hearing this its turned me off from playing ANY video games. I'm sure there are other companies out there just like them not coming to the surface yet and until i know who are reasonable to the unreasonable companies, i wont play or buy any games for awhile.

      Fine by me anyways, I need to learn to be more constructive in my time :).

    34. Re:just quit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a slightly overworked, but generally happy EA empolyee, I reall hope that you don't boycott them. The only time I'm cranky about hours is when the stock goes down.

    35. Re:just quit by j-turkey · · Score: 2, Insightful
      As long as the consumers keep buying products from them and workers keep applying for their jobs, they have absolutely no incentives to quit their practice. Any geek gamers out there willing to boycott EA's products until they change their ways?

      About time someone had a free market opinion here. Why can't employers offer a crappy compensation package? Employees don't have to take it. The fact is that employees typically choose their industry. They choose the company that they work for. Most coders are compensated very generously.

      Now, if labor laws are really being broken -- fine. However, 9 times out of 10, I am against regulation. Regulation essentially says that the market is not smart enough to sort itself out. (We are the market, remember -- we are smart enough to work this one out, right?) Nobody forces EA's products down out throats.

      Now, I'm not saying that I support EA's work practices -- but I'm also not applying for a job there. Let's all take some responsibility for ourselves. If you're getting a shitty deal, find another job. Sure, it's not easy and probably less than fair -- but stop blaming everyone else for your choices in life. Nobody ever said that life was fair. If you're that pissed, work somewhere else and stop buying their games. Write EA letters explaining why you won't buy their games. Nothing makes a company move like a threat to their profit margin.

      I guess that this can appear harsh and heartless to someone who is pro-regulation. But let's look at the facts. These people have a contract that says that they're OT-exempt. They took on the job knowing this, and worked the hours knowing this. Now, after they've worked all of those extra hours, they're coming back and screaming for more money like they were entitled to it in the first place. If they were entitled to it in the first place, they should have asked before working all of those hours. I wouldn't be so adamant about this unless it reminded me of something else that bugs me even more...like registering a patent, waiting for someone to put the hard work in by developing and marketing your idea until it's suffessful -- then suing for royalties. See the problem here?

      --

      -Turkey

    36. Re:just quit by wibskey · · Score: 1

      I don't think geek gamers could really make that much of a difference. That strategy would never work because there are too many people out there that are going to go to Walmart and buy their kids the games.

      Geeks:" RIAA == Evil
      MS == monopoly
      EA == Tryrants"
      General Public: "Hey this new XBox game, EA Sports Synchronized Swimming, has the latest Britney Spears song on the sound track!!!!! Hey, pimply guy with the funny penguin on your shirt, wrap that up for me!!"

    37. Re:just quit by chialea · · Score: 1

      I am going to boycott them. I was going to go right out on Tuesday (after my deadline) and buy several games of theirs, since I haven't really done anything but work for quite a while.

      I'm very, very pissed off at them. I really wanted the Urbz, more than anything, and I can't in good conscience buy it. Instead of buying it, I'm going to have to send them a letter telling them why I'm not going to buy it, or anything else they make, until they make a good effort to fix these sorts of things.

      Lea

    38. Re:just quit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you're working 80-hour weeks, it's hard to make time to sleep, let alone search for another job. Especially if you have a family and you're the supporting income.

    39. Re:just quit by 2old2rockNroll · · Score: 1

      Any geek gamers out there willing to boycott EA's products until they change their ways?

      I'm already boycotting EA games, but it's not because of their sweatshop employment practices. It's because they think they can charge full price for unfinished junk like MOH Frontline. They used the popularity of the franchise to make big bucks off of a second-rate effort.

    40. Re:just quit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously that philosophy would not apply to those situations. And hopefully the parent isn't insinuating that those situations are comparable to this EA fiasco. Let's face it, this is a video game company. It's not a terrible crime against humanity if they stop making games.

      If we can assume that not all the developers at EA are making 6 figures, and we assume EA's development studio is headquartered in a relatively high cost-of-living area (I don't know, but it seems logical to assume Cali, or Chicago, or somewhere thereabouts.) Ok, so a generous estimate would say the average one of these guys is making $80,000. If they are working 6-7 days a week, 10-14 hour days, that's at least 70 hours per week on average. Assuming 2-weeks of vacation per year, that makes 50 weeks times 70 hours = 3500 hours. $80,000 / 3500 hours = $22 / hour. I'm going to take a wild guess that in Cali or Chi-town, you can make that much as an average Joe in an accounting department, a comparatively less-skilled job, working only 40-50 hours a week.

      Not exaclty a travesty. But not exactly fair. And all that work time doesn't leave much time to search for another job.

    41. Re:just quit by Bull999999 · · Score: 1

      Uh... they would have an incentive if they started getting sued left, right and centre.

      Lawsuits may or may not work, but large scale boycotts always work. When given a choice between lesser profits or bankruptcy, businesses tend to chose lesser profits.

      --
      1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
    42. Re:just quit by deanj · · Score: 1

      Not everyone can "just quit". Sometimes there's a rider on the relo package that says you have to pay the cost of that package back if you quit within a certain timeframe. That could be a pretty big hit on the old wallet.

    43. Re:just quit by mattOzan · · Score: 1
      Regulation essentially says that the market is not smart enough to sort itself out. (We are the market, remember -- we are smart enough to work this one out, right?)

      Wrong. And believe me, this fact upsets me to no end. But I have come to realize that almost nobody gives a rat's ass about the ethics or morality behind the production of any good or service.

      Hell, most aren't even wasting brain cells to figure out if they can even afford to buy the things they do, let alone the questions of whether or not they really need as much as they consume, or whether lifestyle changes would be more ultimately productive for them rather than trying to buy happiness. And you expect the masses to go well beyond even this and start figuring "the common good" into their purchasing decisions? Brother, it ain't gonna happen. Not anytime soon in the U.S., at least.

      I think it was Chomsky who pointed out that an economic system cannot simultaneously maximize two variables. Capitalism maximizes efficiency, not justice. And believing that the omnipotent hand of The Market will shake out injustice along with ineffieciency is only wishful thinking. Actually, it is probably much worse, because it allows the "Haves" to look down at the "Have-Nots" and say "Just wait, and this comfort will trickle down to you, too." But it never will, and I think us "Haves" need to face our deception and get honest.

    44. Re:just quit by CrashPanic · · Score: 1

      Yeah that game sucks, looks like their coders need to put in some more OT. :P

      --
      "There's no set architecture in Linux. All roads lead to madness" -Microsoft
    45. Re:just quit by 2old2rockNroll · · Score: 1

      That's some dark humor, but actually true. You get to the lame sort-of-end of the game, and it has *shipping deadline* written all over it.

    46. Re:just quit by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1
      A union is only a group of people that get together. It can only become "corrupt" if you become corrupt.

      Some unions are large organizations. In a large organization it is quite possible for many members to be corrupt without all being corrupt.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    47. Re:just quit by CrackHappy · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of my job a bit. I'm currently in crunch mode, so I am, of my own volition, working at least an extra 40 hours a week for the next couple of weeks to get this project done.

      However, 90% of the rest of my time here, I just wander in sometime around the time I'm supposed to get to work, and wander out sometime around when I'm supposed to leave. No one cares at all, because my work is professional, and delivered on time. That's all that matters here.

      Sticking to a clock is stupid.

      --
      1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d Capitalization really works: i helped my uncle jack off a horse
    48. Re:just quit by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Except that their market is teenagers, and half of the non-teenagers aren't in the IT profession and could care less.

      Boycotts aren't going to work well...

    49. Re:just quit by Shajenko42 · · Score: 1

      If there's an understanding that you'll do a certain type of work for them at a certain wage, then there's a contract, whatever you sign to the contrary. They can decide they don't want you to work for them anymore, but they can't claim that, since there was no contract, they don't have to pay you for the work you've done. If they try it, you can sue them for breach of contract.

    50. Re:just quit by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      Not quite. Capatalism doesn't maximize efficiency- it maximizes personal profits. For all x where x is a person, capitalism seeks to find the maximal profit of x. This is not the same as maximal efficiency- its a game theory situation. Sometimes (in fact, most of the time) two people each trying to maximize their own profit cause a more pessimal outcome than if the two worked to maximize total profit (and thus efficiency). This is further skewed by the fact that in a capitalism, some entiies ability to maximize P(x) is greater than others.

      In reality, capitalism is a very inefficient system. Its one huge advantage is that its distributed. We don't need one group of people deciding how much wheat to plant, how many basketballs to make, who deserves how much of which, etc. These are all terribly difficult decisions to make, and impossible for a central authority to get right (see Russia). Distributing them makes it easier to get somewhat accurate decisions made, at the cost of losing economies of scale, losing cooperation and efficiencies there, and throwing all considerations other than profits (the environment, human rights, etc) out the window. In the US we then try and tack some of these back on via regulation, but we do it half assedly. Admittedly its better than a central planning system, but without heavy doeses of socialism and regulation to keep corporations in line as servants of society it gets bad pretty fast.

      Which is really all a long explanation that boils down to- its even worse than you claimed.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    51. Re:just quit by stor · · Score: 1

      Any geek gamers out there willing to boycott EA's products until they change their ways?

      I doubt i'll be able to abstain but can do the next best thing: From now on, I'll only run warezed versions of EA Games.

      That'll fuck 'em.

      Cheers
      Stor

      --
      "Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
  3. sweatshops usually make the nice clothes... by deviantonline · · Score: 2, Insightful

    so i guess the same can be said about video games

    1. Re:sweatshops usually make the nice clothes... by DigitumDei · · Score: 1

      Heh, this is probably more acurate and more levels than you think. As gaming has progressed it has more and more become about look and marketing rather than overall quality of the game.

      Get "sweat shop" programming companies to slap together a game with nice graphics (done by more expensive companies) and then market it to death. Even if its bug ridden and/or won't be remembered in 1 years time, they make a ton of money...

    2. Re:sweatshops usually make the nice clothes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Video games make the nice clothes?

  4. I hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    that this ties them up in litigation enough that it distracts them from their core business of buying up creative game developers and destroying anything that was good about them.

    1. Re:I hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah yes, the American answer (and question) to everything: litigation.

      Well, not quite everything. Some things need to be answered with guns.

    2. Re:I hope by TopShelf · · Score: 2, Interesting

      While I wouldn't expect ongoing litigation to be much of a distraction to them (that's why you hire lawyers), a negative ruling against them could be catastrophic. A court-ordered redesign of their personnel and software development practices would present a huge risk to keeping the pipeline of products flowing to the market. Even if they cleaned house and brought in new managers, it would take time to get things back up to speed.

      In the fast-paced computer gaming world, a year or two lost to restructuring could leave them behind the competition for quite a while...

      --
      Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    3. Re:I hope by jx100 · · Score: 1

      woohoo! no more EA for a while!

    4. Re:I hope by G00F · · Score: 1

      " Ah yes, the American answer (and question) to everything: litigation."

      Funny, we got it from the Brits. It is where our law comes from, heck even old Brit precedents are used in our court system once in a while. America just exploited it better. (and actually much of it originated from Rome/Greece)

      --
      The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive
    5. Re:I hope by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      that this ties them up in litigation enough that it distracts them from their core business of buying up creative game developers and destroying anything that was good about them.

      I certainly agree that the way they treat their employee's does suck, but I do not agree with the statement that they destroy the games. Battlefield 1942 and Vietname are two of the best multiplayer first person action games out. I have tried the Starwars Battlefront and it was completely unplayable. Very close to a great game, but the ping times to any server that exists were too low to be able to play. The weapons were very unmatched also, if you aren't playing as the "good" character, then you just get killed. They do not have company sponsored servers either (even though a server that wants to run more than three players needs a T1 line or better). And there is basically no support as far as updates and patches to improve gameplay. EA games on the other hand is constantly providing improved gameplay, patches for bug fixes, new levels and maps, rebalancing weapon streangths and weaknesses.

      I'm sure they are able to provide such good support because of the way the mistreat their employees, but still, they have not destoyed the games.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    6. Re:I hope by rabbot · · Score: 1

      Like what they did with Papyrus. I won't buy EA games for that very reason alone.

    7. Re:I hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of my friends is studying art on a school here in sweden. Incidentally, one of his friends is a previous member from the BF42 team (no i haven't met him myself, yet). Then why is he studying now?

      Because he got fired by EA after looking into joining a union when he realized how crappy their working conditions got after EA bought them.

    8. Re:I hope by Hinhule · · Score: 0

      That's the problem isn't it? Exploiting the courts, pushing the settlements and punishments higher and higher until everyone is afraid their shadow will block out the light for someone who happens to trip on a loose rock that would otherwise have been seen.

  5. If this was a football game... by Zeppelingb · · Score: 5, Funny

    John Madden says, "You just hate to see that!"

  6. What the world needs... another lawsuit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Don't like the job? QUIT! If the job is so horrible, EA will eventually have trouble filling it and change their practices. Magic of a free market.

    1. Re:What the world needs... another lawsuit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...sure if you're qualified to enter some other field, but if you live in places which are at an alltime high for unemployment in the IT sector, it's a LOT easier said than done (i know, because i've been there/done that)

    2. Re:What the world needs... another lawsuit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      But how will the lawyers and the rich-against-poor-against-rich demagogues make a living if productive people ignore them and concentrate on producing stuff under good conditions like that? You're clearly a cruel and horrible anonymous coward, rather than the kind, well-intentioned (idiotic, if you actually bother to look at the consequences!) kind...
      Me

      (For mods yes, it's called sarcasm.)

    3. Re:What the world needs... another lawsuit by FuzzzyLogik · · Score: 4, Insightful

      uhm... you realize that not everyone has the luxuary of quitting a job. see, most people have things called bills. some have a mortage, car payments, insurance, KIDS, etc etc. Just up and quitting a job isn't necessarily an option because these things have deadlines on them every month, kids have constant needs, food, clothes, blah blah blah. Computer and tech jobs are hard enough to find as it is, quitting is not an option unless you have enough in your bank account to sustain living for weeks or months before you find another job. think before you open your mouth. There's no reason a company in the U.S. should be operated like this, people have rights, it seems EA isn't obeying these rights. Common curtesy is a big thing for me too, with my current employer if they try to back me into a wall, i fire right back and put them against the wall, one of the good things about being in a union. These people are standing up for themselves. it's nice to know YOU can quit, but not everyone can, they need income.

    4. Re:What the world needs... another lawsuit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't like being murdered? QUIT! If getting killed is so horrible, murderers will eventually have trouble killing people and change their practices. Magic of a free market.

      (read as: "we have laws for a reason, jackass")

    5. Re:What the world needs... another lawsuit by falcon9x · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Don't like the job? QUIT! If the job is so horrible, EA will eventually have trouble filling it and change their practices. Magic of a free market.
      ... OR
      You can get together and unionize, and rally for better conditions. Like back in the day, when factory conditions in the US were horrible. Quitting didn't do anything. Banding together against the employers did.
    6. Re:What the world needs... another lawsuit by mingot · · Score: 1

      Ever thought of looking for another job before just quitting? It works pretty good, and is usally what I do. See, companies that hire know you need two weeks and you can use THAT time to work your notice so you don't even have to burn a bridge at the old job.

    7. Re:What the world needs... another lawsuit by igny · · Score: 1, Insightful

      But wouldn't you like to be working on EA at the moment when they change the practices for the better? Because after this moment, you won't stand a chance in the competition of 100 people per position.

      --
      In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. - Yogi Berra
    8. Re:What the world needs... another lawsuit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      spoken like someone that has not one freaking clue to the condition of the economy...

      pull head from that warm stinky place, and take a look around, people do not have the choice in many cases. They put up with as much BS as they can, just to earn enough to survive on.

      When it becomes an outright case of abusive management, legal remedy is the only recourse these people have. Quit, no unemployment checks, no welfare, not likely to get a job within 6 months...ya, why don't you quit your job, and see how long you can last, ...assuming your mommy and daddy are not supporting your sorry blinderwearing butt.

    9. Re:What the world needs... another lawsuit by FuzzzyLogik · · Score: 1

      sounds to me like these people are being so over worked that looking for another job is not necessarily an option.

      but yes, looking before quitting is good. unfortunately in my area there are tons of crappy jobs. i work a dead end job at a grocery store (wanna hear my stories, visit my website and click on the "Paper or Plastic" category on the right column). Dealing with the public in this way isn't necessarily the job for me. I prefer dealing with my peers and learning, thus my major is no longer computer science, but teaching (hopefully computer science and english). I can find another job in my area, sure, but nothing worth a damn. I'd be going from one crappy job (with $2.50 more than average starting pay in the area) to another job (that is just above minimum wage)... and they both suck. so the benefit doesn't necessarily work for me. so i try to make the working conditions in my current job better for me and others, that's what this lawsuit is about, to make the working conditions better for everyone, not just themselves. They're doing the right thing.

    10. Re:What the world needs... another lawsuit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Magic of a free market.

      Sure, free markets. Whatever you say, Bill.

    11. Re:What the world needs... another lawsuit by clackerd · · Score: 1

      yeah, sacrifice yourself so the next guy gets better pay, better work environment, and better benefits. how does that make it better for you? forget that, fight for yourself! if that doesn't work, then leave. c'mon, sometimes it's right to bitch. squeaky wheel and oil? jeez.

    12. Re:What the world needs... another lawsuit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow yeah, why didn't I think of that. I'll just schedule all my interviews at 10PM at the end of a 12 hour no-break shift. I'll have no trouble getting a job despite looking like I've been staring at a computer for 12 hours straight.

    13. Re:What the world needs... another lawsuit by scoser · · Score: 1
      The thing is, there's tons of programmers out there to fill their place because it's been their dream to make computer games ever since they first touched a computer. So, if 50 people quit, there's another 250 people there to take their place.

      In our senior design class, our professor had us do a paper on our career goals and said that about half the computer engineers in the class (100) had down "be a video game programmer" as their goal.

    14. Re:What the world needs... another lawsuit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, Bill Gates violated laws that other companies had to follow, giving him an unfair advantage. In a truly free market, IBM would've wiped him out long ago. IBM wanted to give OS/2 away at one point, but feared that it would be rule an anti-competitive practice and get them in trouble.

    15. Re:What the world needs... another lawsuit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that's EA's advantage. If there were a job that paid you to sit on the beach and drink margaritas, I'm sure lots of people would want to fill that, too. It's a cost/benefit analysis. For some people, the cost of working 80 hours a week is balanced by the desire to make video games.

    16. Re:What the world needs... another lawsuit by dajak · · Score: 1

      If the job is so horrible, EA will eventually have trouble filling it and change their practices. Magic of a free market.

      There are still hordes of young people without a house, wife, and children who want to be part of this industry for a year, or maybe two.

      The tragedy of these practices is that the game industry continues to rely largely on young and very enthousiastic, but inexperienced programmers.

    17. Re:What the world needs... another lawsuit by bmj · · Score: 1

      Ever thought of looking for another job before just quitting?

      Yes, it sounds like these folks have plenty of time to look for new jobs between their 85 hour work-weeks.

      --
      Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must be silent. --Ludwig Wittgenstein
    18. Re:What the world needs... another lawsuit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Undoubtedly coming from the fingers of someone who's never had a job.

      The fact is this: practices like this plauge the gaming industry, much the same as they did in the industrial industry a hundred years ago. Infact, after my first game developer job, I just HAD to leave the industry because I knew that this was the way of the future.

      Thanks for your input, asshole.

    19. Re:What the world needs... another lawsuit by res+ipsa+loquitur · · Score: 1

      You think that free markets are a panacea? Look, I'm certainly on the Libertarian side of the scale, but totally free markets lead to immoral results (at least in my world view).

      Do you need money now? Then send you six year old to work. Need a lot of money, then send you six year old into prostitution (there are enough sick people in this world to make this work). If you don't like that idea, then I'm afraid you'll have to give up on the idea of a totally free market system. Maybe you can regulate it, but just a little....

      Do you see what happened? By regulating the serious problems, you discovered other problems. When you decided to regulated those, you discovered further areas where the free market system was being abused. Do you know where that led you? That's right - to today.

      This system isn't great, but it was designed to prevent the abuses that a totally free market would otherwise allow.

    20. Re:What the world needs... another lawsuit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A six year old is under the complete control of the parent, and is thus not a participant in a free market.

    21. Re:What the world needs... another lawsuit by hal2814 · · Score: 1

      "see, most people have things called bills."

      Unfortunately, most people don't things called budgets or short-term savings. Why don't you have enough in your bank account to last you for a few months? Perhaps you bought too much car or too much house. It's amazing how many people complain that they don't have enough money to put back as savings but drive a $20,000 or up car and spend $50 - $80 a month on cable or satellite.

      Jobs don't usually last forever. Make sure you have enough in savings to make it through at least 3 months (national average time spent between jobs).

      I'm not condoning what EA is doing here and I am personally for unions, but being in a union doesn't garauntee a job. Just ask the air traffic controllers during the Reagan administration.

    22. Re:What the world needs... another lawsuit by res+ipsa+loquitur · · Score: 1

      AC wrote: "A six year old is under the complete control of the parent, and is thus not a participant in a free market." And that's a limit on the free market, ergo it isn't part of a true free market. This is exactly the point that I was trying to get across in my original post.

    23. Re:What the world needs... another lawsuit by saintp · · Score: 1
      Gee, that's a great idea, if you ignore the fact that afterwards you don't have a fucking job. The game industry is very very small and very very competetive, and, chances are, EA makes you sign a non-compete -- i.e., you can't work in computer games for N months/years after you leave. You also can't pull unemployment if you quit.

      Here's a way better idea: Don't like the job? UNIONIZE! If the job is so horrible that all the workers strike, EA will immediately have troble filling it and change their practices. Magic of group negotiation.

    24. Re:What the world needs... another lawsuit by megarich · · Score: 1

      your right and it is a very valid point but what about layoffs? i see it happen before. guy stays in his job though he's not happy with it because he needs to support his family and then out of no where gets laid off. while ea may not do that, it's another grey area to consider in what seems like a lose/lose situation........

    25. Re:What the world needs... another lawsuit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you're trying to find a hole where there isn't one. Children, the severely mentally retarded, the insane, animals, plants, rocks, etc aren't participants. They can't be because they can't reason. If parents abuse their position of trust, then they can still be punished and it doesn't affect the free market because the children weren't yet a part of it.

    26. Re:What the world needs... another lawsuit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah yes, unions... You know what's funny about them? Most unions don't allow their own employees to unionize.

    27. Re:What the world needs... another lawsuit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't like the job? QUIT!

      Or, grow a pair of balls and stand up for yourself.

    28. Re:What the world needs... another lawsuit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But a little creativeness can help solve problems with bills. Simply merge mortgage with car payments, and kids with groceries. You'll find you will have lots more to spend.

    29. Re:What the world needs... another lawsuit by LaCosaNostradamus · · Score: 1

      You only illustrate that it is becoming vitally important to save money. Many people are in a position to save money; if they aren't saving, then they just need to dismiss some number of their luxury purchases. For example, 98% of the cellphones in America are luxuries. A $24K car, when a $12K one will do, is a luxury. Keeping the thermostat at 72deg in winter and 65deg in summer, is a luxury. Once these things are totalled up, you can reach a big figure. I reason that the average yuppie makes over 1000 excessive decisions each year, ranging from a couple of dollars to hundreds of dollars per decision. At an average of $7 per decision, said yuppie is probably spending $7000 more than he really needs to each year ... and after 8 productive work years, he's missing a $56000 savings account, hence is much more vulnerable to abusive employers.

      I can cast blame upon abusive employers all I want, but until the worker owns up to being a conspicuous consumer, we really can't solve the problem.

      --
      [You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
    30. Re:What the world needs... another lawsuit by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      " and kids with groceries"

      A modest proposal?

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    31. Re:What the world needs... another lawsuit by mingot · · Score: 0

      You think an employee who is working 85 hours a week is gonna get fired for saying he has errands and needs two hours for lunch? People stupid enough to work 85 hours a week on a salary are not that easy to come by. I'd wager they're valuable enough to not get fired over that.

    32. Re:What the world needs... another lawsuit by Starsmore · · Score: 1
      Oh man.

      If only I could still mod in this discussion.

      Someone mod that guy as funny for me. :)

      --
      "If Common Sense was so common, it wouldn't be such a valued trait."
    33. Re:What the world needs... another lawsuit by Tanka+Tennen · · Score: 1
      A word about unions- most of the posts here have mischaracterized them. A labor union does not necessarily mean time-based seniority or even any employee title or grade heirarchy at all; that is a detail of some particular unions.

      Further, to "unionize" you do not need to form a new union from scratch, you can join an existing union and have them extend their charter to cover your field.

      If you see unions strictly as a "blue collar" thing and don't think that unions are for technical and creative people, check out the Directors' Guild of America's basic agreement. Why aren't video game designers and video game directors represented by this union?

      And you video game artists and programmers, why aren't you represented by IATSE? All of the digital special effects guys over at ILM are, and when _they_ go into crunch mode, it's _real_ crunch mode; and I'll tell you, they get _paid_.

      --
      Ex vitio sapiens aleno emendat suum
    34. Re:What the world needs... another lawsuit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually the non-compete clause was Ubisoft, not EA. EA tried to challenge its validity in Canadian court because it opened a new studio in Montreal and Ubisoft sued employees that quit to go work for EA.

    35. Re:What the world needs... another lawsuit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      don't forget that the 40 hour work week and other things you take for granted in a job were fought for by people in the past. it wasn't acquired by anyone from 'free market' osmosis, people died for these things. don't forget that.

  7. techno confusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this is outrageous!

    -David Tarlow

    tarlowd@aol.com

  8. Three words... by BJZQ8 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    FORM A UNION It worked for GM workers who faced similar situations back in 1937. Stick together and they can't stop you...but then again, in this world where everybody is out for themselves, you've probably screwed.

    1. Re:Three words... by cgenman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Unions are easier to form where you have stable employment and a local employment pool. In the gaming industry it is more difficult, as A: employment lasts somewhere between 8 months and 2 years, and B: people travel all across the country for work. It's far more difficult to consider yourself a union town if you're about to pop off to Frisco for a Stint with a new company.

      That having been said, the union movement is gaining momentum, and I would gladly sign up for one.

    2. Re:Three words... by frankvl · · Score: 1

      in this world where everybody is out for themselves, you've probably screwed.

      Pardon me? They're not rabbits!

    3. Re:Three words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      form a union and be labeled as a terrorist group attacking free enterprise

    4. Re:Three words... by demachina · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You don't have to have a union to STRIKE. That sounds like the solution to this problem but you do have to get everyone on the same page which is hard and dangerous, and you have to realize you are gambling big on a big win, or destroying your career. Of course when your future career is like this you are better off without it in the long run because it will destroy you physically and mentally. If you've never been severly burned out which is what happens inevitably from this kind workload it permanently damages you mentally and physically.

      If you were to strike you have to do it at a point in the project where you have the management by the balls. If they lose their whole staff, and they can't finish with scabs, their schedule and their investment goes in to the dumper. Even with scabs there is a pretty good chance the quality will go in the dumper just because of the time to get them up to speed and they probably wont be able to fix all the bugs in other peoples work.

      I know everyone hates unions, deservedly so because they were so thoroughly corrupted over the years. But this is a cautionary tale because this is what life was like for most workers in the early 1900's before unions came on the scene and compelled reasonable work hours and pay.

      This is also a cautionary tale of the consequences you can expect from a long duration Republican domination of the government. The Republican party is consistently pro business and anti labor and they are promoting exactly this kind of environment. The euphemism they use for it in the economic reports is high "productivity". It means milking worker for as much work as possible for the lowest wage possible.

      Free trade, outsourceing, and turning a blind eye to illegal aliens are all tools designed to pressure labor in to caving to this kind of work environment. Smartly run businesses who want talented, productive, happy workers wont do it, but most businesseses aren't smart and are looking to exploit labor to maximize their extremely inflated salaries and shareholder return. It should be noted passive shareholders don't do any work, they have money, they invest it, they make more money. In an era of plunging capital gains and dividend taxes they ease with which they make money this way and accumulate wealth is accelerating. Meanwhile workers are working more hours, for lower wages and still shouldering a huge burden in income and payroll taxes.

      American's poopoo the word and pretend like its a fairy tale but this is what's called class warfare and the elite class is winning the war, big time.

      --
      @de_machina
    5. Re:Three words... by Todesmetall · · Score: 1
      Where do you moron come from anyway?

      Everybody who stands up for his rights as an employee or - heaven forbid - for the rights of others is a "fucking commie"?

    6. Re:Three words... by elbobo · · Score: 1

      Same as the film industry, and that's pretty union heavy. If it worked them ...

    7. Re:Three words... by Skye16 · · Score: 1

      OR you could exercise your freedom of speach and complain about it, get together, talk about it, agree to tell the entire world and THEN file a class action law suit against EA for violating the law.

      But yeah, I guess you're right. How dare you commies not keep your mouth shut and continue to work in shitty conditions without complaint for the betterment of the motherland!

      Err...wait...

    8. Re:Three words... by LegionX · · Score: 1

      There's nothing commie about unions.. it's just the only way to stand up against a power like EA.

      "Find a better job"? this is not about those who complain, but about all the others who are about to fall into the EA honeypot.

      You have the same opinion about pyramid schemes too?

    9. Re:Three words... by T.Hobbes · · Score: 1
      I wonder, do you step out of the woodwork and whine whenever a company offshores jobs?

      Here's a free clue: people can't quit their jobs until they find a job to replace it. Ever heard of Wage Slavery?. And, like so many slashbots are fond of pointing out, jobs are hard to find. So unless they plan on fighting management, the poor schmucks who work at EA are forced to tough it out until they find a better job.

      All of this is not to mention the fact that the workers are entirely within their rights to complain about, and attempt to improve, bad working conditions. If you simply abandoned every company that treated you badly, the cause of the problem - poorly managed comapnies - would never go away. It's in the interest of the workers to improve their situation, both in terms of their own job and in terms of the industry as a whole.

    10. Re:Three words... by Fig,+formerly+A.C. · · Score: 1
      What's worse, a crappy job or no job at all?

      Unions (and minimum wage rates) are two BIG factors in the movement of jobs overseas. Why would a company pay $25 an hour to an American when the same job could be done of foriegn soil at 1/5 the price (or less)? The UAW has helped set some pretty high labor rates in the industry, and if it wasn't for government intervention (read:tariffs) the American auto industry couldn't even compete. The government can't protect all our industry though, and eventually the US is going to export all our manufacturing jobs. Once that happens and the ever tightening IP laws kill any form of innovation in this country, the US will be one big service industry.

      Would you like fries with that?

      --
      Murphy was an optimist.
    11. Re:Three words... by FortKnox · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I explained this in yesterday's article...
      A union WILL NOT WORK in this instance. Why? Cause if you and all the game programmers join a union, the gaming companies will just replace each and every person. EVERY coder has, at one time or another, wanted to code video games. For each video game programmer that is employed right now, there is a hundred programmers that would kill for the job. If you unionize, they'll simply hire people that will take the job without going into a union.

      Unions work for stuff like the blue collar automotive industry because people aren't beating down the doors wanting that kinda job. They can't replace all the workers. In the gaming industry, though, there is an extremely high desire for job and extremely low demand for jobs.

      It simply won't work. You join together to form a union, you won't work in the industry anymore.

      --
      Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
    12. Re:Three words... by Greyfox · · Score: 1

      That depends on how big the union is, doesn't it? There are a lot of good reasons to keep some of your employee base in the USA, especially when you're dealing with the US marketplace. If the union is big enough, you'd better be damn comfortable having ALL your programmers in Mumbai, because the union would make damn sure you wouldn't find any in the states. Not to mention that having your offices constantly picketed is a big turn-off to your non-union employees and your customers.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    13. Re:Three words... by drxenos · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You have to look no farther than the movie industry to see that what you are saying is untrue.

      --


      Anonymous Cowards suck.
    14. Re:Three words... by killjoe · · Score: 1

      You are presuming of course that all programmers are equal. That any old programmer off the street can come in continue coding the game your team has been developing for the last couple of years.

      Also you are presuming the consumers won't care that the game they are playing was made by a company which busted it's union and is being constantly protested.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    15. Re:Three words... by pthisis · · Score: 1

      Here's a free clue: people can't quit their jobs until they find a job to replace it... Ever heard of Wage Slavery? So unless they plan on fighting management, the poor schmucks who work at EA are forced to tough it out until they find a better job.

      BS on several levels. I've quit my job without a replacement before. It's not hard.

      The wages EA pays are rather good. Great, in fact. That's what draws people there from smaller, more sane companies and keeps some of them working there. Unless you've massive bungled your finances and lived WAY, WAY outside your considerable means, it doesn't take very long to amass enough money to spend a couple months job hunting at the wages they pay.

      The only wage slavery here is what that wiki page describes as "In colloquial terms, this may refer to people that make a cult of work...or those who require one to work in order to be socially acceptable"

      It's not hard to find programming jobs with good conditions that pay far more than a living wage. But if you make a cult of demanding a certain type of game programming work at extremely high rates of pay, and you're not outstanding at what you do, you're going to have a much harder time finding more relaxed working conditions.

      It's not something limited to the computer world. If you're a doctor, you're going to get far fewer perks, work longer hours, and get less pay if you go into a popular field like pediatrics or family practice than if you work in a less popular niche. If you're a good photographer you can make a living doing portraits , wedding shots, etc but it's far harder to choose what kind of work you want to do and you have to be great to do so and make a lot of money.

      If you simply abandoned every company that treated you badly, the cause of the problem - poorly managed comapnies - would never go away.

      That's not necessarily true. If a company can't get people to work for it, they'll either change conditions until they can or they'll go under. It's not a black/white issue; if a company has some problems but is strong in other areas, complaining or trying to change it makes sense. If it is hopeless all around, or if complaints or refusal to do unreasonable things are usually met with firing, then quitting (or looking for another job while you wait to be fired for only putting in 50 hour weeks) makes a lot of sense.

      --
      rage, rage against the dying of the light
    16. Re:Three words... by Buran · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You are forgetting the value of experience workers have on a particular project. It's difficult to just up and replace people who have worked on a given project for a while because they are very familiar with it but a new guy would have to learn it all over again, and that takes time and money.

      No, it could very well work. If done initially at the right time.

    17. Re:Three words... by legirons · · Score: 1

      "A union WILL NOT WORK in this instance. Why? Cause if you and all the game programmers join a union, the gaming companies will just replace each and every person."

      And every product they make will instantly become 6 months delayed. ("Adding more programmers to a late project only makes it later") Did we mention that if they don't release seasonal games on time, they lose all the potential profit from those games?

      "EVERY coder has, at one time or another, wanted to code video games."

      Perhaps. But just try getting those programmers to work for (and take part in) a high-profile "union busting"...

      A few months ago, the BBC technical department was in the news because their staff weren't getting paid enough, and had decided to voice their discontent.

      The BBC, naturally enough, wrote to the perl-jobs mailing list, advertising programming positions. We just laughed at them. I wonder if they ever did get any responses to their email, once it became known that they were trying to replace people who were on the verge of striking...

    18. Re:Three words... by nero4wolfe · · Score: 1
      Actually, if you can get a sufficient number of signatures from current employees on a petition for union membership, and get that petition filed with the National Labor Relations Board (I think that's the correct title...) before the employer knows any details, a union representation election will be forced. Any firings after that time, and before the election will be given extra scrutiny, and can result in sanctions against the employer. And if the majority of current employees vote for the union, it's in.

      Of course, afterwards there's still the matter of negotiating a contract....

    19. Re:Three words... by brobison · · Score: 1

      That's simply bullshit. Companies can't fire people for organizing labor unions.

      http://www.union-organizing.com/rights.html

      And in case you've been totaling ignoring the news, the economy sucks, and people are beating down the doors wanting auto plant jobs.

      Unions are one of the things that make manufacturing in the US more expensive (safety requirements, wages). Though this could be an argument against unions, since these jobs are fleeing the US to cheaper shores.

    20. Re:Three words... by FortKnox · · Score: 1

      Companies can't fire people for organizing labor unions.

      OK... the people form a union. They will not work until the demands are met. The "initial strike" if you will.

      The company hires outside people instead.

      They didn't fire anyone... the employees would not work unless demands were met, so they just found someone else to do the job. It happens all the times during strikes. My father is an HR executive. He's had to replace an entire plant before because the union was demanding far too much and they couldn't afford to pay the union what they wanted.

      Sure, no one likes breaking a union line to work, but you'll be surprised at how effective it is when you bring in the entire replacement workforce all at once.

      --
      Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
    21. Re:Three words... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      You are forgetting the value of experience workers have on a particular project. It's difficult to just up and replace people who have worked on a given project for a while because they are very familiar with it but a new guy would have to learn it all over again, and that takes time and money.

      I don't know about gaming, but for custom biz apps, most companies don't give a flying flip about domain experience. They seem perfectly willing to let the perms answer the same questions over and over again for each new batch of contractors.

      I think they don't factor in the learning time for some reason. They just look at raw costs.

    22. Re:Three words... by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      If you think people "aren't beating down the doors" to work at car manufacturers your worldview must be very white-coller centric. I know tons of people who would kill to work for GM or Ford.

    23. Re:Three words... by mutterc · · Score: 1

      I've wondered about this... In today's software development world, where it "has" to get out so fast that there's absolutely no room in the schedule for slippage (and the schedule can only be made if miracles occur), surely a strike (even if they hire a whole new staff in a matter of days) would be devastating enough to the company to make them really listen.

    24. Re:Three words... by pclminion · · Score: 1
      A union WILL NOT WORK in this instance. Why? Cause if you and all the game programmers join a union, the gaming companies will just replace each and every person. EVERY coder has, at one time or another, wanted to code video games. For each video game programmer that is employed right now, there is a hundred programmers that would kill for the job.

      I'd say that the majority of us reading Slashdot have, at one time, really wanted to fly fighter jets. Yet that doesn't mean there is some unending supply of skilled fighter jet pilots among the Slashdot readership.

      Sure, there's plenty of people who want to code games, but given the chance, the majority of them would utterly suck at it.

    25. Re:Three words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, but in the film industry, if you are a recognizably good actor, you make a lot more money for your time.

    26. Re:Three words... by elbobo · · Score: 1

      It's not just actors that are unionised. The miscellanous film crew are all union, as are writers I believe, and probably more.

    27. Re:Three words... by Tackhead · · Score: 1
      > I'd say that the majority of us reading Slashdot have, at one time, really wanted to fly fighter jets. Yet that doesn't mean there is some unending supply of skilled fighter jet pilots among the Slashdot readership.
      >
      >Sure, there's plenty of people who want to code games, but given the chance, the majority of them would utterly suck at it.

      So in other words, a mass resignation and/or strike at EA would be effective, because all the Slashdotters are already working at SOE?

    28. Re:Three words... by gamma+male · · Score: 1

      Then don't walk off the job, but "work to rule." 8 hour days, 5 days a week, proper management sign off for every code change, proper testing ... it would cripple the release schedule while not leaving the company open to hire temps, while still having to pay the current employees.

    29. Re:Three words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unions fucking suck. They are corrupt stinking heaps of turd. All they do is shackle companies, coddle the lowest common denominator, and compromise them to death. "Gotta build trust" my ass.

      They once we useful, but not anymore. Small unions are perhaps good. Big unions are corrupt and bad. Small unions usually become or get merge with big unions. See the cycle?

    30. Re:Three words... by wuice · · Score: 1

      In this case, one of those presumptions may be wrong but the other one is completely right. Consumers typically don't care about the working environment of the people making their clothes/car/computers/programs/video games/etc, especially when that rough treatment makes the end product cheaper for the consumer.

    31. Re:Three words... by junkgoof · · Score: 1

      People are lining up for manufacturing jobs. Line workers unionized BECAUSE they can be instantly replaced. IT types are not unionizing because they believe (rightly or wrongly) that their skills are special enough that they cannot be replaced and that they can get a good deal without resorting to a union.

      IT workers are right if quality is taken into account. When companies are willing to outsource and have a project fail cheaply instead of investing and succeeding more expensively unions start to look good.

      --
      You got me into this! You were the ideologue! I'm only a poor assassin! - Twenty evocations, Bruce Sterling
    32. Re:Three words... by dcam · · Score: 1

      This is going to cause a lot of grief for EA. Imagine dropping your entire development team 2 weeks before a release.

      --
      meh
    33. Re:Three words... by dcam · · Score: 1

      I didn't know Ann Coulter posted on /. You learn something new each day.

      --
      meh
    34. Re:Three words... by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      American's poopoo the word and pretend like its a fairy tale but this is what's called class warfare and the elite class is winning the war, big time.

      I think a big reason for this is that most Americans hold to the mistaken notion that they can become elite. So, they denounce or betray the working class because they see it as something that they won't be part of forever.

      If people would wake up and realize that their chances of becoming a 6-figure-salaried CEO are about the same as becoming the next NBA superstar, and work to improve what they have instead of what they might one day attain, we could start to see progress for the working class again.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    35. Re:Three words... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1
      the union movement is gaining momentum

      The percentage of the workforce in the USA that is unionized has been falling for about 50 years.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    36. Re:Three words... by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      Heh, don't compare me to her. I'm a Libertarian.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    37. Re:Three words... by dcam · · Score: 1

      I'll compare your comments to hers.

      --
      meh
    38. Re:Three words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      for those of you that actually RTFA, the people doing the complaining were the artists, not the programmers.


      You most certainly can NOT plug in any artists to do that job, sorry. Not happnin.

    39. Re:Three words... by killjoe · · Score: 1

      That's not true. Look at what happened with tuna. The mere presense of the words "dolphin safe" changed the tuna industry. The consumers when choosing to buy the product chose the one that was more ethical. All you need to do is to lable the product as being more ethical and people will choose it.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    40. Re:Three words... by stw0ng · · Score: 1
      Funny. I thought that in the Industrial Revolution, when unions began, that nearly all factory workers who unionized were blacklisted--nobody would hire them. And for some reason, we now have unions for factory workers. Sure, you, individually, may not work in the industry anymore--up until others follow suit and finally, the industry is forced to hire unionized workers. Bumpy ride, but if it's worth it, take it.

      Then again, in this case, perhaps it's not worth it. Others have noted: It's a skilled job. The industry can't necessarily take any twelve year old NES-a-holic off the streets and ask him to code for them--they'd have to teach him first. Ask a thousand people each if they know how to program in a major programming language. If over half of them reply yes--you must live in some comp sci major only dorm...

    41. Re:Three words... by LPetrazickis · · Score: 1

      This is why unions are supposed to be international.

      And, of course, if people would just behave the way Adam Smith expected, there'd be no movement of jobs overseas because it's not in the actual personal interests of the management.

      --
      Is this a sigs-optional kind of place? 'Cause I am totally down with that if you know what I mean.
  9. Within the meaning of the law by Rocketboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    EA will not retaliate against employees for exercising legal rights, including by participating in the proposed class action.

    In other words, your jobs are going overseas. You have the right to look for another job, and we won't discriminate against you for that.

    Was it good for you, too?

    Rb

    1. Re:Within the meaning of the law by T.Hobbes · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Even assuming your defeatest attitude is right, the workers are correct to exercise their rights. What's the point of having a job if it destroys your health and personal life? Not to mention the fact that the illegal and immoral practices the workers are just now fighting against result in (according to yesterday's article by an EA employee's spouse) 50% turnover, meaning the average worker has a 50-50 chance of leaving the company anyway. In short: the current conditions arn't tenable; ridding the US of such labour practices, either by offshoring or improvement, is necessary.

    2. Re:Within the meaning of the law by jxyama · · Score: 1
      that and... of course they won't retaliate. it's illegal to do so - employees are exercising their legal rights.

      since when is allowing the workers to exercise their legal rights a charitable deed? they certainly make it sound like they are doing workers a favor... sheesh!

    3. Re:Within the meaning of the law by geoffrobinson · · Score: 1

      There are ways of getting around those well-meaning laws. I can't descriminate against you because you look funny. I just won't tell you why I didn't hire you.

      --
      Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
    4. Re:Within the meaning of the law by netwiz · · Score: 1

      Or, I won't tell you I didn't hire you.

    5. Re:Within the meaning of the law by Darkmane · · Score: 1

      So is it okay to make people offshore work to death? Right.

    6. Re:Within the meaning of the law by geoffrobinson · · Score: 1

      That was my least favorite HR move.

      --
      Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
    7. Re:Within the meaning of the law by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Off shoring is like the problem I had where my one year old liked to bang her head on the wall. It's self correcting. Once you do it enough you realize that it hurts too much and you stop.

      Seriously, people talk like the US will become a wastland of McDonalds & Wal-Mart jobs, but that is laughable. The US is one of the largest markets in the world. At some point companies will realize that people have to make a good wage to buy the products they are selling. Or else they will have to make products that last 50 years so you only have to buy one in your lifetime.
      The biggest thing hindering this type of turnaround is the ease of borrowing. Everybody has way to much debt.

    8. Re:Within the meaning of the law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could hire a legion of Indians, all working eight hour days five days a week, for less than you can hire a few Americans. The result is that American EA employees have to work 90 hour weeks because it's the only way they can even begin to compete with the manpower costs in India. Indian workers, due to their low cost, can be hired in sufficient numbers to do the job.

    9. Re:Within the meaning of the law by syncrotic · · Score: 1

      What you say might be remotely plausible if it weren't for the fact that companies think on timescales of roughly 1-10 years. Come to think of it, ten years is rare - I doubt many companies outside the fields of mining, drug research, or aerospace would consider projects with that kind of payback period. Most companies only care about next quarter's results. The company, as an entity in and of itself, is only concerned with maximimizing return for its owners. If it completely ceases to exist in 20 years, but returned good profits for its investors in its lifetime, the company was a success.

      My point is just that companies are perfectly willing to self destructively cannibalize the entire American economy for the sake of short-term profits.

    10. Re:Within the meaning of the law by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Yes, but companies don't exist in a vaccum. Consumers, government, & competitors are all variables that bring about change.

      For all the disdain I often see on /. for blue collor work, the constant bitching about outsourcing looks alot like the steel and auto industry fights that have been going on for decades.

  10. pufft by Ambient_Developer · · Score: 1

    Yes, and to think bush wanted to CUT overtime pay.

    1. Re:pufft by Kohath · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      bush wanted to CUT overtime pay.

      not true

    2. Re:pufft by Ambient_Developer · · Score: 1

      he wanted to cut overtime pay for nearly everyone making over 30k a year... Now lets think which one will be more over time pay a 100k engineer. Or a 20k intern. My bets are on the engineer.

    3. Re:pufft by digitalhermit · · Score: 1

      Wow, amazing that this got modded up. Since the took office, George Bush has opposed any mimimum wage increases across the board. Now whether a minimum wage increase is a good thing or not is not what I'm debating, but to imply that he's for increasing overtime pay is just outright false.

    4. Re:pufft by Proney · · Score: 3, Informative
      --
      require "something.clever";
    5. Re:pufft by Billly+Gates · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Wrong.

      At Walmart for example everyone is considered a manager which means they no longer get time and half after 40 hours a week.

      Its also great since they can not fire more employee's and overwork the ones they have without penalty.

    6. Re:pufft by nelsonal · · Score: 1

      While that is/was McDonald's corporate practice, in my experience Wal-Mart is more the type of store that is zealous about ensuring that you work 39 hours if you are good, and 19 hours if you are bad and hiring someone new to fill the extra required hours.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    7. Re:pufft by dex22 · · Score: 1

      Yeah! Good job he didn't get re-elected!

    8. Re:pufft by FlopEJoe · · Score: 2, Informative
    9. Re:pufft by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 1

      Concur. I have friends who are walmart associates, and they say that management is absolutely facist about hours (funny thing is that even though the point is the same one guy enjoys working there the other people hate it with a passion. One's a lead CSM, the others are blue-vests..go figure)

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    10. Re:pufft by nelsonal · · Score: 1

      I liked my time there, but left for lunches as everyone else turned lunch into the whine about the job time. Wasn't as good as the cherry orchard, but wasn't the worst place to work either. I was a blue vest, although they did want to train me for a the returns counter (I think the next step toward a CSM-after about 3 months). I was also training all the new cashiers pretty much every shift after the first month. I do think that Wal-Mart gives a ton of freedom to store managers, so policies could vary from store to store.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    11. Re:pufft by eclectro · · Score: 1

      Now whether a minimum wage increase is a good thing or not is not

      Too bad that all those people who voted for moral/values are not going to be able to eat them at the dinner table.

      BTW, I wonder how Bush's lying is not a moral/values issue??

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    12. Re:pufft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one said anything about anyone wanting to increase overtime pay.

    13. Re:pufft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no. Some people would become eligible for overtime pay. Some people would lose eligibility.

      No one still eligible to receive overtime pay would recieve a "cut" in overtime pay.

    14. Re:pufft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one said anything about anyone wanting to increase overtime pay.

      By opposing cost-of-living and inflation adjustments (i.e., raising overtime way) the Bush Administration is doing the same thing as decreasing the minimum wage. In fact, the Administration has even proposed allowing states to voluntarily meet the federal "guidelines" with the argument that some states may choose to go higher. Alas, some states have lower minimum wage "guidelines" (there's that word again) and would decrease the minimum wage. Others have no guidelines so there would be no minimum wage. Period.

      In case your memory doesn't stretch back to the early 90s, this is just a new spin on Reagan's "trickle down economics". The idea is that by making it very easy for businesses to be profitable by eliminating those pesky quality-of-life initiatives such as a minimum wage or a safe working environment then businesses can be profitable and then the magnanimous shareholders will then increase wages, or umm, give more to charities making the quality of life of the employees better. Again, alas, it didn't work this way.

    15. Re:pufft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Its also great since they can not fire more employee's and overwork the ones they have without penalty.
      Could you please rewrite that sentence so it makes sense? I feel like you're trying to say something important but I have no idea what it is.
    16. Re:pufft by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      Walmart does this because the corporate headquarters does not budget a time and half for overtime. They are strict with lowering costs.

      But now since overtime is gone Walmart is no longer under pressure since the budget includes regular minimium wage hours.

      Of course if everyone goes over 40hours a week its a problem but my guess is they will just fire the slower employee's and overwork the current ones without penalty.

  11. Electronic rAts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This whole thread reminds me of one of the early "warez" groups in the C=64 scene: "Electronic rAts". I thought it the apex of clever names when I was seven - turns out that it's appropriate again today.

    But really, they used to seem pretty cool to me; their Ultimate Wizard (with construction kit) was a big hit. Did the sports franchising drag them down, or were they always sleaze?

  12. Organize by uncoveror · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Instead of relying on the courts to help them in Bush's United States of Avarice, they should unionize, and strike.

    --
    The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
  13. You can't spell... by ari_j · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Yeah, but you can't spell "Joe Straitiff Sucks" without Joe Straitiff.

  14. A few thoughts by slusich · · Score: 4, Informative

    First of all, everyone always needs to keep in mind that HR is not there for the benefit of the employees. That's what every company tells you, but the truth is, HR's job is to protect the corperation. Never trust an HR employee to look out for your best interest. That being said, EA's HR department has obviously failed them by allowing things to get to this point. They should have kept pay and hours legal within the bounds of the state law. And did anyone else notice the featured game on the gamespot article? Sims2 by EA.

    1. Re:A few thoughts by petril · · Score: 2, Funny

      Maybe they are studying a human behaviour in extreme conditions using their own employees, for next Sims?

      --
      "Never give up, never surrender!"
    2. Re:A few thoughts by StarTux · · Score: 1

      State law? What about Federal law?

    3. Re:A few thoughts by slusich · · Score: 1

      Federal laws as well, naturally. I refered to state laws as EA is in California, and it's my understanding that the laws there are somewhat more restrictive then the federal laws.

    4. Re:A few thoughts by LegionX · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well.. my sim just died of exhaustion from working too much and having too little spare time.. i guess some of the EA people know how it works, just not the right departement :)

    5. Re:A few thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      First of all, everyone always needs to keep in mind that HR is not there for the benefit of the employees. That's what every company tells you, but the truth is, HR's job is to protect the corperation. Never trust an HR employee to look out for your best interest.

      Dead on. The best determinant of whose interest(s) a particular individual is beholden to is usually discovered by following the money.

      In this case, who, pray tell, is writing the HR monkey's paycheck? Answer: the company. Ergo, that is whom they are looking out for. Period.

      It is a sad state of affairs, and I take no pleasure in telling people this, but please realize that most HRbots, like just about all workers who reside in the Adminisphere, ain't that bright and certainly aren't there for the philanthropic exerise of their humanitarian ideals. They are there for a paycheck and will usually follow their own self-interests to continue recieving one. If that means siding with management or a particular manager to do so, then that is exactly what you can expect them to do.

      Don't assume that just because you're not being a player, that there isn't a game going on. Trust me, there almost always is. That is the first rule of Office Politics. Unfortunately, once you realize this, the inevitable conclusion follows that you have to look out for yourself first. Hopefully the author of the article will do so next time.

    6. Re:A few thoughts by Darth_Burrito · · Score: 1

      Agreed with caveat. Sometimes the best interests of the employees and the company are aligned. I've seen situations where the effect of an awful manager was mitigated or limited by hr after a series of complaints. It's not in the company's best interests for a manager to work his staff to death and subject them to his every whim. Also, I would venture that abuses of managerial power tend to increase in the absence of a strong hr department.

    7. Re:A few thoughts by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      The problem is, that it is within state laws. In California, entertainment is an EXEMPT class. A few years ago, the big game companies pushed to have the computer game industry pushed into that category. So unfortunately, I don't see this class action lawsuit going anywhere. The judge may feel sympathy, but he/she is bound by the law.

      The big game makers pushed for even more draconian measures in Canada. EA Canada is worse, being more like indentured servitude.

      You want to know real dirt about the gaming industry? Go to www.fatbabies.com.

      ~X~
      "It puts the code on the server!!"

      --
      ~X~
    8. Re:A few thoughts by RogueyWon · · Score: 1

      I know I'm going to get modded down for this, but the parent is complete, ignorant rubbish.

      I've worked in two HR roles in the past (although I'm not there in the moment), one private sector, the other public. This is exactly the kind of ignorant, mindless bigotry that I had to deal with on a day to day basis. It's true that HR is not there as a wonderful, fuzzy, personal support mechanism for you. If you want that, go pay for a counsellor. However, as any competent HR person (which is most of them, in my experience) will tell you, HR needs, among other things, to maintain the peace between employees and employer. This entails saying "no" to management as often as it does to the workers in the line. Moreover, everywhere I've worked, management will respect this; that's why they have HR in the first place and why so many organisations these days put the HR director on the board (which in the past was often unthinkable). Of course, the average employee doesn't get to see this, as HR also knows that getting into *public* confrontation with management won't help, so the employee assumes that HR is out to get him. Believe me, if the board has just decided to do a big round of redundancies, HR will be trying to work out how to keep the number to a minimum. They'll argue for this to the board on grounds of morale (which may or may nor count for much, depending on the particular board) and cost (which will count for a lot). Getting rid of people is expensive and redundancies are generally a horrible solution to short-term cash-flow problems. All your average employee sees is HR dictation who stays and who has to go. HR is a convenient fall guy for this.

      One thing I've particularly noticed is that a lot of IT people seem to feel particularly victimised by HR. They complain that HR never looks out for them and that they're disadvantaged within the organisation in terms of pay, promotion and benefits. In 99% of the cases where I've seen this, it's been a case of the individual disadvantaging themselves. HR will help you get along, if, and only if, you help yourself as well. In particular, a lot of the younger IT people approach their jobs as if they're still at school. They expect that, at the end of the day, all of their work is marked by the teacher and if they've done a good job, they'll get a pat on the head and a gold star. The average large business or public sector organisation doesn't and can't work like this. If you want people to know you're good, you not only have to do a good job (although this is a necessary start), but you have to let people know about it. This means working on your personal communications skills, working on how you make an impact and networking effectively. That means the kind of networking you do without the cables. You need to stop ranting about management every five minutes and try to look more constructive. Most importantly of all, you need to stop pretending you're the BOFH. Trust me on this, guys, but although Simon Travaglia is a funny guy, what he writes is both *fiction* and *humour*. Do not, as I've seen so many people do, try to adopt his attitude in the workplace. In real life, BOFHs get sacked.

      In short, do not assume that just because you're a specialist, you are exempt from the hoops that "ordinary" staff, such as administrative or policy staff need to jump through to get along. HR can be your friend, but only if you make the effort to bring this around. HR, and indeed management, will be a lot more receptive to complaints about your hours if you can argue convincingly and promote a reasonable solution. Unionisation is one way people argue, but it can be combatative and I've seen it work well in some cases and very, very badly in others. In my experience if you're unhappy, it's often more effective to work within the system to get this across.

      Finally, I do actually agree that EA's HR Department probably isn't very good. This should have picked up and resolved much earlier, even if the employees weren't being effective in helping to resolve it. There are still bad HR departments out there.

  15. Executive's position by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just remember, there's no "EA" in "team."

  16. In the beginning was... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "So I'm posting under my real name -- you have to stand up to this type of thing or it will continue."

    Forming a union is a good idea.

    "And every company will become EA so that can compete..."

    Like Walmart?

    "Remember, you can't spell ExploitAtion without EA."

    Worldcom, Enron, were to start?

  17. Things to remember by Uberwang · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    And every company will become EA so that can compete... Remember, you can't spell ExploitAtion without EA. Also remember that you can't type

  18. Can you smell the outsourcing? by TempusMagus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The response will be to outsource your jobs at EA. Hopefully folks will learn the lesson; organize and plan for the worst when times are good and companies need the services you, as an employee, provide.

    It's sad but I can't imagine any large company making concessions to it's employees in the current political climate.

    Does anyone know how many of EA's employees are contractors, BTW?

    --
    -_-
    1. Re:Can you smell the outsourcing? by mfh · · Score: 1

      Does anyone know how many of EA's employees are contractors, BTW?

      As of this law suit, I'd say it'll reach 100%. But EA should know better. I won't buy games that are made by companies who trample their employees rights. I prefer good games anyway...

      --
      The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    2. Re:Can you smell the outsourcing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah yes, the unspoken magic wand of corporate irresponsability. The 'contractor'. A person who works for you like an employee for less pay and no benefits and can't complain about working conditions because they know they can be dropped at any time for any or no reason with no consequences to the 'employer'. Gotta love corporate america.

    3. Re:Can you smell the outsourcing? by mlylecarlin · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      No, this is one case where american free markets favor american workers. After a few years of outsourcing, EA will be losing money to debug crazy indian code which doesn't even come close to modeling the english language game design. With the game industry's desperate need to ship early, you'll definitely see some of those problems. 5 runs for a "ground double rule" in MVP Baseball 2007? No thanks, I'll try "Former EA Guys Baseball" instead.

    4. Re:Can you smell the outsourcing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Yeah, but EA Cricket 2005 will kick ass

    5. Re:Can you smell the outsourcing? by photovoltaics · · Score: 1

      ...don't forget the contracting company gets paid about the same as the contractor.

    6. Re:Can you smell the outsourcing? by TempusMagus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, and those crazy japanese guys will NEVER be able to take on Detroit.

      --
      -_-
    7. Re:Can you smell the outsourcing? by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      Actually INdian programmers are getting fairly good now.

      As American workers have less experience programing and Indian workers gain more the tides will turn and not only will Indians wrte code for cheaper but will be better.

    8. Re:Can you smell the outsourcing? by bitterbastard · · Score: 1

      "Can anyone tell me where Uzbekistan is?"

      http://www.outsourceoutrage.com/

      In a world where my x-rays are being scanned and sent to be reviewed by cheaper doctors in Asia, and I get results in hours not days, how can game coders compete???

    9. Re:Can you smell the outsourcing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously you guys don't know how to negotiate your contracts. Usually the contracting comapany takes no more than 30%, and in my case its usually been 30% for the first 3-6 months and then 20% after I threaten to quit.

    10. Re:Can you smell the outsourcing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Natasha, 31, was earning $90,000 a year with handheld computer maker Palm.

      I'd be curious to know what Natasha did at Palm that made her worth $90K. Apparently it's not something they felt worth mentioning. Face it, folks -- the 90's aren't coming back, outsourcing or not.

    11. Re:Can you smell the outsourcing? by LegionX · · Score: 1

      But isn't there still something to be said for the differences in indian and american working mentallity?

      I don't know much about india, that's why i'm asking.

    12. Re:Can you smell the outsourcing? by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

      Well, Gaming is different... Everywhere where arts is involved heavily outsourcing to sweat shops is only a partial solution. Even in animation core work is done in the west. The problem is that there are cultural differences between east and west which cannot be overcome easily. Japan has become big in culture for doing there own stuff, but trying to take over western stuff always failed. EA is a company which works on the cultural side of things and I am not sure if they realize that if they go the outsourcing route. There has to be a core situated locally and that core definitely is not a manager forcing people to 1900th working hours.

    13. Re:Can you smell the outsourcing? by sugar+and+acid · · Score: 1

      Except for one thing, they need people in america to make american games for the american market. A good example is the sporting games that is a huge part of EA's business. At the game design and artwork level it really has to be in the US, otherwise they won't have access to the sporting talent that they have to intergrate into the game. Then it also often important that all the rest of the team is in the same place so they can communicate effectively.

    14. Re:Can you smell the outsourcing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      X ray outsourcing- Uh, yes. Your bones appear to be from a yak ! Take two cups of tea and call me after the monsoon !

    15. Re:Can you smell the outsourcing? by ronfar · · Score: 1
      You know, for this discussion, I think "Those crazy Japanese guys will never be able to take on Atari," would be more appropriate, don't you?

      Anyway, I have no doubt that after sinking much money and training into Indian development shops, that EA will eventually find itself with an India based competitor that actually can make some decent games.

      But by that time, EA will be where Atari is now....

      --
      All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
    16. Re:Can you smell the outsourcing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, because Japanese cars have just wiped out American cars huh? I love driving my Mazda6 with a nice Ford Duratec V6 3.0L engine in it.

      It's always doomsday for American companies and workers when there's a new economic player on the block. And then we come back to reality, figure out nobody else is perfect either, and eventually their overinflated market folds like Japan's did.

      BT

    17. Re:Can you smell the outsourcing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently I'll never get my login verification email, so I'm still an AC.

      There is a mistaken assumption implicit in this "they will just outsource your jobs" nonsense - the belief that working people these crazy hours is a necessity.

      This has been repeatedly shown not to be the case. In fact, many studies have shown that it is harmful to work people extra hours - not just to the people, but to the project.

      In response to the yes-men who keep saying "shut up or we'll ship your jobs overseas" I say - what do you think will happen to all the talented game programmers, designers, and other staff that lost their jobs if this were to happen? They'll just sit around and starve? Where do you think game development companies got started? There was no massive EA at the dawn of time.

      We'll just form new companies, or find other jobs.

      Fuck EA.

    18. Re:Can you smell the outsourcing? by daVinci1980 · · Score: 1

      I said this yesterday. OUTSOURCING IS NOT AN OPTION IN VIDEO GAME DEVELOPMENT.

      The latency between a feature request and it's implementation is too long if you outsource. Right now, a designer will come to my desk, and ask me to implement a feature to test it out. This is called iterating. Usually, that feature will take me an hour or so. The designer will have the feature to then play with, and decide if it feels better or worse then it did before.

      Without this process, you get crap. All of the best games iterate. It's why Blizzard games take 3-4 years to come out.

      If you outsource your game development, iteration is going to take substantially longer then it does now. Every feature request will take a day instead of a couple of hours. Games that take two years to develop will instead take ten.

      There's a perfect example of what happens when you outsource video games here.

      --
      I currently have no clever signature witicism to add here.
    19. Re:Can you smell the outsourcing? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Please realize that Toyota is not a subsidary of GM.

      There may well be games coming in in the future from India or China, but the popular one's are unlikely to be controlled by EA. (If they're still a major company, though, they may be rebranded and SOLD by EA.)

      Companies that kill off their technical departments can't replace them by overseas contracting. The overseas contractors will just do what they're told, without interest in how well it will work, or even whether it will work. And the marketing people won't know what they're asking for. (That can happen when marketers get control even within a unified company.) If the company survives this, it becomes a company specializing in reselling other company's products. (Which may, indeed, come from off-shore.)

      So look for more "realistic" versions of oriental martial arts games. And for baseball games coming from Japan (with Japanese rules..if they differ by then). But the games won't be owned by EA. And they won't be developed by EA.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    20. Re:Can you smell the outsourcing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> Does anyone know how many of EA's employees are contractors, BTW?

      Speaking as an EA contractor, it's a fairly high percentage. In the QA department I work in(EAUK in Chertsey), it's about an average of 80% contractors. In certain other departments it is also like this.
      BTW, I write as anonymous because, ironically enough, my contract states that I am not allowed to tell anyone where I work!

    21. Re:Can you smell the outsourcing? by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      Well my point is just that Indians are becoming more compentant as they gain experience programing and will soon become a big problem for American workers.

      If Indians can code the same high quality code as someone tallented for 1/4th the cost then its a no brainer to fire all EA employee's who may sue and go to India where no laws exist with overtime and where the costs are cheaper.

    22. Re:Can you smell the outsourcing? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      EA has at least one game that appeals to everyone. For me it's NFS:Underground. (I haven't cared for any previous need for speed game, but I haven't played them all I guess.) Most people will play what they want to play, and not worry about who made it. Though, it is good to hear that you have principles.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  19. Wonder how long it'll take them... by GillBates0 · · Score: 4, Funny
    to come up with NLA Lawsuit 2005.

    "Starting this week and lasting through the end of the season, you can get the #1-selling lawsuit game for an unbelievable $29.95!"

    --
    An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
    1. Re:Wonder how long it'll take them... by Taco+John · · Score: 1

      Nah, it'll be the 4356th expansion pack for The Sims 2, titled The Sims 2: Litigation Nation. It'll be great, they can sell it to law schools to give students more time to practice without taking up the moot courtroom.

    2. Re:Wonder how long it'll take them... by Vampyre_Dark · · Score: 1

      It can be NBA2k6 Off Court Edition, starring Kobe Bryant. He runs around the offices, grabbing sleeping bags from under the developer's desks and rolling them up into balls and free throwing them. It's called hiding evidence. If he scores a three pointer, OJ Simpons squeezes into a tiny pair of gloves, and murders a witness.

      If you get the high score, you are treated to a cutscene of Bill Gates raping Will Wright. If you push the buttons in the right rhythim, Kobe will give Bill some tips on how to get away with it.

  20. An alternate option: by mcc · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If your employer is not following employment practices laws, you could ask the courts to force them to comply.

    1. Re:An alternate option: by garcia · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just remember that there are ways to make your life hell that are completely legal and well within their realm even after the courts become involved.

      Personally I am happy to stay out of office politics and do my job to the best of my ability. If I don't like the conditions where I am working I start looking elsewhere for work.

      If I had the talent that the EA guys likely do I'm sure it would not be difficult. At least not as difficult as EA would make your work-life.

    2. Re:An alternate option: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi, Bob? Yeah, it's me Fred. You know, I've been hearing that Joe might be putting in resumes at your place. You saw it? Well, let me just let you know that he's been having a real hard time keeping deadlines, and is really tough to discipline too. Oh, I'm sure he's a great programmer, too bad he spends the whole day reading slashdot. Really pissing away his talent.

    3. Re:An alternate option: by catch23 · · Score: 1

      My guess is, you've never supported a family before and you don't know how difficult it is to find work in the gaming industry. There aren't many small game companies alive anymore unfortunately...

    4. Re:An alternate option: by mcc · · Score: 1

      If I had the talent that the EA guys likely do I'm sure it would not be difficult.

      I will take this statement to mean that you are not actually familiar with EA's products.

    5. Re:An alternate option: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      EA's product is garbage. ESPECIALLY their sports lineup which I SWEAR is the same engine year after year. Rented the games, you'd know that the madden 2005 had the same engine since 2002. The game should have been sold as an addon, cause that's what you are getting.

      SEGA ESPN sports game reign supreme in quality. They are not a company with known abusive practices. And you pay half the price. Hello, NO BRAINER.

  21. Bye bye to the jobs by lukeduff · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm sure a lot of talented Eastern European, Indian, and Chinese developers wouldn't mind being exploited by EA.

    1. Re:Bye bye to the jobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cool! I can't wait for the new rules that they'll incorporate into Madden 2006!

    2. Re:Bye bye to the jobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm sure a lot of talented Eastern European, Indian, and Chinese developers wouldn't mind being exploited by EA

      And how does that make it all right?

    3. Re:Bye bye to the jobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Instead of sacking the quarterback, the Russian mafia will just whack him.

      Peyton Manning better look out!

    4. Re:Bye bye to the jobs by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      If that's the case, why haven't they done so already?

    5. Re:Bye bye to the jobs by catch23 · · Score: 1

      Wait, but these guys that are being exploited aren't developers. According to the article, these are "animators, modelers, texture artists, lighters, background effects artists and environmental artists." I'm sure it's possible to find good artists in other countries as well, so why hasn't Hollywood outsourced all their artists?

    6. Re:Bye bye to the jobs by Hassman · · Score: 2

      In Soviet Russia, the quarterback sacks YOU!

      --
      -Mark
      Dovie'andi se tovya sagain.
    7. Re:Bye bye to the jobs by Greyfox · · Score: 1
      So lets say EA opens an office in Mumbai and hires a bunch of developers. Unless they manage to find a shitload of highly qualified programmers who can do the 3D stuff they need, they'll have to train some people. So production comes to a halt while they put 30 programmers through 3D school. Then they put those guys to work for pennies a day.

      I can see a couple of other things that'll go wrong right away. Any other company could come along and offer those freshly trained programmers a slightly better deal, and like the contractors of the '90's, they'll jump ship in a second. It wouldn't take too many iterations of that before those guys are getting paid the six digit salaries that American programmers enjoy.

      The second potential problem I could see is that the Indians could at some point say "Fuck that American company! Lets make our own!" Then EA would be faced with compeition from a highly creative (Or just different, because of the different mythologies etc) company with talented programmers that they trained, putting out creative alternatives to the football games EA seems so enamored with.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    8. Re:Bye bye to the jobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our company recently tallied up the costs of our outsorcing efforts in Asia. While the developers may be paid $5/hour, totalling the costs paid to the oursourcing middle man per month, it was costing $8,000 to $10,000 PER Month PER Developer.

      Even with that, we have shotty code and numerous defects.

      Guess what, we're hiring again in the USA.

    9. Re:Bye bye to the jobs by avi33 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think it's a mistake to just assume EA will just offshore their coding to solve this problem. You think they've never weighed that option before? There are many reason why they've decided to just purchase smaller game studios than do that. I could think of a few:

      Institutional knowledge - A game studio has a history of people and code that have solved problems. A comraderie and more. If you find one on the ropes (not too hard the last few years), only to churn every last working hour out of the employees, and turn them over in a couple years, you at least get to grind some of that knowledge into the parent company before it's over.

      Shared experience - Hard core game developers have probably been raised on the same games, and they can say 'give it more of that 1999 quake railgun kind of aftershock' and not have to explain where they are coming from. Try explaining that to a team of PhD C coders. I'm not suggesting the US has a lock on this type of developer, but you're not likely to come across it in a team of 'cheap' offshore labor.

      The quality factor - I'm not suggesting for a moment that E. European/Indian/etc. coders are inferior to US. On the contrary, I have found some that are more committed to perfection and adherence to things like CMM and quality control methodologies. The problem is, are they going to get those 'perfect' project deliverables from their US parents? Not likely! The gaming community (unlike the user base for browsers and office tools) are not very tolerant of buggy and rushed to market products. If the product is rushed through, the bugs will be there in droves.

      Don't get me wrong, I've seen the results from offshore teams, and some of them have been perfect (or close to it) and some have been unmitigated disasters, simply because 'management by walking around,' while very effective, is useless when those that have the vertical (industry) knowledge are so far removed from the day to day work.

      I think that you could develop quality games using offshore talent, but only if the circumstances were right. At that point, I believe the cost would approach that of doing it in the US...the price advantage might still be there, but it would be smaller, and possibly sacrificing time to market, and risking market share.

    10. Re:Bye bye to the jobs by danila · · Score: 1

      This is bullshit. No person can work for 80 hours per week and remain healthy. This is simply not possible - you will get sick, your mental health will deteriorate, your immunity will be reduced and you will be effectively screwed, as in any case after a few years your two choices would be quitting and dying.

      I could somewhat agree with the notion that there is competitive pressure on EA to pay employees less or make them work longer hours to avoid outsourcing, but it still doesn't change the facts:
      a) Even Indian workers would not endure such treatment.
      b) The programmers would do more per week if they work 35 hours, have two days off, have fresh fruits in the office, lots of natural light and ergonomic furniture and good displays.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    11. Re:Bye bye to the jobs by KontinMonet · · Score: 1

      From my experience of running teams in India and Poland, labour laws in India and Eastern Europe are generally quite strict, you have to compensate developers for overtime. In the EU (which includes Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic etc.etc.), you cannot force people to work more than 48 hours per week (well, excluding the poodle state of the UK) and you cannot discriminate against against those that refuse to work more than 48 hours.

      You can get away with just about anything in China but, given the crap quality of stuff that comes out of the country, I can't see EA being tempted to outsource there...

      --
      Did he inhale?
    12. Re:Bye bye to the jobs by mforbes · · Score: 1

      I can see the next version of simglish now:
      All your base are belong to us!

      --

      Allegedly real newspaper headline from 1998:
      Man Struck by Lightning Faces Battery Charge

    13. Re:Bye bye to the jobs by HiThere · · Score: 1

      They may have bought and paid for that knowledge and expertise, but the actual knowledge and expertise resided in the individual employees, which they have been systematically alienating.

      This means that they've thrown a lot of their money away.

      Having thrown it away already, what's to stop them from completing the job by off-shoring. (N.B.: It's much easier to off-shore the jobs than to get off-shoring to work properly. This will probably just be another way to throw money away.)

      Good management wouldn't act that way, but then good management wouldn't act the way they've already been reported as acting.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    14. Re:Bye bye to the jobs by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I understand wanting to talk smack about EA but besides making many of the best sports games that we've (we meaning gamers) played over the ages, aka EA Sports, there's also an "EA Games" label that has, you know, other kinds of games. EA is also particularly known for its driving titles, for example Need for Speed. NFS:Underground was pretty enjoyable, and NFS:Underground 2 should be much more so, if the environment is as open as promised. Personally I'd like to see a serious attempt to do a massively multiplayer game like that, based on a real-life geographic area, like a state (a small one) or perhaps you could have several servers which each served a certain area, and create an environment that represented some actual real estate with streets, roads, et cetera. That, I would pay for, if it was as good as NFS:U is.

      Granted, I don't think I'd like giving EA the money, but they seem to be the only people who might be able to deliver at the moment. I'd actually far prefer Sony did it, with the Gran Turismo engine.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    15. Re:Bye bye to the jobs by jasler · · Score: 1

      Its like usual, tech people thinking you can easily find artists but not quality programmers in places like india and asia etc.. thats bullcrap! I think you can find both in these places, especially programmers. India has loads of programmers just waiting for EA to exploit them, but in terms of the way they get exploited there, EA would be heaven for many workers there if they treated them the same as people are treated in north america. With the base code for elements like UI and Physics , and the rendering engine provided by software like renderware, I would say programmers are much easier to replace these days and are more threatened than ever. The artistic side of things is different however. There is no make world button, and now with new consoles and technology such as the ps3 and xbox2, its all about the quality of the ART, that's what will be the difference in the new games coming up. So i don't think some kid in india with some photoshop skills is going to cut it, it's going to take the experience of artists from hollywood and new generation of techy and quality artists that don't exist in asia and india as much as they do in north america. This is why effects for films are only created in north america, if they could do it, they would have done it by now don't u think? Lets see how they go, and believe me from experience. I have worked at a few game companies and we have outsourced work to vietnam, and malaysia and the quality of art is terrible. The skills are just not up to scratch, even by going over there to instruct them doesn't help. Gaming companies are already trying to outsource to asia, but when the results are so bad, they are not investing much time into it. This is why india and asia aern't creating the next generation of games, and won't for a long time. In summary, don't be so naive and think that artists can be replaced by people in asia and programmers can't. Both can be replaced but both won't be quality. In my experience now, the next generation of console with xbox2 and ps3 is more demanding than ever in the quality of artists level of work, so i don't see it being outsourced for a very long time.

    16. Re:Bye bye to the jobs by jasler · · Score: 1

      Its like usual, tech people here thinking you can easily find artists but not quality programmers in places like india and asia etc.. thats bullcrap! I think you can find both in these places, especially programmers. India has loads of programmers just waiting for EA to exploit them, but in terms of the way they get exploited there, EA would be heaven for many workers there if they treated them the same as people are treated in north america. With the base code for elements like UI and Physics , and the rendering engine provided by software like renderware, I would say programmers are much easier to replace these days and are more threatened than ever. The artistic side of things is different however. There is no make world button, and now with new consoles and technology such as the ps3 and xbox2, its all about the quality of the ART, that's what will be the difference in the new games coming up. So i don't think some kid in india with some photoshop skills is going to cut it, it's going to take the experience of artists from hollywood and new generation of techy and quality artists that don't exist in asia and india as much as they do in north america. This is why effects for films are only created in north america, if they could do it, they would have done it by now don't u think? Lets see how they go, and believe me from experience. I have worked at a few game companies and we have outsourced work to vietnam, and malaysia and the quality of art is terrible. The skills are just not up to scratch, even by going over there to instruct them doesn't help. Gaming companies are already trying to outsource to asia, but when the results are so bad, they are not investing much time into it. This is why india and asia aern't creating the next generation of games, and won't for a long time. In summary, don't be so naive and think that artists can be replaced by people in asia and programmers can't. Both can be replaced but both won't be quality. In my experience now, the next generation of console with xbox2 and ps3 is more demanding than ever in the quality of artists level of work, so i don't see it being outsourced for a very long time.

  22. Get Lives by dudeBaron · · Score: 1

    To use the old cliche - go get a life - hmmm. let's see... would the world be a better place without EA? Mmmm... tempting...

    --
    DudeBaron
  23. Pink slip by RandoX · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Remember, you can't spell ExploitAtion without EA." No, but you can spell "Out of work" without it. In many states (including mine) the employer doesn't need ANY reason to terminate an employee. Period.

    1. Re:Pink slip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes.. It's called a Right to Work state.

    2. Re:Pink slip by gcaseye6677 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes, but even in a right to work state, which is what you're referring to, firing an employee in a manner that appears to be retaliation for complaining about illegal working conditions is legally very risky. Federal law punishes employers for a number of labor law violations, such as overtime pay, and the punishment is much more severe when they try to retaliate against the complaining employee. Contrary to what many people believe, salaried employees are entitled to overtime in many situations. Only if they are truly in management, with direct reports and a certain amount of autonomy over their job situations, are they fully exempt from overtime. EA had better be careful if they want to avoid a nasty legal mess, and it may be too late for them.

    3. Re:Pink slip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly the definition of an "at will" employee.

      You can quit at anytime,and they can fire you at anytime for no reason at all other than they want to.

    4. Re:Pink slip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but in many states (including mine, which does not require a reason to be evicted, let alone fired) if you can prove that they fired you for a illegal reason - e.g. because you are not white, because you are Muslim, because you are organizing a Union, or because you are filing a lawsuit in which you allege that the company is violating labor laws (which it appears EA is) then while they can fire you, you can sue them to A: get your job back and B: get back pay equal to the length of time you were jobless.

    5. Re:Pink slip by RandoX · · Score: 1

      Ok, you sue them get your job back, then what? Now you're working for a company that already fired you once, has a terrible work environment (which is why you participated in the suit to start with) and now your managers are likely examining your work with a microscope looking for a legitimate reason to can you again. Has anyone ever gotten fired, sued the company, got their job back and it was a great place to work after that?

    6. Re:Pink slip by Alioth · · Score: 1

      I have to wonder why they are called "right to work" states, when being fired for any reason seems to be the total opposite of "right to work".

    7. Re:Pink slip by Nintendork · · Score: 2, Informative
      Actually, Right to Work refers to having the choice to join a union instead of being forced to when you become employed in a company with a union. What you're referring to is called At Will. Regarding your comment on employers being careful when they fire employees, the laws that protect employees from wrongful termination are easy for the employer to work around. Unless you're a 100% super employee, they can and will find another reason for firing you. Unless you have an email, recording, or some other form of evidence, good fucking luck fighting it in court.

      The best solution is to not get involved with a company lik this in the first place. When you're going through the hiring process, talk to current employees and ask them what's good and bad about the company. If you're in the same situation I was in a few years ago, an evil corporation may come in and buy you out from a great employer. In those cases, you have to try your best to keep a positive attitude and make job searching a full time job. Most people that bitch about not being able to find a job, just aren't putting in a real effort. Posting your resume on monster.com and firing off resumes to job openings on dice.com is nothing more than a token effort. You have to act like a door to door life insurance salesman and do everything you can to land a better job. If you need to move to a bigger city, do it! Save up about 2 months of living expense money and move. Put most of your stuff in storage if it will help temporarily. Once you get to the city, spend the first month selling yourself like a pimp with an expensive crack habit. Hell, you could hit up managerial looking people at Starbucks if it will help. If you really can't land a job in that initial month, get any old night job to live off of and make finding another job your day job. If you still can't land anything, maybe you're in the wrong field or have some personality issues that employers are seeing. Applicants that shine through the rest because of their own drive to get their foot in the door already have a lead on the rest. If you're doing this to say, 100 companies at a time, at least one will pay off.

      -Lucas

    8. Re:Pink slip by gcaseye6677 · · Score: 1

      This is what I've always thought too, which is why I would never ask for my job back in a lawsuit. I would sue for damages including lost wages, back pay, etc. Usually the law allows for substantial extra damages too. Not to mention wrongful termination, since they probably would have fired me as soon as they found out I made a complaint. After collecting a fat wad of cash, I'd take it easy for a couple of months, then find a better place to work. BTW, this most likely would not go to court, as the company wouldn't want to have their ass handed to them by a jury. They would probably offer a good sized settlement which the employee would be well advised to take, along with a confidentiality agreement to ensure they can't tell future employers that you sued them.

    9. Re:Pink slip by CumInHerTaco · · Score: 1

      You know this used to be true and I was looking over it again when the other article came out yesterday.

      It is no longer true!

      OT pay exclusions for IT people (basically anyone who programs, tests or maintains computers or software), have changed radically in the last few years.

      It used to be you had to make more than 53K a year, hourly or salary to be excluded from OT pay.

      Now it is much different. Now they are not required to pay OT on a salaried position if you make more than $455/week a low $23K/year. Shit, they don't even have to pay OT if you make more than $27.63 hourly.

      This from FairPay Fact Sheet by Exemption Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA):

      To qualify for exemption, employees generally must meet certain tests regarding their job duties and be paid on a salary basis at not less than $455 per week. Job titles do not determine exempt status.


      And this from the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA):

      (17)71any employee who is a computer systems
      analyst, computer programmer, software engineer, or
      other similarly skilled worker, whose primary duty is --
      (A) the application of systems analysis techniques
      and procedures, including consulting with
      users, to determine hardware, software, or system
      functional specifications;
      (B) the design, development, documentation,
      analysis, creation, testing, or modification of
      computer systems or programs, including prototypes,
      based on and related to user or system
      design specifications;
      (C) the design, documentation, testing, creation,
      or modification of computer programs related
      to machine operating systems; or
      (D) a combination of duties described in
      sub-paragraphs (A), (B), and (C) the performance
      of which requires the same level of skills, and
      who, in the case of an employee who is compensated
      on an hourly basis, is compensated at a rate of not
      less than $27.63 an hour.

      --
      The only way to end war is for everyone to get a piece!
    10. Re:Pink slip by res+ipsa+loquitur · · Score: 1

      I've gotta tell you, trying to prove this in a "right to work" state (aka a "right to fire" state) is very difficult. If EA decides to move the entire operation off-shore in order to (theoretically) save money, then the employees are SOL - that's a valid business reason. There are solutions to this problem (don't get me started!), but as it stands today, a right to fire state is pretty much just that.

    11. Re:Pink slip by ProfanityHead · · Score: 0

      I thought the type of employment he is referring to is "employment at will". "Right to work" sounds like the complete opposite.

    12. Re:Pink slip by magarity · · Score: 1

      "Remember, you can't spell ExploitAtion without EA."

      You can spell "Sucky Comparison". Didn't EA start because independent programmers got together to pool resources? Just do the same thing again if you feel the company is no good!

    13. Re:Pink slip by G00F · · Score: 1

      Actually, the moving to a bigger city
      I did it, and things are not better off for the most part.

      But here is some advice for those that do move.
      Get rid of everything! Well get rid of everything you can, even if it hurts. I had things in storage for over a year, for a 10x8 at say 45 a mont is $540, if you have a family, you will need more space. Then add the cost of the truck to the location, then again when you want to move the stuff out of storage. That gets up to $1000 easy. (and a lot of time)If it is vaulable, sell it!

      Plan on a min of 3 months with no work. It takes about a month from sending a resume to someone to being hired by them.(most drag their feet longer, very few are quicker)

      Also, some areas, are notibly over stocked with IT professionals(and wanna be professinals). So you will be competing for a job agaist 300-500 resumes. (utah salt lake city is like this)

      Then some places, pay way low wages. The only reason why houses in slc are not as high as others. Where a good job is anything over $10 an hr.(Experanced Programming jobs at $10 hr! But people take those jobs)

      --
      The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive
    14. Re:Pink slip by Nintendork · · Score: 1
      You have some great points there, but one thing to watch out for is that you shouldn't stop your hunt when you're in the interview process with a company. Until papers are signed and you're working, you still don't have a job. Worst case scenario is that you're in the interview process with Company A and a resume you send out to Company B gets a bite. Well, now you have two companies to choose from.

      -Lucas

    15. Re:Pink slip by guet · · Score: 1

      Doublespeak is all the rage in the USA these days :

      'Patriot Act'
      'Anti-Iraqi forces'
      'Coalition of the willing'
      'The civilised world'

      If you say it enough, it becomes true.

    16. Re:Pink slip by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      "Right to work" states prohibit mandatory union membership as a condition of employment.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  24. Excuse me sir, but could you please evolve? by TempusMagus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ah, nothing like a trailer-park social darwinist to get the juices flowing first thing in the morning. Has it ever occured to you that some of these people have families and bills to pay? Quitting a job is sometimes not an option for folks who have to make decisions based on criteria other than lifestyle. I'm so sick of the current American/Hobbesian worldview of "each man against all men". We have a name for creatures that endorse that world-view: animals.

    --
    -_-
    1. Re:Excuse me sir, but could you please evolve? by Mr+Guy · · Score: 1, Troll

      While I agree that we have laws for this sort of thing, we also have contracts for this sort of thing. Has it ever occured to quitting a job is ONLY not an option for people who make their decisions entirely on the criterion of lifestyle? People generally have two options in life, live within your means or adjust your means to your lifestyle.

      If the company is breaking the law, they should be punished. If the company is simply enforcing contracts that people agreed to when the dollar signs overrode their common sense, the employees should shut up or consider a career change.

      You either do what you need to do or you shut up about it. That includes changing lifestyle or changing careers.

    2. Re:Excuse me sir, but could you please evolve? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And there's a word for the other side: naive.

    3. Re:Excuse me sir, but could you please evolve? by Trespass · · Score: 1

      So, these people got into the game industry with no idea what it was like?

      EA has a terrible reputation within the industry for treating it's people like shit. I find it hand to believe that actions like this come as much of a surprise to the employees.

      Insulting the parent does not make what they said wrong, nor is it a meaningful attack on it. I assert that human beings ARE animals, sometimes better, but oftentimes far worse because of their innate ability to reason.

      Look, the game industry is a shitty business at times, and EA is looked upon as being extra shitty within that pit of shittiness. Unicorns and rainbows will not change this.

    4. Re:Excuse me sir, but could you please evolve? by hyphz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > If the company is breaking the law, they
      > should be punished. If the company is simply
      > enforcing contracts that people agreed to when
      > the dollar signs overrode their common sense,
      > the employees should shut up or consider a
      > career change.

      However, in contract law, when one side has much greater bargaining power than the other, some extra provisions kick in to prevent that one side from (basically) ordering the other to bend over. The tilted employers' market could be good reason for this.

      Basically, it is important that no company gets away with offering contracts like this because if they do, pretty soon [i]all[/i] companies will be doing it, and there'll be no option to move elsewhere.

    5. Re:Excuse me sir, but could you please evolve? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing in the grandparent post was even vaguely social darwinist. Either you don't know what it means, or you're being intentionally inflammatory.

      Quitting doesn't necessarily mean becoming unemployed. If you're smart, you line up another job before you quit.

    6. Re:Excuse me sir, but could you please evolve? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having a family *is* a lifestyle decision. As is having an amount of debt that shackles you to a particular job.

      And I'm sick of people who don't understand how to use the term 'evolve'.

    7. Re:Excuse me sir, but could you please evolve? by Wicked187 · · Score: 1
      You are just asking for it aren't you? Seriously, if they do not like it, they can quit. It is not anyone's job to sit around and hold their hands and make them feel better about being dooped into their situation. If the job sucks, get another one, or shut up about it. If they are breaking the law, report them, and hopefully they will get punished accordingly; and still, look for a new job. If you are unwilling to look for a new job, you are either a) stupid (defined: repeating an action and expecting different results)or b) lazy (defined: lazy, rec. You get lazy).

      Capitalism is the way to go, and beyound that, this Slashdot discussion and other ways to make it known to the world that EA sucks. And yes, it should be "each man against all men." We all want to survive, and we care mostly about "our own" first, and about other second, that is natural, and no, it is quite intelligent as well.

      --
      Politics, Life, and More on my Aspiring for the Future
    8. Re:Excuse me sir, but could you please evolve? by Qzukk · · Score: 2, Interesting

      EA has a terrible reputation within the industry for treating it's people like shit.

      Theres a HUGE difference between treating your employees like shit and literally robbing them of their compensation by annoucing towards the end of the project that their comp time for the overtime they've already put in is void.

      Let the lawsuit go on. This goes beyond some "wah my life sucks" complaint, this is basically theft. If you could arrest a corporation, it should be thrown in jail to think about what its done.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    9. Re:Excuse me sir, but could you please evolve? by Trespass · · Score: 1

      I don't doubt that EA deserves to be sued into the stone age. I couldn't see working someplace like that without being constantly on my guard and looking for something better.

      I don't dispute what you say, or the gist of the article. I did take issue with how TempusMagus saw fit to reply, however.

    10. Re:Excuse me sir, but could you please evolve? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Has it ever occured to you that some of these people have families and bills to pay?"

      Heh, wow. Yeah.

      And some of us are responsible enough to keep it in our pants (or at least sheathed) so we don't have kids or families forcing us to work at the worst jobs we can find.

      I feel soo sorry for you.

    11. Re:Excuse me sir, but could you please evolve? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And we've got one up on the animals, at this point.

      Ever seen a fox in India catch a rabbit in the US--without going anywhere?

      One man against all man is bad enough, until you realize that it's one man against *every* man *everywhere*.

    12. Re:Excuse me sir, but could you please evolve? by TempusMagus · · Score: 1

      You need to read the original article to answer your first question. He had a great idea of what the industry was like - it changed on him.

      Your right, insulting the parent does not make what they said wrong - being wrong makes them wrong. Human beings posses a quality of reason that seperates them from other primates. We are self-aware and have the abilitiy to see the consequences of our actions. We can either choose to use this ability to shit on those around us or not. Just because we can choose to take the low road does not mean that doing so is best for our species. Just because the majority of our species takes the low road does not mean that it is best for our species. Being an asshole is always easier to rationalize because the equation is shorter without other people in the formula.

      The last thing we need is another bitter social darwinist hiding his apathy and spite behind second-hand sound bites copped from talk-radio. Then again that's the easiest way to excuse doing nothing.

      BTW, Unicorns don't exist.

      --
      -_-
    13. Re:Excuse me sir, but could you please evolve? by Trespass · · Score: 1

      You need to read the original article to answer your first question. He had a great idea of what the industry was like - it changed on him.

      Bullshit. I read it, and with game art experience. The situation described sounds like the way things have been in the majority of the industry for at least the last two years. He worked for a small publisher that got screwed over and then in desperation went to the sweatshop that is EA, and they fucked him over. Tough, but nothing new.

      Your right, insulting the parent does not make what they said wrong - being wrong makes them wrong.

      What a fascinating proof.

      Human beings posses a quality of reason that seperates them from other primates. We are self-aware and have the abilitiy to see the consequences of our actions. We can either choose to use this ability to shit on those around us or not. Just because we can choose to take the low road does not mean that doing so is best for our species. Just because the majority of our species takes the low road does not mean that it is best for our species.

      Or maybe we just think we do. You present humanity as if it were some sort of tabula rasa, ready to accept whichever direction we give it. Observation and history does not bear this out.

      Being an asshole is always easier to rationalize because the equation is shorter without other people in the formula.

      Unilateral brotherly love is always easier to rationalize when it has no practical effect on the one preaching it, and requires no real effort to prop up their ego in the name of justice and compassion.

      The last thing we need is another bitter social darwinist hiding his apathy and spite behind second-hand sound bites copped from talk-radio.

      It may come as a shock, but perfectly rational human beings may come to conclusions about things that are different from yours without the help of Limbaugh, Moore, Stern, or Captain Kangeroo.

      Then again that's the easiest way to excuse doing nothing.

      Short of posting about it on Slashdot.

      BTW, Unicorns don't exist.

      Neither does the world or race you speak of. That was the point.

    14. Re:Excuse me sir, but could you please evolve? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And some of us are responsible enough to keep it in our pants

      Ya, right, responsibility is why you keep it in your pants. Here is a real list of why you don't have a family to support.

      - Its not easy scoring when you live in mom's basement.
      - Girls just don't seem to find C++ nearly as interesting as I do.
      - Socialy retarded is a tough way to get laid.
      - Morbid Obesity
      - Try a shower, at least once a day.
      - Try seeing a live pair of tits, at least once. You may change your focus.
      - To have a family, one must fuck, or adopt. We know that the former is never gonna happen, and single fat men rarely have a hope at the later.

      I could go on, and on.

      On the plus side of your argument, having people like you removing yourselves from the gene pool, without even being asked, is a true gift. Thanks for that. Saves the rest of us petitioning to have you chemically sterilized to keep you from further spoiling a already weak gene pool.

      Also good, since you don't want to procreate, there is no reason for you waste your time trying to score with the ladies. That means one less socially inept nerd asking girls if they would like to take you home because your "Hotter than an AMD64 with a faulty fan".

      When you hit 25, and you clue in that there are more important things in life, you may change your tune. What will you think when you WANT to have a family, but you don't have enough free time to even jerk-off, let alone try to actually meet someone (granted, you are likely looking at a very tough uphill battle, even if you have no job).

      Final question for you, how much money do YOU have saved? Enough to cover your bills for a month, two months? If your like most people, you have almost nothing saved. Since the unemployment period for tech workers seems to be almost a full year between jobs, how long could you make it when its time to quit?

    15. Re:Excuse me sir, but could you please evolve? by khallow · · Score: 1
      Ah, nothing like a trailer-park social darwinist to get the juices flowing first thing in the morning. Has it ever occured to you that some of these people have families and bills to pay? Quitting a job is sometimes not an option for folks who have to make decisions based on criteria other than lifestyle. I'm so sick of the current American/Hobbesian worldview of "each man against all men". We have a name for creatures that endorse that world-view: animals.

      It makes no sense for society to make choices for competent people. This isn't Social Darwinism or Hobbesian pathology. You have the power to improve your work environment. If you chose not to do so, society shouldn't fix your failure to act.

    16. Re:Excuse me sir, but could you please evolve? by Trespass · · Score: 1

      That's a pretty good troll, but you might want to make the 'LOL FAT VIRGIN' angle a little more subtle. To really piss people off you should find some way of dragging politics, sex, or religion into it. Gently, mind you.

    17. Re:Excuse me sir, but could you please evolve? by ROU+Nuisance+Value · · Score: 1

      What a sleazy moron. Maybe you could keep it in your ass instead?

    18. Re:Excuse me sir, but could you please evolve? by TempusMagus · · Score: 1

      Or maybe we just think we do. You present humanity as if it were some sort of tabula rasa, ready to accept whichever direction we give it. Observation and history does not bear this out.

      Wow. I don't know what history books you've been reading, but if you doubt the maliablity of human beings you need to find out how much was spent on advertising and read about people like Hearst and Goebbels.

      Unilateral brotherly love is always easier to rationalize when it has no practical effect on the one preaching it, and requires no real effort to prop up their ego in the name of justice and compassion

      I find it telling you would assume that. I do practice what I preach and it has nothing to do with ego. I serioulsy doubt you've met many people who give of themselves to help others in their community otherwise you would not make such a presumptious and assine statement. If it makes it easier to hold your beliefs then please, by all means, assume I'm all talk. In the off-chance you are actually interested, you should read Gandi's autobiography that might change your mind some about a few issues.

      It may come as a shock, but perfectly rational human beings may come to conclusions about things that are different from yours without the help of Limbaugh, Moore, Stern, or Captain Kangeroo.

      I doubt anyone would be perfectly rational coming to any conclusions after getting any of information the sources you list. (Odd, that they are all corporate-media sources in your example - even the jackass moore with his Miramax deal) Experience is the best teacher, followed by history and then Captain Kangeroo.

      Now, please give me some historical examples of how an unregulated free-market has benefitted mankind? Where do ethics fit-in in your world view, or are ethics yet another construct, a by-product if you will, of a brain too big for it's own good? Don't give me the cop-out that it's human nature and base your statements on that - human nature has changed dramatically and been shaped dramatically over and over again throughout history. Imagine the arguments you make being made in ancient Greece, "It's tradition and an honor to bugger young lads - they learn from the buggering about how to be a man! We'll never stop doing that. We've always done that. People don't change. It's absurd that you suggest we stop doing that. Get that madman out of here!". Cannibalism also comes to mind.

      --
      -_-
    19. Re:Excuse me sir, but could you please evolve? by TempusMagus · · Score: 1

      I agree as long as society does not impede or minimize your ability to act in favor of corporations.

      --
      -_-
    20. Re:Excuse me sir, but could you please evolve? by Trespass · · Score: 1

      truncated

      Wow. I don't know what history books you've been reading, but if you doubt the maliablity of human beings you need to find out how much was spent on advertising and read about people like Hearst and Goebbels.

      You're blurring symptoms and causes. You're also coming dangerously close to invoking Godwin's Law. :) Getting back to what I originally was replying to: Human beings posses a quality of reason that seperates them from other primates. We are self-aware and have the abilitiy to see the consequences of our actions... I meant that both the scope and the certainty of a human being's self awareness is imperfect and limited, and that both psychology and society make for a limited number of options. The examples you cite are more an example of this than a counterexample. Your use of advertising dollars as a metric of human malleability is more complex, but perhaps beyond the scope of what we're talking about. People will buy a widget, and if there are several brands of an essentially identical widget, is that a matter of malleability, and does that involce any real act of will or choice?

      Unilateral brotherly love is always easier to rationalize when it has no practical effect on the one preaching it, and requires no real effort to prop up their ego in the name of justice and compassion

      I find it telling you would assume that. I do practice what I preach and it has nothing to do with ego. I serioulsy doubt you've met many people who give of themselves to help others in their community otherwise you would not make such a presumptious and assine statement. If it makes it easier to hold your beliefs then please, by all means, assume I'm all talk. In the off-chance you are actually interested, you should read Gandi's autobiography that might change your mind some about a few issues.

      I don't know you, and you don't know me. We only know each others words. You've made a lot of pronouncements in a rather judgemental tone, almost as if you were searching either agreement or an argument, rather than discourse. Telling people that they're bad tends to make the one saying it feel good, feel powerful. My original statement was an elaboration upon talk being cheap, and I'll stand by that. As far as your assumption I was talking about anything more, you're mistaken.

      As far as Ghandi goes, perhaps you should read more about a person other than what they have to say about themselves. He strikes me not as a saint, but rather as a nationalist that found an effective hook to manipulate world opinion and take advantage of the collapse of British colonialism.

      truncated

      I doubt anyone would be perfectly rational coming to any conclusions after getting any of information the sources you list. (Odd, that they are all corporate-media sources in your example - even the jackass moore with his Miramax deal) Experience is the best teacher, followed by history and then Captain Kangeroo.

      That was the point I was trying to make with you. Just because someone disagrees with you, it's not always because some crackpot on the radio told them too. You're making assumptions about motives that are not well-reasoned or supported by fact.

      Now, please give me some historical examples of how an unregulated free-market has benefitted mankind?

      A malformed request. A free market has never existed without being modified by additional political criteria. Secondly, I don't really see that as being the point. This is more about generalized human behavior than the house of mirrors that a particular group of humans inhabits at particular point in history.

      Where do ethics fit-in in your world view, or are ethics yet another construct, a by-product if you will, of a brain too big for it's own good?

      Honestly, it seems to me that ethics is aesthetics writ large. What strikes any given individual as 'good' or 'bad' is almost never of a product of rational decision making, but r

    21. Re:Excuse me sir, but could you please evolve? by Mr+Guy · · Score: 1

      Nonsense, if they are following applicable laws, either people are willing to work for them or they aren't. The slippery slope case just falls apart because it requires people to be willing to take these contracts. If a company starts offering people these contracts and they don't take them, the company goes out of business. The rush to follow them won't exactly be great.

      I notice, though, I get modded "Troll" no doubt for speaking ill of tech workers. I, myself, hate my job so I quit. My wife and I moved, taught school for a little while to make ends meet, until I could get another job for a company that I like.

      It's doable, but it took us being willing to sacrifice lifestyle for a while and relocate until I got a job that made me happy. It's sad that advice like that is considered trolling.

    22. Re:Excuse me sir, but could you please evolve? by chengee · · Score: 1

      Programming games may be the last bastion of IT for the USA. It won't be long before some game studio in the far east develops the skills to take up outsourced jobs from EA. At $10 USD a day each for a programmer, you can't beat that kind of value. Cheng Low GameMaster www.freegamezone.org

      --
      --------- Cheng Ee well well
    23. Re:Excuse me sir, but could you please evolve? by Money+for+Nothin' · · Score: 1

      Quitting one's job doesn't mean *staying* quit after quitting.

      It's called "finding a new job while you work at the one you don't like, then quitting after you've accepted somebody else's job offer." Preferably in your spare time, so your crappy employer doesn't catch on to what you're up to, but if you're like these EA employees, you may have no choice but to surf from work.

      But if you do have a wife/kids/other attachments which make your life hard, then make them do something useful and have them help. Have them look for new jobs for you and point you to their ads when you get home.

      A relative of mine quit his job at a refinery once because the toxic fumes were slowly killing him. He willingly retired for 6 months on his savings, then decided to go back to work in a non-oil industry.

      It's not magic, it's called "savings" and "screwing your employer as hard as he screws you." The second aspect is key, and is expected by employers. The problem is that most people still think the world -- and their employers -- owe them a living, that their employer is their friend, not merely a business entity out to use them as a "human resource." People still live in the fantasy world that businesses care about them; they do not.

      Once one realizes this much and *behaves* as such, there's a lot more control over the work/life balance.

  25. Words to live by... by telstar · · Score: 4, Funny

    Don't hate the player ... hate the game!

    1. Re:Words to live by... by SirLantos · · Score: 1

      I hate it when people use that. If there were no players there would be no game.

      It is just an excuse to make oneself feel better about the immoral things they do. They cant stand up against the status quo, too chicken shit. So, they babbel on about how it's not their fault that the things they do are bad, it's how "the game" is played.

      --
      The flying hamster of DOOM rains coconuts on your pitiful city.
    2. Re:Words to live by... by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 1

      Don't playa hate. Participate!

      --
      Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
  26. How much do you want to bet... by JumperCable · · Score: 3, Funny

    that the class action results in an award for payment of lawyer fees & $5 off their next EA game purchase.

  27. EA, Make everything. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its quite 'normal'* for companies to get no overtime. Usually when projects are late the team has to play catchup to the schedule. When budgets are tight then its gotta be for free. However this is usually weighed off with hefty completion bonus' and royalties.

    The problem that EA have is that they under budget, under schedule, under design, control the developers, publishers, marketing, and they employ a vast amount of untrained monkeys to ship games out as fast as possible. How many EA games come in within schedule? How many have problems even after release? (tiger woods)

    From personal experience I worked on a PS game that sold close to 6m units. Many at the publishing company have retired, the developers got .... wait for it.... nothing.

    With EA controlling so much of the industry (even the 3rd party 'cheap' render alternative (renderware)) they have been acting disgracefully for a long time. They can get away with it because they have a new 'top shelf' licence or sequal (previously know as title) to chuck out every week.

    can anyone say wal-mart?

    * That so few big companies that control the industry they decide whats 'normal'.

  28. errrrm by Prince+Vegeta+SSJ4 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Electronic Arts news release: due to popular demand, and the growing number of civil actions filed in this country, Electronic Arts announces a new game due to hit stores just in time for Christmas '05

    commercial begins

    -Johnny Cochran comes out-

    EA COURTS : it's in the game!

  29. Boo fucking hoo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jeez, if you didn't like working there, why didn't you leave?

    It's not like they had your family chained in the basement of their corporate dungeon. If you don't like the conditions where you're working, move on.

    We've (almost) all faced death-march projects. If you've any sense, you avoid them when you spot them from afar and leave them when you discover your management runs them as a matter of course.

    Continuing to work under those conditions is _your_own_damned_fault!

    1. Re:Boo fucking hoo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not like they had your family chained in the basement of their corporate dungeon.

      What an excellent idea! When I start my company, the first thing I'm going to do is build a corporate dungeon.

    2. Re:Boo fucking hoo! by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      What an excellent idea! When I start my company, the first thing I'm going to do is build a corporate dungeon.

      "Corporate Dungeon" sounds more like the place a sweaty, overweight middle manager would visit to get whipped by a generic dominatrix in leather.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    3. Re:Boo fucking hoo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It's funny to read about these EA crybabies like this one who whine about getting a $100000+ relocation package - and that's not even counting his salary.

      Hey EA guys. McDonalds employes lots of people at worse hourly rates than you're getting; even counting the "long" days.

  30. "Disgruntled?" by GSpot · · Score: 5, Funny

    Has anyone ever heard of a "gruntled" employee? Just wondering.

    1. Re:"Disgruntled?" by __aawavt7683 · · Score: 1

      Merriam Webster:
      Main Entry: gruntle
      Pronunciation: 'gr&n-t&l
      Function: transitive verb
      Inflected Form(s): gruntled; gruntling /'gr&nt-li[ng], 'gr&n-t&l-i[ng]/
      Etymology: back-formation from disgruntle
      : to put in a good humor

      So, a gruntled worker is one who is cared for, possibly given some of those play-things for breaks and such. Someone happy is a gruntled worker. Course, it seems to have come from "disgruntled" (to make ill-humored or discontented).

      -DrkShadow

    2. Re:"Disgruntled?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FYI P.G Wodehouse had a line in one of the Jeeves books to the effect of "I'm not disgruntled, just very far from gruntled"

    3. Re:"Disgruntled?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll GRUNTLE you, if you don't watch your step!

    4. Re:"Disgruntled?" by LittleGuy · · Score: 1

      Has anyone ever heard of a "gruntled" employee? Just wondering.

      Just look at the root of the word, "grunt", which means "hapless minion doing relentless work without emotion".

      ...and that's our Clyde Crashcup Grammar Moment of the Day...

      --
      Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
    5. Re:"Disgruntled?" by catch23 · · Score: 1

      I have! I'm a gruntled employee. If you're happy at your job, you're a gruntled employee. Of course, it doesn't make for a sensational article headline unfortunately.... "Happy employees enjoy their happy job, news at 11"

    6. Re:"Disgruntled?" by jratcliffe · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sure, they're people who work at companies with an "ept" management team. :)

    7. Re:"Disgruntled?" by Prince+Vegeta+SSJ4 · · Score: 1
      an "ept" management team.

      Which ones? The one's who have one line or two?

    8. Re:"Disgruntled?" by flint · · Score: 1

      Funtional families are made up of gruntled members.

    9. Re:"Disgruntled?" by scribblej · · Score: 4, Funny

      I used to work at a place like that. I was whelmed.

    10. Re:"Disgruntled?" by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1

      So if it's just me, can I spire to join one?

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    11. Re:"Disgruntled?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but were you moralized?

  31. Sheesh! by eddy · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Could the "Free Market" believers just shut the fuck up?

    Please?

    Thank you.

    "Oh, so you were sold into slavery? Why don't you just run away? You're free to attempt that at any time! There are lots of places where slavery is not accepted. Move there you long-haired non-hot-rod-poking-lovin' hippie scum! I believe in this, therefore it's right! Might makes right!"

    --
    Belief is the currency of delusion.
    1. Re:Sheesh! by bmetz · · Score: 0

      No.

      --
      What did you eat today? http://www.atetoday.com/
    2. Re:Sheesh! by revscat · · Score: 1

      Thanks for saying that. It needs to be said, and often.

    3. Re:Sheesh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the reason you are stuck in whatever pathetic job would have you has nothing to do with a free market.

    4. Re:Sheesh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NO! Truth can't shut up -- like it or NOT.

    5. Re:Sheesh! by Bull999999 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Could the "Free Market" believers just shut the fuck up?

      That's nothing that prevent you from opening your own employee friendly company. So I suggest that you shut the fuck up and lead by example since bitching about it on Slashdot doesn't change anything.

      BTW, there are plenty of IT and non-IT jobs out there that doesn't require you to do unpaid overtime. The pay will probably be lower but what's more important? Free time or more pay?

      --
      1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
    6. Re:Sheesh! by doinky · · Score: 1

      Only the lack of hundreds of thousands of dollars in capital prevents us from opening our own employee-friendly gaming companies. I'm sure the venture capitalists will help us out with that, right? Anybody know any who just got unfrozen from 1998?

    7. Re:Sheesh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Theres nothing preventing me from opening my own employee-unfriendly company either. Oh wait, THE LAW.

      Maybe you should consider that companies engaging in illegal practices should be sued (too bad you can't arrest corporations).

    8. Re:Sheesh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Wahh, I'm too stupid to make it in the world on my own so I need to the government to ake care of me!"

      "Wahh I chose to work for a shitty company and stayed even though I could've got a job somewhere else that would treat me better! Wahhh!"

      I think it's you that needs to shut the fuck up.

    9. Re:Sheesh! by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      Could the "Free Market" believers just shut the fuck up?

      Please?

      Thank you.

      Give us a reason why we should shut up.

      "Oh, so you were sold into slavery? Why don't you just run away? You're free to attempt that at any time! There are lots of places where slavery is not accepted. Move there you long-haired non-hot-rod-poking-lovin' hippie scum! I believe in this, therefore it's right! Might makes right!"

      No matter how bad the working conditions are, "at will" employment isn't slavery. If this weak, whiny mockery is the best counterargument you can come up with to the idea that people should just not work for bad employers, you're not gonna win any converts.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    10. Re:Sheesh! by dmaxwell · · Score: 1

      Well, when 99 out of 100 employers are bad and you have to eat...................

    11. Re:Sheesh! by kfg · · Score: 1

      Could the "Free Market" believers just shut the fuck up?

      It doesn't seem likely, nor do I necessarily believe that they should, however, it might be nice when offering personal advice to an individual if they did so based on the actual tactical situation on the ground, rather than on the fantasy that their ideal free market actually currently exists.

      You have to match the solution set to the problem , and not to what you wish the problem was.

      KFG

    12. Re:Sheesh! by Monchauxx · · Score: 1

      I agree with you, situations like this are awful.

      If only the employer were upfront about the hours required from its employees, then this situation wouldn't be so bad. But EA didn't, they lied to the new hires.

      In a free market, the courts are there help you if you've been wronged by your employer. And that's what you are seeing happen today with EAs class action lawsuit.

      We shouldn't be forcing any type of regulation or unionization on EA. You may see some short term benefits, but over the longterm, its only going to harm the gaming industry.

      Lets allow adults to decide for themselves under what conditions they want to work. If one person takes advantage of another. Let them solve it through the courts.

    13. Re:Sheesh! by hyphz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Exactly. This is the basic thing which people refuse to see, because seeing it would be too horrible for them to contemplate:

      In many industries, free enterprise is now dead.

      The entry costs have risen far too high and the established businesses are so well-grounded that no new entrant has any hope of competing - or at least, they might have a slender hope, but nobody's going to invest the required amount on the basis of a slender hope.

      Some argue that free enterprise exists as long as they have the "right" to start a business, or are "free" to do so. But the freedom to do something that is sure to fail and have negative consequences is not freedom at all. If it was, any US citizen would be "free" to shoot people, because they CAN pull the trigger on the gun; it's just a bad idea and will have negative consequences.

      Socialism may have been a horrible failure but its final criticism of capitalism stands: that the capitalist process inevitably results in something like this happening eventually, and when it does the system basically becomes a socialism anyway except the corrupt people running it are a bunch of corporation heads instead of a government with accountability. So capitalism was never a sustainable choice: it was always socialism now or socialism later.

    14. Re:Sheesh! by Hatta · · Score: 1

      If this weak, whiny mockery is the best counterargument you can come up with to the idea that people should just not work for bad employers, you're not gonna win any converts.

      If the choice is between working for a bad employer or not working at all, it's hard to blame them for choosing work. Because there's a competetive advantage to not paying your employees what they're worth, every self-interested good capitalist will do so. Therefore in the absence of government intervention, there will be no "good employers". This is a fundamental flaw in capitalism, and instead of patching it with state power we should be looking for alternative ways of organizing the economy.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    15. Re:Sheesh! by EvilNight · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Understand that the USA isn't strictly a free market economy. There's entirely too much governmental meddling going on, some of it good, most of it bad. There are a hell of a lot of ways to abuse the system and get away with it, and few people know better ways to do it than fat cat PHBs who have been practicing it for decades.

      The people hailing free market are right, it does work. It's just that the reality of the world's economy isn't strictly free market, so while the idea is a good one, the implementations leave a lot to be desired.

      Their best bet in this case is a class action lawsuit (which they will easily win, because the kinds of abuse they are taking cannot be legally invalidated away by signing any number of waivers) and a tech labor union to prevent this sort of thing from happening in the future.

      The amount of sheer power an IT labor union would wield is terrifying to think about. Anyone who has worked in system administration and programming can testify to exactly how fragile computers and networks are, and how quickly they crumble without constant management. Take away that management for even a day and the company is taking a real risk that a single problem can sink them. Take it away for a week or two, and the network is gone. Oops. Good luck hiring replacements... any network of sufficient complexity requires a significant lead time to acclimate a newcomer, regardless of how good the documentation is (and docs are typically incomplete).

      Yeah, a tech union would be a heavyweight. Now if someone can just figure out how to make it work where people shift jobs, careers, and states every few years... that's a tough decentralization problem.

      --
      Hell is being intelligent in a world full of idiots.
    16. Re:Sheesh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So people who have some degree of faith in the free market are supporters of slavery?

      Have you seen that graphic that's been floating around showing how the states that voted Republican kinda-sorta roughly coincide with the slave states of the 19th century? I bet you (and all the tards who modded you up) though it was really insightful.

      People like you make sensible, moderate socialists look bad.

    17. Re:Sheesh! by khallow · · Score: 1

      While the free market arguments have been done to death here, it is strange that people fail to deal with a bad employment situation even though they have the power to do so. Getting a new job isn't the only way to improve your lot.

    18. Re:Sheesh! by chill · · Score: 1

      If the choice is between working for a bad employer or not working at all, it's hard to blame them for choosing work. Because there's a competetive advantage to not paying your employees what they're worth, every self-interested good capitalist will do so. Therefore in the absence of government intervention, there will be no "good employers". This is a fundamental flaw in capitalism, and instead of patching it with state power we should be looking for alternative ways of organizing the economy.

      You completely ignored option #3 -- the same option most Americans have already taken. Small business or self-employment. Small businesses create two-thirds of new private sector jobs in America, employ more than half of all workers, and account for more than half of the output of our economy. [sba.gov]

      There will be "good employers" in the absence of government intervention, you are just looking in the wrong place.

      -Charles

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    19. Re:Sheesh! by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because there's a competetive advantage to not paying your employees what they're worth

      Due to this flaw in your logic, the rest of your argument is moot.

      SOME companies may feel it is an advantage to screw their employees, but it normally comes back to haunt them. For example, they get sued. (Ahem.)

      MANY companies, like the one I've chosen to work for, understand that if you have good employees, you treat them well, and they will produce for you. This is also a competitive advantage.

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    20. Re:Sheesh! by pthisis · · Score: 1

      Well, when 99 out of 100 employers are bad and you have to eat...

      That would suck. But either it's not the case, or I've been incredibly lucky. Having worked 7 different jobs, I've only had 1 bad employer--and that was one of the 2 summer high school jobs I've worked.

      The college programming job and the 4 serious programming jobs I've held over the last 7 years have all been for basically good employers--one of them was overseas (for 4 months--I left to return stateside), the others were multi-year jobs in the US. They may have been hard-nosed or stupid in some areas, but nothing unreasonable.

      I HAVE turned down jobs where the working conditions didn't look good, but that's 2 jobs total (and I can't really say for sure that they would have been bad employers, but enough flags were raised that I turned them down).

      --
      rage, rage against the dying of the light
    21. Re:Sheesh! by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1
      For example, they get sued.

      And that's why we need tort reform. So that businesses that do this sort of thing only have to recompense the employee and have no punative damages to pay that might prevent them from doing so in the future. So that managers can continue practicing their love for their employees all accross this great nation.

      --
      That is all.
    22. Re:Sheesh! by LaCosaNostradamus · · Score: 1

      No matter how bad the working conditions are, "at will" employment isn't slavery.

      The phrase "wage slavery" must have never hit your ears before. You have essentially admitted the extent of your own ignorance. Go read some books and come back when you're educated on the topics you are speaking out on.

      --
      [You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
    23. Re:Sheesh! by j-turkey · · Score: 1
      The entry costs have risen far too high and the established businesses are so well-grounded that no new entrant has any hope of competing - or at least, they might have a slender hope, but nobody's going to invest the required amount on the basis of a slender hope.

      Translation: We're too lazy to work hard and start our own businesses. We're too lazy to try and raise the capital necessary. We're entitled to something more and we don't want to work hard for it...or it could be: I worked for some small startups who failed, and tried to start one that failed, therefore nobody can do it.

      People start small businesses every day. Most of them fail. Some of them prosper. It's always worked this way. Sure, if you want to start a tier 1 ISP, you're going to need capital that's beyond the reach of most mere mortals' bank accounts. Does that mean that the system is hosed? No.

      I also think that believing that government officials are more accountable than "corrupt" businesses is just insane. Federal personnel data shows that just 434 civilian federal workers were fired for poor performance in 2001. This is 434 out of how many? Hundreds of thousands? That's a piss-poor record. What are these federal workers accountable for? Certainly not the bottom line...and while the bottom line may not be the fairest metric, it's a start.

      You offer absolutely no evidence that capitalism is less sustainable than socialism. We've got a standard of living in the USA that tends to show that your antecdotal evidence is just wrong. Sure, there is income disparity -- but that's part of the point of capitalism. There's nothing wrong with the fact that some people (for example, Bill Gates) have unimaginable amounts of money. That's his perogative...and if you want that, fine -- go after it. Good luck. If you don't, then don't.

      No system is perfectly fair, and this one is certainly no exception. I'll never deny that. However, I think that you'll have to work a little harder to prove that it hasn't worked. You can try and point to things like the strong Euro and the weakening dollar, but you're going to have to come up with more than just short term trends...can't draw much from those. Thus far, you've come up with antecdotal evidence, and weak evidence at that. There are some good arguments for socialism (if there weren't, it wouldn't exist) -- you're just not hitting on them.

      --

      -Turkey

    24. Re:Sheesh! by Bull999999 · · Score: 1

      and when it does the system basically becomes a socialism anyway except the corrupt people running it are a bunch of corporation heads instead of a government with accountability.

      Government of accountability? Yeah like government officals are not capable of becoming corrupted.

      So capitalism was never a sustainable choice: it was always socialism now or socialism later.

      I saw three socialist cadidates on the ballet for the last election. Do you honestly believe that the socialists will be taken seriously when they can't even agree with themselves? And can you tell me what's preventing the European countries from having truely socailistic governments?

      --
      1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
    25. Re:Sheesh! by Bull999999 · · Score: 1

      I'm sure the venture capitalists will help us out with that, right?

      Why does acheving your goals always depend on someone else? There are plenty of independent companies and indivisuals out there that make software. I'm in Colorado and do you know how much it costs to incorporate here? $50.00. I've known many small business owners who've started out with almost nothing.

      --
      1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
    26. Re:Sheesh! by doinky · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and we're still in the days where one programmer can start a game company. Give me a break. Modulo Chris Sawyer, the industry doesn't work that way anymore.

    27. Re:Sheesh! by Bull999999 · · Score: 1

      Federal personnel data shows that just 434 civilian federal workers were fired for poor performance in 2001. [cato.org] This is 434 out of how many? Hundreds of thousands? That's a piss-poor record.

      I used to know someone who works for the IRS in the small business support deportment. She told me that there are reps there who literally cuss at the customers over the phone because they know that I won't be fired.

      --
      1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
    28. Re:Sheesh! by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1

      I can count on one hand the number of executive level people I've seen fired. What is your point?

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    29. Re:Sheesh! by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1
      Small businesses operate at a strategic disadvantage as compared to big business in both the market and regulatory environment. They will NEVER be able to pay you what a larger company could pay you, they can't muscle suppliers, manipulate markets, or finagle the legal process.

      To work in small business you have to be content to operate in one of the niche scraps of the market that are not worth the effort of the big dogs. I spend months working on a business plan, developing technology, and hobnobbing with clients to start a business selling wireless internet access in small coffee shops.

      All of that effort was flushed down the toilet by a single announcement that the city was contracting with some (nameless corp) to supply free or low cost wireless internet access throughout the city.

      They have a grand total of 3 for-pay access points in a year. But no coffee shop owners, especially in the high volume shops in Center City, want to hear about setting up metered access. They fear sinking a couple of hundred buck only to have it ignored by folks surfing on a larger system.

      It's tough to come up with a business plan that is a) profitable but b) not going to be eaten alive by a larger company as soon as it looks promising.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    30. Re:Sheesh! by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1
      I'm not worried about government meddling in the market.

      I'm scared shitless about the manner in which the market meddles with government. Go ahead. Try to bid on a government project. Unless your company is a division of BLAH (Boeing, Lockhead, Accenture, or Haliburton), you are wasting your time.

      You see, you aren't proven in the market place. While you provide excellent cost justifications, and your bid is a fraction of what these mega-corps are proposing, we would rather put up with cost overruns, delays, and mistakes from them.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    31. Re:Sheesh! by hyphz · · Score: 1

      > Translation: We're too lazy to work hard and
      > start our own businesses.

      Ah, yes, the classic assumption that anyone who complains isn't working hard enough. Funny how you have no evidence whatsoever of it. Funny how some people, in particular farmers, work harder than any entrepreneur and still seem to be paid much less.

      > We're too lazy to try and raise the capital
      > necessary.

      It's not a question of laziness, it's a question of possibility. You try writing a business plan for a computer gaming company these days that would get any attention from investors. Either you do the same thing existing firms do, in which case they win because they started first, or you do something different, in which case they win because there is a good reason why they do what they do.

      I haven't worked for a small firm, but I have seem plenty of small game development houses run into the ground because they can't get distribution. No-one wants to distribute your product unless you advertise and to advertise you have to outbid the existing big boys for magazine space (no, a few banner ads won't cut it) which by definition you can't do. We won't even get into the fact that you're locked out of the console market as a start-up because console firms are paranoid and are "alright jack" without you.

      > People start small businesses every day. Most
      > of them fail. Some of them prosper. It's
      > always worked this way.

      No, it hasn't always been the case that most of them fail.

      They're mostly failing now because the conditions for startups have gotten worse. This is because, as time passes, the winners win bigger and the relatively start position of the new entrants gets further and further back.

      On the current trend, the failure rate will hit 100% at some time. Do you have any evidence that the trend will alter?

      > I also think that believing that government
      > officials are more accountable than "corrupt"
      > businesses is just insane.

      I didn't say that. I said that the people running a socialism always wind up corrupt (as we know) and that monopoly company directors are no less corrupt that socialist governments.

      > You offer absolutely no evidence that
      > capitalism is less sustainable than socialism.
      > We've got a standard of living in the USA that
      > tends to show that your antecdotal evidence is
      > just wrong.

      Sure, no doubt about that. But that doesn't necessarily mean that capitalism is still working. Capitalism gets you up to a high standard of living while it is working, as indeed it has done. But when the markets become solved, the socialist elements cut in and things start to level off rather fast. You can see that happening in several areas now. Why haven't we moved beyond the computer yet?

      > Sure, there is income disparity -- but that's
      > part of the point of capitalism.

      I wasn't complaining about income disparity. The point I was trying to make was that sooner or later free enterprise must die.

      It is a horrible paradox that capitalism ensures that people get what they want. Yet, if someone already has all they want, there is nothing you can sell them. So sooner or later, if the standard of living increases to raise, we will kill free enterprise because there will be no scope to raise it any higher within a viable business model.

      Think about it. A core basis of capitalism is competition. But, what happens when the competition is won? Once it is won, the competition is over, and you lose all the benefits it was giving you. But if you try to rig it so that it can't be won, nobody will want to compete, because they can't win.

      Look at MMO games which have exactly this problem with their PvP areas, except it happens faster. Why should capitalism's competition be any different? It's just slower and does more good for as long as it lasts.

      > and weak evidence at that. There are some good
      > argumen

    32. Re:Sheesh! by Macgrrl · · Score: 1

      But the freedom to do something that is sure to fail and have negative consequences is not freedom at all.

      To quote from "Going Postal" by Terry Pratchett:

      'Exactly,' said Lord Vetinari. 'There is always a choice.'

      'You mean ... I could choose certain death?'

      'A choice, nonetheless,' said Vetinari. 'Or, perhaps, an alternative. You see, I believe in freedom, Mr Lipwig. Not many people do, although they will of course protest otherwise. And no practical definition of freedom would be complete without the freedom to take the consequences. Indeed, it is the freedom upon which all the others are based.'

      --
      Sara
      Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
  32. Yeah. by Renraku · · Score: 5, Interesting

    While I don't have much against a free market, this is clearly abuse. We take skilled workers, and treat them like shit. People that are great programmers, talented minds, etc. We run them through the dirt and then don't even have the common courtesy to give them overtime.

    My father is a construction worker. 5 or 6 years ago, his company started pulling the same thing. He would go in at 8am, and not get home until 10pm or 11pm each night. Sometimes on Saturdays. They did, however, get overtime.

    A month of this went by. People were tired. They were cranky. Accidents happened at work all the time, usually involving equipment damage or damage to whatever they were working on. They just didn't get much done in a 14 hour day.

    Thankfully, the management saw what was going on and when that job was completed later that month, everyone was given a big bonus, an apology, and promises that they weren't going to set their 'completion dates' that low again.

    It was depressing to watch my dad come in, after a 12 or 14 hour day, eat, shower, and go to bed, knowing that in a few hours, he'd have to be right back at work for another 12 to 14 hours. It was barely worth it in my opinion, even with overtime.

    EA's shit should be a warning to other companies of what not to do.

    --
    Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
    1. Re:Yeah. by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 1

      While I don't have much against a free market, this is clearly abuse. We take skilled workers, and treat them like shit. People that are great programmers, talented minds, etc. We run them through the dirt and then don't even have the common courtesy to give them overtime.

      Abuse? No. These people don't have to work for companies that do this.

      However, is it a stupid move on the part of EA? An incredibly short-sighted way of handling their employees that will come back to haunt them? ABSOLUTELY.

      That is the beauty of the free market.

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    2. Re:Yeah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Abuse? No. These people don't have to work for companies that do this.

      That assumption is simply not real everywhere. In some places (maybe not in the USA but overseas) people HAVE to work in companies like that, or suffer from not having a job at all. That's free market for you.

    3. Re:Yeah. by LaCosaNostradamus · · Score: 1

      These people don't have to work for companies that do this. [...] That is the beauty of the free market.

      You are so correct! Another beauty of the free market is that when said worker gets into financial trouble, like all the corporations in his area he can just threaten to leave, hence his city council will give him tax breaks. He can also repatriate as a Bermudan citizen, while still living here in America, thus avoiding even more tax. Yes, the "free market" is truly wonderful and oh-so-applicable to the working man!

      --
      [You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
    4. Re:Yeah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but remember, manangement learned from the mistake and even made ammends for doing it in the first place. thats pretty nice of them. it is one thing to be demanding for a deadline, it is another to realize it wasnt a good idea, and even go and make sure everyone knows it. managmenet doesnt like to admit they were wrong, but they did and even made up for it.

      that is a quality company, although temporarily it would suck.

  33. First volunteers, now employees? by vapid+transit · · Score: 1

    Oh, EA...will you ever learn? I'm referring, of course, to the recent incident in which ex-volunteers from Ultima Online sued EA and won.

  34. 2x /.ing, ouch by pdawson · · Score: 1

    Poor LiveJournal, facing a slashdotting two days in a row.

    1. Re:2x /.ing, ouch by Byzandula · · Score: 1

      Yeah but it's mostly just text. Even modest connections could serve loads of text to the hoards of /.ers.

      And the Lord sayeth "Go forth and multiply ... your bandwidth".

  35. Libertarianism at its worst by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This wonderful AC just pointed out the glaring flaw in libertarian economic theory. That the free market is the solution to all corporate ills. So basically, we're supposed to wait years or decades for a large corporation to suffer the consequences of its own bad policies for the market to finally convince it to change its ways. In the meantime, hundreds or thousands of employees and or customers are hurt because enacting faster moving regulation would be seen as "hindering" economic activity.

    Absolutely WE-TODD-IT is what libertarians are.

    --
    Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
    1. Re:Libertarianism at its worst by claytongulick · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Nope, under a libertarian society there would be so much extra money from the decreased taxation that the economy would be massive, with plenty of jobs for anyone who wanted one. That allows for the freedom to pick your employer. Also, corporate revenues would be much higher without paying 50% or more to tax, so they could afford to higher more people etc...

      I'm not saying it would work out like that, but it sounds a damn site better than what we have now.

      Also, if I wasn't paying 50% of my paycheck to taxes, I could afford to actually have a savings account to see me through periods of unemployment.

      If I had 50k in the bank, I'd feel alot better about saying "screw this, I'm going to find something better".

      Also products would be much cheaper with the lower taxes, we would see prices lowered, families able to live comforably on 30k per year etc...

      Utopia? Thats the general idea.

      Will never work you say?

      It did once, way back when this country was first started.

      What was it that caused the US to become the most powerful economic force in the world in under 100 years?

      Legislation? Democracy?

      No... it was a simple tenent that had never been tried before anywhere:

      Hands off.

      The libertarians aren't trying to do anything "new" or "radical". They are simply trying to get the nation to go back to a system that worked phenomenally well. It is proven. It works. There is no question. The fact that the US is the powerful nation that it is today is absolute proof of that.

      Legislation and taxation and welfare states are what destroy nations time and time again. Again, history shows us this unequivicably. Rome to the USSR.

      Concepts such as those that the Libertarians hold are the only thing that can save this nation, and save us from the types of abuses that you see going on at EA.

      --
      Drinking habits can be dangerous. You can choke on the cloth and the nuns will wonder where their clothes are.
    2. Re:Libertarianism at its worst by Shajenko42 · · Score: 1
      Nope, under a libertarian society there would be so much extra money from the decreased taxation that the economy would be massive, with plenty of jobs for anyone who wanted one.
      What, you think _you'd_ get the money that didn't get taxed? Hell no. That goes to your employer, not you. In any tight labor market (and in an unregulated market, employers can make sure it stays that way), employers have carte blanche to cut wages all they like. And in less stringent times, they can just wait for inflation to do the work. Thus, an employer can turn your tax cut into his wage reduction.
      Also, corporate revenues would be much higher without paying 50% or more to tax, so they could afford to higher more people etc...
      Yeah, because they're hurting so much right now. Corporations don't hire people just because they've got extra money laying around. They hire people because they have no choice. Because they couldn't get what they want done without doing so. And if they can just work the employees they have twice as hard, then they will, because it means they don't have to hire more people.
    3. Re:Libertarianism at its worst by Shajenko42 · · Score: 1
      So basically, we're supposed to wait years or decades for a large corporation to suffer the consequences of its own bad policies for the market to finally convince it to change its ways.
      It might not happen even then. Corporations that commit these kinds of crimes usually won't do so unless there's a lot of money to be made, and that money can be used for marketting (lies), to keep the general public from learning the truth.
    4. Re:Libertarianism at its worst by phaln · · Score: 1

      Wow. Worst misunderstanding of Libertarian precepts that I've seen in oh, probably 2-3 years.

      --
      SNACKS ARE AWESOME
    5. Re:Libertarianism at its worst by claytongulick · · Score: 1

      What, you think _you'd_ get the money that didn't get taxed? Hell no. That goes to your employer, not you. In any tight labor market (and in an unregulated market, employers can make sure it stays that way), employers have carte blanche to cut wages all they like. And in less stringent times, they can just wait for inflation to do the work. Thus, an employer can turn your tax cut into his wage reduction.

      Yep, if I weren't paying over 50% of my paycheck to taxes, I would get that money. Do I think that my employer would pass their tax savings that on to me?

      Yep.

      Contrary to what radical socialists believe, employers do mostly have common sense. Every company I have ever worked for (except when I was in the military) had some sort of profit sharing/bonus system.

      One company I worked for would take all the employess to Atlantic City for dinner/partying with open bar, and give everyone $100 to gamble with. They did this every time they had a good quarter. And yes, I'm a programmer too.

      Companies like EA are the exception rather than the rule, most companies respect and highly value their employees.

      Companies that abuse their employees lose them, and go out of business.

      Throwing a bunch of legislation around only serves the legislators.

      The only people who win in a police state are the police.

      I get very frustrated every time some corporate abuse surfaces when everyone starts pointing and yelling "See! If the Libertarians make it the whole world will be like that!"

      Thats the same mentality that says if we didn't have a law against killing someone everyone would me murderers. Utter nonsense, but for some reason people believe it.

      --
      Drinking habits can be dangerous. You can choke on the cloth and the nuns will wonder where their clothes are.
    6. Re:Libertarianism at its worst by jaydee77ca · · Score: 1

      To expand on the point, Judge Learned Hand wrote in The Spirit of Liberty:

      "I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon Constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it."

      Murder is not wrong because it is illegal, but illegal because society believes it is wrong.

      So long as people believe that the exploitation of other people (workers or otherwise) in society is acceptable no law or regulation will be able to correct it.

    7. Re:Libertarianism at its worst by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The general public doesn't need to know the truth. The only people who need to know are the employees who choose to continue to work there rather than leave and the board members who will question how they expect to keep making their quarterly profits when their best programmers keep leaving. Everything the public needs to know is reflected in the price they pay for the product.

    8. Re:Libertarianism at its worst by eclectro · · Score: 1

      The problem with your theory is that corporations see employees as an "expense" that needs to be minimized, rather than a resource to enhance. People by nature are selfish, and that goes for corporations that are run by people. This has been the same since the beginning of time.

      So, if a corporation was not taxed, would that money go to the employee or getting more employees?? Of course not.

      Your theory would work if there was such a thing as "corporate morality," but sadly as we see everyday this is not the case (Enron and Worldcomm come to mind).

      Which really goes to prove that those who buy the Libertarian philosophy are truly blithering idiots.

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    9. Re:Libertarianism at its worst by jaydee77ca · · Score: 1

      "People by nature are selfish, and that goes for corporations that are run by people."

      I fail to see how the solution is to put those same people in charge of a government regulatory machine where they can weild even more power.

      Keep in mind that the workers here are, quite rightfully, following their own self-interest as well.

      Libertarianism recognizes the fact that individuals will follow their own interests and seeks to balance that through free choice. It also seeks to prevent one individual or group from having the ability to impose their interests on others whether it be through corporate ownership or government power.

    10. Re:Libertarianism at its worst by Shajenko42 · · Score: 1
      I get very frustrated every time some corporate abuse surfaces when everyone starts pointing and yelling "See! If the Libertarians make it the whole world will be like that!"
      Why don't I trust employers to act ethically? Because there was a time before they had any sort of significant restraint, and they were incredibly abusive. Look up "Company Towns", and you'll see what I mean.
      Thats the same mentality that says if we didn't have a law against killing someone everyone would me murderers. Utter nonsense, but for some reason people believe it.
      Not everyone, but there would be a lot more people killing each other. And when companies are free to do whatever they want, they'll do whatever increases their profits, and when you're not an uber-elite programmer that you apparently are, that often involves abusing the workers.
    11. Re:Libertarianism at its worst by mutterc · · Score: 1
      The real problem in lassiez-faire free-market capitalism can be seen by picking up an Econ 101 textbook and looking up the definition of "free market".

      Notice how many of the criteria for a free market are missing from the U.S., like low barriers to entry, informed and rational comsumers, etc.

      In short, even getting rid of all regulations would not lead to an idealized free-market situation. Take the "rational comsumers" criterion. I would love to not buy products from companies that exploited employees, polluted, etc. However, that would turn each shopping trip into a MAJOR research exercise. Heck, trying to figure out who exactly actually made a particular product can be difficult to impossible!

    12. Re:Libertarianism at its worst by version5 · · Score: 1

      > if I wasn't paying 50% of my paycheck to taxes,
      > I could afford to actually have a savings account

      Probably not. If everyone's taxes are reduced, they do end up with more cash in their pocket, but unfortunately, the market compensates for that by raising prices. Its the same way with your assertion that higher corporate profits across the board lead to expansion and more jobs. If all companies had higher profits, you would find that the market would adjust, causing their operating costs to rise along with their profits. For example, a company that's flush with cash from lower taxes and eager to hire would find that every other company had the same idea, causing wages to rise, which sounds good for the workers until you realize that wages are going up for everyone, and when everyone has more cash, companies raise prices.

      --

      "It's Dot Com!"

    13. Re:Libertarianism at its worst by 2old2rockNroll · · Score: 2, Informative

      Also, corporate revenues would be much higher without paying 50% or more to tax, so they could afford to higher more people etc...

      Many of the wealthiest corportations pay no tax except for the matching Social Security contribution for U.S. employees. When they outsource those jobs, they pay nothing. So cutting taxes for corporations is a meaningless excercise -- half of zero is still zero. Some companies now appear to have negative tax rates, i.e., corporate welfare.

    14. Re:Libertarianism at its worst by mobby_6kl · · Score: 1

      Nope, that's only a part of the libertarian idea. Of course, you are free to leave if you don't like something, but you are also able to defend yourself. In this case this would mean suing the employer for violation of contract or agreement. Besides, almost anyone on /. knows that game development often requires a lot of hard work and overtime, so somebody going into such a job should know what they might face.

    15. Re:Libertarianism at its worst by prell · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind that this trust in the free market is not the first or only step in most LP plans and literature. I do not believe that companies are solely to blame for the ills discussed here; I believe that our government and society is set up in such a way that the market is warped not in favor of what is truly the free market -- individual people with services and objects to trade -- but in favor of growing companies to ridiculous sizes and then attempting to maintain their existence indefinitely, in order to maintain a huge GDP. It shows in how we measure our economy these days: regular updates of "consumer confidence" -- how much money people are willing to give away. The economy should be based on (and the concept of a market was founded on) people enjoying providing things for other people. Money is a placeholder for services and objects that one party does not want (e.g. I can provide you with chairs, but I don't need your ladders, so you give me money).

      The economy is also set up in such a way that, rather than individuals seeking groups that can provide them with an environment in which they can best provide their skills, individuals seek companies that will "take care of them" the best: insurance of all types; tax breaks and retirement investment; guaranteed employment; etc. This makes you dependent on the company, and is an almost invisible, yet very substantial, step in giving up your rights as a participant in the market and becoming a total consumer in the most vulgar sense.

      This has been a process that has metastasized over centuries, but mostly since the industrial revolution. It happens in front of us and we're blind to it. We subconsciouly accept that it's "the way things are," and we consciously fight against the wrong targets. We want the government to protect us form off-shoring. Let the market do what it naturally will do. If we don't, we'll be stuck in a long-term trend of economic degradation or retardation, for even when other countries raise their standards of living, some will have truly freer markets.

      The government is complicit in this distortion as well. After all, who literally controls money? Far too often, representatives of the government do things that are in the interests of companies or those in power in government rather than things that are necessary to protect the citizens of the home nation. I think right now we are seeing a concerning conflation and example of this in the actions of the US in the middle east region. Government agencies are effectively neutered (SEC) or erratic and irresponsible (EPA), and many times are involved in the violations they were established to prevent or punish for. Remember that if the government is involved, they're usually exempt from prosecution. Consider our recent elections: offshoring protection and re-importation (RE-importation) of prescription drugs were dangled before our faces like carrots so that the candidates could brush more votes into their anonymous dustbins.

      So, rather than a truly free market that is "owned" or controlled or driven by individuals, we have a market that is deceptively free, but in actuality is controlled by those in power positions in companies (who are nothing more than other individuals who have seen their positions change from someone who wisely puts real workers to good and happy use, to positions only of money and power, with the prior tasks being shifted downward and forgotten), facilitated by our government. I believe that while we're used to powerful-sounding one-liners in politics (i.e. minimal reading; bite-size beliefs given to you by others rather than you coming to conclusions on your own), much LP literature does not take this approach: though their conclusions may sound powerful, they're based on clear wisdom and reason -- something that seems shocking in such a watered-down, anxious culture. The driving ambition of the LP is that the power belongs in our hands; each of us as individuals.

      "The Matrix is a system, Neo. That sy

    16. Re:Libertarianism at its worst by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Recent research has demonstrated that fully informed and rational consumers are not a requirement for the successful operation of a free market. The claim that a free market requires low barriers to entry is just false. A free market requires no artificial (i.e. government) barriers to entry.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  36. Good for them by DeVilla · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Last night I was scanning EA's site trying to find a contact address of some sort so I could ask them to publicly address the message from the employee's spouce. I never found an address, but a lawsuit is more likely to get a serious response anyhow.

    EA was one of the best companies that made games for the C64. However, as a gamer, I would have no problem boycotting them now, until they start treating their human resources like people. I would assume this sort of thing is how they destroyed Origin Systems. In any case, I don't need games developed in a sweat shop.

    1. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      EA has been shit for the last 4 years. I continue to get burned (god why do I keep buyin their games) because the demo's appear to be good. Time after time they are bug ridden garbage though where a patch takes 2-3 months to finally fix bugs.

      Example: BF 1942, BF Vietnam, ROTK, Medal of Honor, etc...

      Rushed releases, pressured employees and yet they can't get the game right or treat their employees in a civil manner. GG EA!

    2. Re:Good for them by StarTux · · Score: 1

      Switch to Linux! Thats how to boycott them ;).

      Seriously though, often wondered why Origin went down, they made great games...Now I may see a reason.

      StarTux

    3. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Instead of sending email, send a letter to the CEO or to some members of the board, and get the address from the SEC website, out of their 10k filing. It will have a much larger effect.

    4. Re:Good for them by DeVilla · · Score: 1
      Switch to Linux! Thats how to boycott them ;).

      Been there. Done that. "My name is Edd and I'm a gamer. um... well... I used to be." But boycotting them on Linux might mean not getting EA's console games or not buying "Medal of Honor: Allied Assault", but they would just use that as a statistic that Linux sucks.

    5. Re:Good for them by Minwee · · Score: 1
      This is not your father's Electronic Arts.

      It's sad to think that EA was founded by programmers who were tired of being faceless drones at a big corporation and wanted to start their own company which would give them the recognition they deserved.

      It would be ironic (and a little bit confusing, since there already is a company using that name) if some of EA's top people left in protest of this kind of crap and founded a small studio called 'Atari'.

  37. This is good news for workers' rights by photovoltaics · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's about time we stood up as a unit. The spouse's story sounds all too familiar. For nearly three years, I worked seventy and eighty hours weeks-- several times per month at one position. I don't know if management realizes how badly this has become. I don't believe this is necessary to continue this way. One thing not mentioned in the EA spouse's letter was how difficult it is to get another job while you're in the middle of an eighty hour work week. Your options seem much more limited than the reality of the situation. Thanks again to the EA spouse and /. for getting this message out there.

    1. Re:This is good news for workers' rights by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      It's about time we stood up as a unit.

      Something Viagra can help with :-)

  38. Exempt is Exempt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How is this not an open-and-shut case?

    If the employees were exempt, they were exempt. Sure, it sucks to be overworked to the point of exhaustion, but the law is the law.

    1. Re:Exempt is Exempt by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      They aren't earning the required $90000 p.a. to be exempt.

    2. Re:Exempt is Exempt by stratjakt · · Score: 1

      They just hope to get the case heard by an ultra-liberal activist judge who thinks all laws are subjective.

      Maybe they'll cite the constitutional right to "live out your childhood fantasy of getting riduculously rich by screwing around with video games all day"

      Working for a bad employer sucks, but a company the size of EA has a squadron of lawyers to make sure they're within the letter of the law.

      I had an anecdote related to me from someone who recently quit the HR department of some large corporation I cant remember the name of.

      Apparently, it was part of their "unwritten" policy to pre-write termination memos and stuff for every single employee, with generic terms like "insubordination" as the reasons. They basically fed a list of employees through a Word template every month.

      This way, they could fire Sally for announcing she's pregnant, since her termination was actually decided on months before she told anyone she was pregnant. Basically it's a preemptive measure against any sort of wrongful termination suit.

      I once worked in a cubicle under the biggest asshole manager in recorded history. His idea of "inspiring us" was to, each and every morning, walk out, tell us to stop working and listen, and announce that each and every one of us was replacable.

      We had it easy, the guys back in the factory worked under some of the worst conditions I'd seen. Temperatures back there would be like 120 in the summer, and the whole place wound up thick with this dust that would just make you itch for days.

      That story has a happy ending, though. One morning, he announced again that "each and every one of you is replacable". Each and every one of us walked out.

      It was a small enough town to get word around what an awful place it was to work. About three months later the place was gone.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    3. Re:Exempt is Exempt by Xardion · · Score: 1

      The thing is, they AREN'T exempt. EA's HR department is just trying to convince them and everyone else that they are. Unless you are making $40/hour plus (about $90k per year, which you can guarantee those guys aren't making) and/or in a management position with enough autonomy to be responsible for determining your own schedule, you are NOT exempt from overtime pay. The courts, if the class is certified, will determine this rather quickly, and EA will find that it doesn't pay to treat your employees like a disposable resource.

    4. Re:Exempt is Exempt by DaFallus · · Score: 1

      I don't know where everyone is getting their information on the requirements for "exempt" status, but I was actually researching this the other day and I stumbled across this. It is the Fair Labor Standards Act fact sheet. It states that "Exempt computer employees may be paid at least $455 on a salary basis or on an hourly basis at a rate not less than $27.63 an hour."

      Also interesting is "Being paid on a "salary basis" means an employee regularly receives a predetermined amount of compensation each pay period on a weekly, or less frequent, basis. The predetermined amount cannot be reduced because of variations in the quality or quantity of the employee's work."

      --
      No one cares what your captcha was

      Houston TX, USA
    5. Re:Exempt is Exempt by BengalsUF · · Score: 1

      In this case, the information is coming from the California Labor Code.

  39. Game Industry Union? by wooby · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It sounds to me like there needs to be some alliance or union of game industry workers. Is there such a thing? Problems like ridiculous hours were solved a hundred years ago by the introduction of unions in other industries.

    1. Re:Game Industry Union? by weeboo0104 · · Score: 1

      There already is a union for communication tech workers. From what I understand, they are all for other technology workers organizing.

      http://www.cwa-union.org

      --
      It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men. -Frederick Douglass
    2. Re:Game Industry Union? by LegionX · · Score: 1

      I definitely had flashbacks of when we learned about the industrial evolution in europe.. two centuries ago..

    3. Re:Game Industry Union? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pfft bahahah.

      "Problems like ridiculous hours were solved a hundred years ago"

      bahahahahaha. man. you crack me up.

    4. Re:Game Industry Union? by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 1

      Problems like ridiculous hours were solved a hundred years ago by the introduction of unions in other industries.

      Introducing new problems, such as your slacker co-worker making as much as you, doing half as much. And, my favorite, "You can't push that cart here, this is a union-only place. (Me) OK, where can I find someone to push it. (Them) They're on break. Come back in an hour."

      Yee-haw.

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    5. Re:Game Industry Union? by LPetrazickis · · Score: 1

      Out of curiosity, do you actually know how much your slacker coworkers make?

      --
      Is this a sigs-optional kind of place? 'Cause I am totally down with that if you know what I mean.
  40. Yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anything that hurts Electronic Arts can only benefit the gaming community.

  41. Artists Only by MobileOak · · Score: 2, Informative
    This lawsuit only applies to artists, not programmers.

    From the article:

    The lawsuit alleges that EA improperly classified some of its employees, including 'animators,' 'modelers,' 'texture artists,' 'lighters,' 'background effects artists' and 'environmental artists' as exempt from overtime, and therefore failed to pay those employees overtime compensation.


    So the programmers at EA are still out of luck with respect to their own lawsuit. Whether they're exempt or not is probably the crux of the matter.
    ------------
    --
    I have saved some of my Starcraft replays here
  42. They won't win on overtime alone, some tips... by davidwr · · Score: 1

    If they are properly classified as "exempt" from overtime rules, they won't win in federal court, not on overtime alone.

    They might win on religious grounds - many people's religion demands a day of rest. If they get a doctor's note limiting them to 50-60 hour work-weeks to prevent "mental exhaustion," they can win that way. Unfortunately, these are not likely to be class actions. They also might win in state courts.

    They also might win by asking other countries and major retailers to classify EA as a "sweat shop operator." This would hit EA in the pocketbook.

    If it were me, I'd be inviting the AFL-CIO in. Correction - if it were me, I'd've quit or been fired long ago.

    If I were EA, I'd consider either changing my attitude or moving overseas where sweat-shops are legal.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  43. The difference is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...that people that work at EA are software developers that are very likely to find other jobs with relative ease. Coders that work on games are not your typical PHP monkey quaking in fear that their job will be sent to India. People that know system level C/C++ in general have no problems finding positions. I for one, get calls from recruiters every other week.

    If everyone's job prospects were like that, then frankly I would say that the libertarians would be right. But they are not, that is unless you are a system level C/C++ developer.

  44. I think the hacker attitude is to blame by 91degrees · · Score: 1

    For the extreme coders in the audience - remember when you first learned to actually do somethign worthwhile with a PC. Something mathematical and complicated, but looked pretty good?

    I rmemeber. Icould spend an entire night fuelled by caffeine and pizza, hacking code, learning, not wanting to sleep.

    The problem is that a lot of people expect it to continue that way. They think that because they could do that a few yewars ago, they can be as productive now.

    And they're mistaken.

    Work longer, productivity plummets. Brains need rest. People need to realise this.

  45. Long hours at Angel Studios - but no complaints by MarkWatson · · Score: 1

    I was hired about 8 years ago at Angel Studios to do 'game AI' for Nintendo and PC games, and also for some VR stuff for Disney. We worked really long hours to make deliveries but the owners of the company jumped through hoops to make it OK: really good food, lunch time barbecues, lunch time head shavings, etc. Then there was having the use of a $200K SGI Reality Engine :-)

    This story amused me a little because: twice in recent years the human resources people at EA contacted me re: employment. I would have jumped at the opportunity except both times it was to work on sports games. I *hate* playing sports games so I hardly would want to work on them. (I like driving games, and shooter/tactical games are OK also).

    -Mark

    1. Re:Long hours at Angel Studios - but no complaints by mikael · · Score: 2, Funny

      really good food, lunch time barbecues, lunch time head shavings, etc.

      The food part sounds good, but I'd prefer to work for a company that gave me at least 30 minutes of spare time every three months to get a decent haircut. Or do they take missing deadlines really seriously?

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    2. Re:Long hours at Angel Studios - but no complaints by MarkWatson · · Score: 1

      Actually, the long hours were only when there was a real crunch. Same thing as when I worked at SAIC: sometimes long hours are necessary - but, they should not be the norm.

      In my consulting business, I almost never accept "flat rate" jobs - obviously it is best to be paid precisely for hours worked.

      In the case of EA: *if* everyone was paid straight overtime pay, the management would probably try to avoid continued long working hours because people's productivity decreases dramatically if workers are tired.

      Not to go too political here, but: it is an obvious goal of corporitism to get better control over workers - promoting temporary cheap credit to get people in debt, outsourcing (which I am not against), etc. are all useful tools for eliminating most of the middle class and making things more "business friendly". Get used to it - read some William Gibson for a sneak preview of your future :-)

  46. Holy crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I got spammed the other day by a headhunter from EA. She said something along the lines of congratulations, your resume has been submitted to EA and they want you to interview. The thing is, I never submitted my resume there, and it should have been blatantly clear from the "objective" on my resume that the position wasn't what I was looking for. Amusingly, she had sent this same email to a large group and had inadvertently used "cc" instead of "bcc", so we all started talking amongst ourselves and realized that many of us were in the same boat. After reading that other woman's blog about how her husband was abused by EA, it's no wonder they are getting desperate enough to spam for new recruits.

    1. Re:Holy crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please post that spam here, thanks.

    2. Re:Holy crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [NOTE: I've modified the info at the end that would ID the recruiter]

      Subject: Electronic Arts

      Good News! Electronic Arts' studio in Redwood City, CA received your resume and has an
      interest in moving forward with your candidacy for a position at EA developing one our many
      cutting edge games. The first step in the interview process requires you to complete our
      Programming Assessment which will allow us to better determine where you might fit within our
      development organization. If you have an interest in pursing employment at Electronic Arts,
      please reply to this email as soon as possible and I will forward along our assessment to
      begin the candidate process. I look forward to your reply!

      Regards,

      Jane Doe
      Electronic Arts Inc.
      xxxxxxx Recruiting
      209 Redwood Shores Parkway
      Redwood City, Ca. 94065
      xxx-xxx-xxxx (direct)
      xxxxxxxxx@ea.com

  47. Internet Mob by xXunderdogXx · · Score: 1

    This is the first example I've seen of Internet Mob Justice. I like it.

    Anyone have any other examples (prior art) ?

  48. Three other words ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That, and there is likely a term in their employment contract that says they "will not organize". Every software / engineering position I've ever held has had such a clause.

    I'd also like to point out that you cannot spell ExonerAtion without EA.

    1. Re:Three other words ... by Shajenko42 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      That, and there is likely a term in their employment contract that says they "will not organize". Every software / engineering position I've ever held has had such a clause.
      If such a clause was binding, there would be no unions left. But there are a few left.
  49. hideous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    "..Remember, you can't spell ExploitAtion without EA."



    Are you sure he works at EA? He writes like he works for Rockstar's Max Payne team. That's not a good thing.

  50. It's not evil, just bad management. by __aavljf5849 · · Score: 1

    The blog entry describes how people are constantly forced to work longer and longer hours, to be able to meet a deadline. The project starts off as being on track, but then they are forced to put in 6 day weeks. This will make people tired and inefficient, and the project will still only be barely on track, and they then get forced to work 12 hours a day, six days a week.

    At that pressure, emplyees that can leaves for better jobs. A sure way of getting rid of the good people. The rest will be so overworked and tired, that everything they do will be sloppy and bad. People will get grumpy and nobody will enjoy work, thereby getting even less done. And the project will fall further and further behind schedule.

    People shouldn't *sue* EA, they should *leave* for greener pastures. If they can't, they should complain to their boss' boss that they are forced to be inefficient by crappy management. Explain to them that nobody gets richer by having a company full of tired people too sleepy to get real work done.

    And I have a suggestion for a christmas present for the EA managers: One copy each of "The Dilbert Principle". It uses simple language, and has many easy to understand illustrations. Of course, you may have to write "This is you" and draw arrows pointing to the boss for clarity, but it may very well be worth it.

    1. Re:It's not evil, just bad management. by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

      The same was said about destructive cults. The adepts just kept said that God would help them and replace the bad people on the top, because... after all, they were God's chosen.

      So don't just shove it off saying it's "bad management". Evil is evil. Period.

    2. Re:It's not evil, just bad management. by __aavljf5849 · · Score: 1

      "The same was said about destructive cults. The adepts just kept said that God would help them and replace the bad people on the top, because... after all, they were God's chosen."

      Well, of course, that has absolutely no resemblance to anything I said... so, yeah, maybe somebody said that about EA. But I didn't.

  51. More things you can't spell without EA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    * ExcretA
    * fEAr
    * uncErtAinty
    * wEApons (of mass destruction)
    * al qaEda

    coincidence? you tell me.

  52. Thank you Mr. Marx by iceperson · · Score: 1

    Let the revolution begin.

    1. Re:Thank you Mr. Marx by pooh666 · · Score: 1

      Moron. This is just what the powerful want, a large group of stupid consumers who will not question. The Marxism = Communism thing is old and wrong. A post from a while back made a great point, every man for himself is just another way of saying lets just be animals. There have to be some considerable limits to power and that certainly includes how badly a company can treat its employees. That is NOT a self limiting thing as factory work moves from poor country to poor country. China's elite may be booming, but the people working in their factories are living in the 20's. So once again, MORON. You make things worst for all of us by supporting the people who step on you every day. Eric

  53. EA is in california which means exempt is $95k by ad0gg · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Exempted Programmers in california are required $45/hr pay or higher. So EA is obviously paying above ~$94k a year. We aren't talking about low paid employees. I'm sure if they quit, EA would have no problems filling someone at the salary range.

    --

    Have you ever been to a turkish prison?

    1. Re:EA is in california which means exempt is $95k by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are we talking about programmers?

      Testers dont get $45 an hour!

    2. Re:EA is in california which means exempt is $95k by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The exemption that you're referring to excludes people in the entertainment industry, because it is specifically designed to cover essential workers, such as a company's IT staff, and not non-essential workers, such as someone writing the AI for a game. Besides, from what I've read it's clear that not everyone at EA earns above the magic exemption barrier.

      And even if they did, requiring staff to work 10-12 hour days, 7 days a week isn't only counterproductive, it's dangerous to their long-term health: I'm sorry, but it's the 21st century, and companies shouldn't be working their employees into the ground anywhere in the world, let alone in California.

      I don't care if someone is paid $10/hr or $45/hr, they still have rights, and those rights include decent, respectful working practices.

      --

      "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    3. Re:EA is in california which means exempt is $95k by catch23 · · Score: 1

      RTFA. They aren't referring to the programmers. The group being exploited are the artists, background effect artists, lighting, modelers, and other types of artists. These people are exempt from Section 88 in California law. I hear most programmers in EA are treated fairly well, but since the artists are exempt from this law, they can be exploited freely.

    4. Re:EA is in california which means exempt is $95k by lazyl · · Score: 1

      Actually you've got it sort of half-backwards. Programmers are excempt from the labor laws so EA is 'leagally' allowed to exploit them. And they do. The artists, however, aren't exempt from the overtime laws but they're being treated the same way, which is the basis for the suit.

      --
      Aw crap, ninjas!
    5. Re:EA is in california which means exempt is $95k by jangobongo · · Score: 1

      The ea_spouse article covers this:

      "Whenever the subject of hours come up, inevitably, it seems, someone mentions 'exemption'. They refer to a California law that supposedly exempts businesses from having to pay overtime to certain 'specialty' employees, including software programmers. This is Senate Bill 88. However, Senate Bill 88 specifically does not apply to the entertainment industry -- television, motion picture, and theater industries are specifically mentioned. Further, even in software, there is a pay minimum on the exemption: those exempt must be paid at least $90,000 annually. I can assure you that the majority of EA employees are in fact not in this pay bracket; ergo, these practices are not only unethical, they are illegal."

      Grinding your workers down with twelve hour days/7days a week for months at a time for low pay so that just a few people can reap the millions of profit shows an unfortunate reality. The widening gap between the richest and the ever poorer middle class will only stir up discontent. Sorta reminds me of America's revolution against the British for taking all the riches of the promising new frontier for themselves. Boston Tea Party, anyone?

      --

      Sig cancelled due to lack of interest
    6. Re:EA is in california which means exempt is $95k by qwijibo · · Score: 1

      Decent and respectful working practices aren't rights. If you want those things, you have to earn them. You have to be valuable enough that you can get a job with a company that provides those privileges because they appreciate your contribution.

      Unpaid overtime is a savings to the company in terms of real dollars. Money is everything to management. If you can't quantify a problem in terms of actual budget dollars, your concerns are not the company's concerns.

      One way to get their attention is if the most knowledgeable and valuable people in the company either leave or refuse to accept these working conditions. People talk about being required to work until 10pm everyday, but that's a bluff that no one calls. If you want the situation to improve, don't stay late unless you believe that staying late today is going to make you feel better about finishing something.

      Dissatisfied employees are less productive, which means the company is getting less for the money they're paying. Also, when people leave, there are real dollar costs with hiring and training replacements. Employee retention is something that some companies focus on, not because they're altruistic, but because losing important people with knowledge about your company and its products has a real cost in dollars.

    7. Re:EA is in california which means exempt is $95k by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder how it is at EA headquaters here in vancouver canada.

    8. Re:EA is in california which means exempt is $95k by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 1

      I don't care if someone is paid $10/hr or $45/hr, they still have rights, and those rights include decent, respectful working practices.

      They have the right not to work for that employer.

      Conversely, if someone wants to choose to do a job for 80 hours a week and make a lot of money at it, they should have that right also.

      This is why government intervention reduces your freedom in the interest of becoming your nanny.

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    9. Re:EA is in california which means exempt is $95k by orrigami · · Score: 1

      Having a job is not a right. If it was, given the current unemployment rate a lot of american's rights are being violated.

      That being said, the company does have the responsability to ensure that they provide a safe working environment. It is not a personal right but the government regeulation on the company. Thats why we have OSHA and gasp unions.

      All in all, there are plenty of other employers looking for labor. Yes, you might have to take less money, but you non-monetary satisfaction should be higher. It is a simple cost benefit analyst of how much is your free-time really worth compared to how much you make for that time.

    10. Re:EA is in california which means exempt is $95k by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 1

      I'm not talking about the right to have a job, I'm talking about the right to not have your employer exploit you in a manner that is condoned by law: there's a big difference between the two.

      --

      "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    11. Re:EA is in california which means exempt is $95k by zorander · · Score: 1

      Their right to engage in any contract with you that you two consesually agree on is balanced by your right to not sign that contract or leave the job. If there's a contract that says in a more well-defined manner, "no unreasonable working conditions", then there's an issue.

      It's not exploitation if you agreed to do it and are receiving everything that they agreed to pay you.

    12. Re:EA is in california which means exempt is $95k by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      The other way to get their attention is to sue the company for breaking the law when they break the law and announce after months of overtime that the comp time that the employees have accrued will be cancelled.

      If you think thats legal, you can come work for me. I pay $1 million a month, except from the second before payday to the second after payday, you make $5 a month, retroactively. Hey, it balances out to over minimum wage, right?

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    13. Re:EA is in california which means exempt is $95k by sabat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      $95k/yr is not a lot of money in Redwood Shores and the surrounding area. Cost of living is very high.

      --
      I, for one, welcome our new Antichrist overlord.
    14. Re:EA is in california which means exempt is $95k by chialea · · Score: 1

      You simply cannot sign away your legal rights in a contract. For example, you cannot be held to a contract you signed to kill someone, or kill yourself. Agreeing to do something illegal is unenforcable.

      If their labour practices are illegal, that is true whether someone complains about it or not, and whether they agreed to it or not. Otherwise, there wouldn't be such a stir about assisted suicide, no?

      Lea

    15. Re:EA is in california which means exempt is $95k by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      if someone wants to choose to do a job for 80 hours a week and make a lot of money at it, they should have that right also.

      If the company wants to pay me a salary worth working 80 hours a week, then I'd be happy to do so.

      If the company wants to pay me a salary worth working 40 hours a week and tell me that the difference will be made up with comp time, then mid-crunch time after I've put several weeks of 80 hours in tell me that they've decided to end comp time and cancel the comp time I've earned, then I'd be happy to sue them.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    16. Re:EA is in california which means exempt is $95k by NeMon'ess · · Score: 1

      Define surrounding area. Live in Hayward or Dublin and take BART. The Dumbarton Express bus runs from Union City station to Palo Alto. There's also carpooling to get across the San Mateo bridge. If the person is single, buy a condo or get a 1-bedroom for $1200. Or $1000 for a as nice/nicer one in north Fremont or Union City near Decoto Rd where the Dumbarton Express runs. With two incomes and one is $95k living on the peninsula is plausible.

    17. Re:EA is in california which means exempt is $95k by sabat · · Score: 1
      Define surrounding area. Live in Hayward or Dublin and take BART.

      Pffft! Pfffffft! That's some good shit you're smoking, man. Pass it around.

      Priced housing in Dublin lately? Been mugged in Hayward lately? A 1-bedroom in Dublin is about $2000/month, and that's the starting price. Fremont is a dangerous shithole, just like Hayward. It isn't 1990 anymore. And then there's the communting cost -- both in time (at least an hour from where you're talking) and in money (more than I think you realize).

      And I can tell you from experience that living in a moderately safe neighborhood on the peninsula cannot be done for less than $200k/yr.

      --
      I, for one, welcome our new Antichrist overlord.
    18. Re:EA is in california which means exempt is $95k by NeMon'ess · · Score: 1

      I lived in Fremont up until August. It's 205,000 people, and is the fifth safest city in the nation with populations of 200,000 or more. Pass the shit you've been smoking. Hayward, is closer to Oakland is therefore more dangerous. I'm quite familiar with the cost of BART and busses having used them quite often in that area. If you want suburbia-cul-du-sac-safe then yeah the options are paying $700,000 towards (not up in) the hills around the bay, or move to Livermore or Danville.

  54. Can Players join class action too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Many people have lost hundreds of hours of their life,
    never to get that time back,
    all because of dreded video games...

    It's about time justice is brought to these companies that aid and abet video game addiction!

  55. What union would that be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The unskilled retail labor union?

    1. Re:What union would that be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are thinking of EB not EA.

      EA writes the games.

      EB is the unskilled retail labor

  56. There's no balance by HarveyBirdman · · Score: 5, Funny
    The responses so far

    So quit! --- 51%
    Unionize! --- 48%

    Odd... I've seen those numbers somewhere before.

    --
    --- Ban humanity.
    1. Re:There's no balance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      rofl... I hope there aren't any future implications to such a thought :)

    2. Re:There's no balance by BigZaphod · · Score: 1

      Actually, that's almost 50/50; therefore quite balanced. :-)

    3. Re:There's no balance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Actually, it's a clear, unambiguous mandate to quit!

    4. Re:There's no balance by rbullo · · Score: 1

      1% - Buchanan

      --
      OH NOES!!! IT APPEARS YUO DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO PAY FOR DIS HERE PIZZA! WAHT EVER ARE YOU GOING TO DO!?!?
    5. Re:There's no balance by horza · · Score: 1

      The responses so far

      So quit! --- 51%
      Unionize! --- 48%

      Odd... I've seen those numbers somewhere before.


      The BBC tells us, "[regarding the US election] A Gallup poll found that 51% of Americans were pleased with the outcome - exactly the same percentage that voted for Mr Bush."

      I predict this if a union is not formed, 51% will be happy with the outcome.

      Phillip.

    6. Re:There's no balance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, it does qualify as a majority.

  57. What does their union say? by mowler2 · · Score: 1

    The workers union for the EA employees must be really angry. Why does they not strike and demand higer pay and/or a more humane work situation?

    1. Re:What does their union say? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      They don't have a union.

      This is probably the problem.

      I suspect you already know though, and that's your point isn't it.

    2. Re:What does their union say? by mowler2 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I was a bit ironic/sarcastic. Where I live it is natural that all workers are connected to some kind of union (I believe more than 90% of the employees here are connected to some kind of union, and this includes management).

      I cannot understand why it is not as common in the states? Why does unions have so bad reputation in the states?

    3. Re:What does their union say? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Not sure.

      But even here in the UK, where we're a little more more pro-worker and pro-union, there's certainly not a lot of iniertia towards forming a union. A lot of developers seem to be fairly content with these working condiditons.

      Those that may be willing (such as myself) have no idea what the process is for forming a union, or how to persuade people to join if I did form one.

  58. so sad, sorry... by theAtomicFireball · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Listen. This isn't just the game industry. It's the software industry. And it's a part of the reason why software engineers (at least at one time) made considerably more money than other careers when compared to others with comparable education and experience (the original blog even said the pay and benefits were "right"). I've been there. It sucks. My wife was there too. Both of us chugging away at the eighteen hour day in Silicon Valley, fighting over who had to get the kids from day care that day, make 'em dinner, and get 'em to bed before getting back to work for a few more hours from home. There's an easy answer. Get another job. Move somewhere else. Start your own business. Go back to school. Refuse to work beyond a reasonable amount of time (hint: stopping at 40 hours is not reasonable where you are). I'm so tired of people who think the world owes them and who think that they have some right to an easy life AND good pay AND benefits. I really hope these whiners lose in court. I don't love big corporate software companies, but as long as people keep putting up with it, they'll keep doing it. So move on; go somewhere else. If all the good developers and artists do that, they'll be forced to offer more sane practices to lure people back. This is not unskilled labor; there is a finite pool of talent, so make the tough choice to leave, tell your boss/manager how you feel (and not anonymously), or if you're too scared to do one of those, then buck up and put up with it. You do have options; resorting to the courts is a whiny loser path and you'll get no sympathy from me, sorry.

    1. Re:so sad, sorry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In which case, how's about you go to sub-saharan africa, question the point of your children receiving vaccines against illness, considering you clearly believe that people don't have a right to a decent sort of living.
      The truth of the matter is that in simplicity, nobody wants to be treated like a serf, especially when you know that there's people around or above you who aren't.
      It's a free country, not a dictatorship, people may not necessarily have some god given right to be treated like kings, but neither have they done anything to deserve being treated like clods of shit.

      welcome to a little thing we call democracy...

    2. Re:so sad, sorry... by theAtomicFireball · · Score: 1

      Are you really that stupid? I hope your point of view isn't that typical, otherwise our country is in serious trouble.

      I don't know what parallels you see between a yuppie working too many hours and kids in poverty in Africa. The former isn't enjoying life as quite much as they'd like, the latter may not get to even live his or her life. Your statement, if it does anything, makes me even less sympathetic for the EA software engineers.

      I'm nog going to go to Africa and question the vaccination programs because a) I believe they are good programs, and b) I have a CHOICE, and I choose not to go. Just like the EA developers have a CHOICE. Get a fucking life, you loser.

      Democracy doesn't guarantee you a wondeful life, just the right to pursue one. You still are responsible for the consequences of your actions (or inaction), though many would like it were it not so, and some even try to legislate it so it is.

      Serfs were, for practical purposes, slaves. They had no options and relatively few of them had cable television and SUVs, so far as I know. Serfs had absolutely no options. EA employees have many, the most pathetic of which is to whine and do nothing, followed closely by suing.

    3. Re:so sad, sorry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So finally you realise that people have CHOICE, well congratulations, since your original statement appeared to take a pretty dim view of people exercising their rights when they're not being treated particularly well.

      furthermore, you stated yourself that you've been there and it sucked, so where in the name of god is your fscking logic; seeing as you do believe that this sort of treatment is
      a) crap, and
      b) the generalised norm,

      I now find that I am having difficulty seeing the logic of actually not sympathising with the EA employees who are clearly making an attempt to change this. Whether or not they are successful is an aspect of reality, the principle of making an ATTEMPT to make things better (much like the vaccine programs in africa, which actually are successful too) is grounds for supporting them, rather than calling them whiners because you never got off your ass when you were in that situation.

      Or is it really that easy to just chop and change jobs? I think not, which is exactly why some people do actually bother to do things about their lives and in this case, poor work conditions.

      You appear to have the wrong idea about the serf theory; the EA employees weren't being likened to serf's, it was more an idea that you seemed to think that was what people in the games industry SHOULD be treated as - with regard to your apparently general acceptance of rediculous hours and bugger all compensation for it without any particular appreciation that "put-up-or-shutup" isn't the correct way to go through life.

  59. Yeah-Gravy train. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "It was depressing to watch my dad come in, after a 12 or 14 hour day, eat, shower, and go to bed, knowing that in a few hours, he'd have to be right back at work for another 12 to 14 hours. It was barely worth it in my opinion, even with overtime.

    EA's shit should be a warning to other companies of what not to do."

    Well I guess we know why people get out of jobs like that and go to school and get CCNAs, MSCEs, or its like. Work less, make more, have a better environment, and still have time for the kids. No wonder the entrenched feel threatened.

  60. We hear you Kobe.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    (yup I had left at 7 or 8, I was trying to only work about 40-50 hour weeks and was keeping up with my schedule by working at breakneck speed -- but there was no way I was working on weekends which you were required to do if you were "behind").

    Buddy, that's why they pay you the big bucks: so that you work 60 hours a week when the need arises. If you want a 40 hour week get a lower paid job in a place that is not so fast paced.

  61. Why the hell are they doing this? by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 1

    what the helld o EA do any way? Last time I checked they updated the teams for the latest football/American football/Rugby/whatever game and did not much else...

    I'd say "hey we should boycott EA!" but we're not the ones who buy sports games so they wouldn't even notice..

    --
    I like muppets.
  62. This is what bad management does by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    A lot of this sort of thing would go better if management didn't pick dates out of their backsides and think people will work all hours when planning a new project.

  63. Boycott EA Games!!! by StarTux · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I am never going to buy their games ever again!

    Oh wait, I use Linux...

    StarTux

  64. Company Culture by ShelbyCobra · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While I am an engineer, not a programmer, I have to say that the real answer to this problem lies in the company's culture, which includes the culture of the management. As long as there are people willing to submit to this sort of treatment, it will continue, EA being a very extreme case. Here are two examples of situations that I have worked in recently to compare and contrast.

    Company #1: While it was never specifically stated that the employee should put in long hours, it was common for employees to work 7:00 am-5:30pm m-f with weekend work at least every other weekend. This was with no "crunch-time" effect. The culture of the employees was simply "I work more than you do so I am a more valued employee." The odd thing about it, is it was still impossible to actually complete an improvement project, and those employees who worked long hours were more adept at creating more work for themselves than completing it. A common joke at this company was "If you are working from 7:00 am to 7:00 pm, you are only working half days." Very funny. Even funnier, this company regularly makes the fortune magazine 100 best companies to work for list. Needless to say, I am no longer with this group.

    Company #2: This company's culture is "Get your work done and get out of here." Much more relaxing. The value is placed not upon how much time an employee spends at work, but on how much the employee gets done. I would feel completely secure in this position if I would work myself out of a job by automating all things possible, because the company recognizes innovation rather than time at the grindstone. The 4.5 day week is common practice, and if you have to work overtime, other employees feel honestly bad for you. The best part about it, if an exempt employee works more than 40 hours in a week, management actually insists that the employee takes comp time. I could go on and on about this, but the culture of the employees and managers is the key.

    The culture of a company is a very difficult thing to change, and it gets more and more difficult to change as the number of employees increases. The best thing that an individual can do at this time is to find a company whose culture is acceptable to their work habits. If enough of the best and brightest employees find the companies with the good culture, eventually the corporate giants with bad work practices will either change or die off.

    If you think that you are the best and brightest, prove that you are the brightest by changing your own situation. Not only will it help you, but it will help others in the long run.

    --

    -ShelbyCobra

    Living life in the right side of the s-plane

    1. Re:Company Culture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      care to disclose the name of company #1? I have a guess.

    2. Re:Company Culture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For that matter, disclosing the name of company #2 would be cool. I'd like to cruise their website and see what jobs are open.

    3. Re:Company Culture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If enough of the best and brightest employees find the companies with the good culture, eventually the corporate giants with bad work practices will either change or die off.

      I agree with your advice, too bad you didn't bother
      to mention the names of either company. Next time
      save everyone the guesswork and name them outright.

    4. Re:Company Culture by mutterc · · Score: 1
      Minor problem...

      As long as any one company can screw over the employees, capitalism guarantees that all must to stay competitive. The friendlier company will lose (substantially) all its business to the competitor who promises the product faster / cheaper. That's why clueful management can't help you - they will simply be constrained by market forces into making decisions they know are bad, but they have no choice.

      Maybe a "Fair Trade"-style certification for all sorts of products might help this, as then consumers who cared would be able to vote with their wallets (instead of shopping entirely on price / featureset).

    5. Re:Company Culture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      where do you work? I want a Job there too! :-)

    6. Re:Company Culture by i7dude · · Score: 1

      You raise a good point; assuming your assumption that the company that screws its employees actually does manage to become more competitive.

      Most people really do believe that working harder really is better than working smarter; however after spending the last 2 years working for a Japanese automotive supplier where the average work day is around 25 to 40% longer than that of most German suppliers, I fail to see the vast disparity between our quality/price and theirs.

      Simply put; they stay competitive, meaning they know how to make more out of an 8 hour day than we do during a 10-12 hour day.

      dude.

    7. Re:Company Culture by richieb · · Score: 1
      As long as any one company can screw over the employees, capitalism guarantees that all must to stay competitive.

      Only if overworking your employees leads to better products. In many cases it does not.

      --
      ...richie - It is a good day to code.
    8. Re:Company Culture by mutterc · · Score: 1

      Of course it doesn't lead to better products. It leads to cheaper and faster (time-to-market) products, which sell better. This leads to more profit for the company, therefore higher share prices (= cash for the execs involved in the decisions). Employees and consumers get the short end of the stick. The company may be hurting itself in the long-term but none of the execs care, they'll be working elsewhere in a few years anyway.

  65. Makes me wish I was still working at Disney World. by WilliamGeorge · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I used to work for the Mouse, and though the pay was low, they at least had good OT rules. Did I say good? Make that GREAT! For example, if you worked more than 8 hours on a shift, they gave you time and a half. Also, anything over 40 hours a week was time and a half. If you had shifts less than 8 hours apart, the second was time and a half. If you had 3 such shift, less than 8 hours between each, the thrid was double time! and any other following were too! I knew guys that were hourly for about $10-11/hour, and were pulling in 70k a year becasue they'd pull a really long week or two, and then take a week almost off. I never could do it, and they didn't force us to work me than maybe 50 hours a week unless we wanted to, but it was cool how their rules worked. And the free access to the parks... yum :)

    --
    William George
  66. crybaby diva programmers. by JavaLord · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Ok, lets look at what this guy said in his post..

    Then it happened -- Maxis was moved to EA redwood shores. Drawn into the mothership. I didn't want to move so I gave them a huge list of "must-have" things or I wouldn't move. They wanted me badly and met all of those desires. They made extra-sure to keep me quiet about what I got because the deal was one of the top 10 for the studio (we're talking above six figures here just for the relocation package...).

    So this guy was paid over $100,000 to move for his job? How many tech people nowadays would get over $100,000 to relocate?

    Coincidentally, when the move happened they cancelled SimCity again, and put me on another project (The Urbz). And I do mean PUT me on -- I was never consulted, talked to, or anything.

    Oh shit! Poor baby! You mean they paid you over $100,000 to relocate and they actually expected to be able to TELL you what work they wanted done? How silly of them! That kinda stuff never happens to other programmers! We nevvvvvvvvver get projects cancelled or end up doing shit work.

    One day my new manager came over, told me he was my new manager and gave me a pile of work...

    OMG! You ended up with a new manager and you weren't informed by the higher ups? And he expected you to WORK? Wow, you better form a union! In all the IT departments where I worked, if anyone was replaced they told everyone in the department all the way down to the helpdesk guys. Hell, they even checked with the janitors sometimes.

    Now, I was peeved this happened, at least they could've asked me to go on the project. .......More whining snipped

    Look, if you work in the video game industry as a programmer (or anything else for that matter) your job is fun and in demand. It's pretty much expected that you are going to have to work long hours during crunch time. There are plenty of People who would put in 12-14 hours a day to get to work on a game that ships from EA so just stop your bitching and step aside if you can't hack it or if your over $100,000 relocation fee and salary aren't enough. If you want more time with your family get a 9-5 job as a secratary or something. Better yet maybe your wife can work and you can stay home and clean. You see Joe, programmers, especially video game programmers are hardcore men of steel, not pussies that whine about shit like overtime.

    People like Joe straitiff give the American Worker a bad name.

    1. Re:crybaby diva programmers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Say, what post are you referring to? I'm curious to read it and I can't seem to find it; you posted at top-level rather than replying.

    2. Re:crybaby diva programmers. by Junta · · Score: 1

      Those samples are ridiculous, but selective quoting of ridiculous complaints doesn't invalidate some of the truly braindead management activities going on, formost being a lack of work-life balance respect.

      Of course, this is pretty indemic to the industry as a whole, so maybe EA isn't much worse, but it really is a pattern that is not good.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    3. Re:crybaby diva programmers. by dr_leviathan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I've worked 60 and 70 hour weeks in the game industry. It was fun, challenging, and rewarding. However I wasn't working for EA and I didn't have to deal with antagonistic, lying, demanding bosses.

      Within the game developer's community it is well known that EA is Evil Co. I haven't worked there but I've talked to people who have. I'm glad to see their reputation catching up with them.

      I hope the class action lawsuit goes through and EA has to pay out.

      --
      Religion is poison to rationality, and we lose sight of that at our own peril. -- Lurker2288
    4. Re:crybaby diva programmers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You kept harping on the $100K salary. Do you know how much it costs to live in or near Redwood Shores?

      Trust me, $100K is NOTHING.

    5. Re:crybaby diva programmers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ou kept harping on the $100K salary. Do you know how much it costs to live in or near Redwood Shores? Trust me, $100K is NOTHING.

      I work in Manhattan, are you going to try to tell me it's more expensive somewhere else in the US? We don't even know if he got 100k, that is the lowest it could be, he said "Six figures". It could have been $999,999.

      100k is a lot to relocate, even here.

    6. Re:crybaby diva programmers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      To subsist, or to to live like a wealthy consumer?

      There are $1000/mo rentals on a BART commute.

    7. Re:crybaby diva programmers. by sabat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, yes, it's even more expensive in this part of California (I am typing in Redwood Shores at the moment) than in Manhattan.

      Gas, which is required because we're not on a small island, is ~$2.50/gal (50 cents more than the national average), and the typical house price here tops $800,000. We're not talking about mansions; most of these sub-million-dollar "houses" are condos. A $4,000/month mortgage payment is typical. $100,000+ is not the extreme salary it sounds like. (Knowing the industry and the area, I doubt he made much more than $100,000, muchless $999,999.)

      No, no one's forcing us to live here, but this is where the work is.

      --
      I, for one, welcome our new Antichrist overlord.
    8. Re:crybaby diva programmers. by theAtomicFireball · · Score: 1

      Don't know about now (I've since moved a long ways away), but in the worst of the dot-com craze, I was paying $2k a month for a little 2 bedroom apartment in Pleasanton, which isn't even close to the most expensive part of the Bay Area. Down in San Jose, rents were routinely going up $400 a month each time the lease came up for renewal.

      Living in Manhattan is expensive, but you expect that; it's a large metropolitan area. It would be comparable to the Bay Area if it was just as expensive to live up in Poughkeepsie as it was in Manhattan (I happen to know it's not, having lived not too far from Poughkeepsie right before moving to California). The Bay Area is huge, and the whole region was swept up in the craziness of the late nineties and early 2ks, and much of that still lingers on the Peninsula. Believe it.

  67. Not to belittle.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But the experience descibed is also a perfect description of life in the military, or at least, life in the Navy. True, those of us who participated did so voluntarily, but in the real world, you can quit if conditions become intolerable. Superiors use one lie after another to "motivate," promising that things will change, things will get better, or, if that fails, just resorting to threats. We're constantly told how good we have it, and how "back in the day," people never got benefits like the choice to live in a Real Live House, as opposed to barracks or living on the ship itself. Having a haven away from the demands of military life is all well and good, but when you only get to experience it with your eyes closed (when you're sleeping), it really doesn't matter that much after all. I used to be envious of civilians.. they have the ability to strike, or quit. These luxuries should not be taken for granted.

    I'm not saying I don't sympathize with the employees of EA, I'm just saying it could be (and is) worse for many, many people who have absolutely no recourse. Good luck with your lawsuit.

    1. Re:Not to belittle.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "life in the military"

      Life in the *Military* is *supposed* to be tough.
      You enlist in the mlitary, at that moment you've basically *died* and you literally belong to the military, who can order you to kill or die or work a 48 hour shift or lick a trash barrel clean. In return, if you somehow manage to survive, you get laid easily, you get free medical care, and you get to play poker at the legion hall.

      There is every difference between life in the private sector and life in the military.

  68. Same thing happening in nursing by Gleep · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I see the same thing happening in nursing!

    My girlfriend just worked a 16 hour day only to have to go back 5 hours later and work a 12 hour day. I wouldn't want somebody that tired changing my meds! What's wrong with this country? We're working people to death! AAAAACK!!!

    --
    get your dirty sig off me, you filthy APE!
    1. Re:Same thing happening in nursing by pr0c · · Score: 1

      Thats a bit different, there is NOT a good supply of nurses and doctors willing to work anywhere in the country, some areas such as where I live have not been fully staffed for decades, and that generally causes the long hours, not a greedy hospital... YMMV

    2. Re:Same thing happening in nursing by Gleep · · Score: 1

      True! I was only pointing out that the hospital administrators have the same wreckless disregard for their worker's condition but you are correct that the source of the problem is different.

      --
      get your dirty sig off me, you filthy APE!
  69. More workers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, this year EA should have more workers for their other sports games now that the NHL season is pretty much shot.

    Although, I doubt they'll assign them to other games.

  70. Sonic extreme by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Anyone remember the deal with the Sonic on the Saturn game?

    One guy ended up in hospital for over work on that game and it never saw the light of dawn let alone day.

    Yet everyone whines when game X is delayed because they want it NOW!

    Well maybe we should start showing these people (I'm looking at you Duke Nukem forever fans!), what people go through so we can get our 5 minutes of kicks.

    --
    I like muppets.
    1. Re:Sonic extreme by KD5YPT · · Score: 1

      Hey, I don't mind delaying. But I'll be pissed if after delaying the game still turn out to be shitty.

      One other thing, it's one of those Murphy Law in software development.

      "Always report twice the amount of time needed to finish a code. Since your boss will slice that time in half for you."

      So if you say you can finish in one year, your boss/PR will announce that the game will be finished in half a year.

      --
      In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.
    2. Re:Sonic extreme by xgamer04 · · Score: 1

      Linky: Sonic X-Treme.

      Enjoy.

      --
      When you look at the state of the world, how can you not become a radical, liberal anarchist?
  71. People with debt = hard working people by acomj · · Score: 4, Insightful

    One of the theories is people who have debt load (In the US its easy to get lots of debt) will work very very hard to keep there heads above water.

    The trouble is alot of people want that bigger house or flashy car without thinking about how exactly there going to pay it off.

    I'd rather have less (condo) and not have to worry about a huge mortgage/car payments. Gives you more time and freedom.

    1. Re:People with debt = hard working people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention that a lot of people want to have kids, and they actually have the gall to expect tax breaks for it (even though they cost the society more). Even fewer of them know how they're going to pay for their kid.

    2. Re:People with debt = hard working people by khallow · · Score: 1
      Not to mention that a lot of people want to have kids, and they actually have the gall to expect tax breaks for it (even though they cost the society more). Even fewer of them know how they're going to pay for their kid.

      Huh, you are incorrect here. Kids are a net benefit to society because they become people who work and pay taxes.

    3. Re:People with debt = hard working people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How long does it take for kids to become a benefit to society? ~14 years of public schooling, tax breaks (to the point that some people don't even pay taxes!!), not to mention the trouble they occasionally get in to and has to be cleaned up by the police/system.

      No, I don't believe that kids become a benefit. And even if they did eventually make it over to the profit side of the equation, they're having kids of their own. It's a viscious, inflationary cycle.

    4. Re:People with debt = hard working people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Less? I live with my parents and still work hard to keep from going under from my college loans and a used car.

      I should have dropped out and joined the .com boom. My life would suck just as bad as it does now, but at least I'd have had fun being a millionaire while it lasted.

    5. Re:People with debt = hard working people by killjoe · · Score: 1

      Most americans are programmed to consume. They can't seem to resist getting into huge debt. It's an excellent way to control the population. Remember what Bush said after 9/11? "Shop for your freedom"

      --
      evil is as evil does
    6. Re:People with debt = hard working people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell that to people in Spain, a country which is rapidly "graying" because people are not having enough kids, and eventually the ratio of pensioners to taxpayers will get to be so high that they won't be able to afford paying out so much in pensions.

    7. Re:People with debt = hard working people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or in America where we are facing the same problems.....

    8. Re:People with debt = hard working people by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      I should have dropped out and joined the .com boom. My life would suck just as bad as it does now, but at least I'd have had fun being a millionaire while it lasted.

      But during the dot-com boom they did NOT pay money. They paid in stock options or promises of stock options. Even if you actually got stock options, they only paid off if your "sell" timing was right. In other words, you would have to be able to predict a poppage.

      Although, living the "dot-com dream" was indeed fun while it happened. But, it was all a big lie.

    9. Re:People with debt = hard working people by Mr.+Flibble · · Score: 1

      The trouble is alot of people want that bigger house or flashy car without thinking about how exactly there going to pay it off.

      I'd rather have less (condo) and not have to worry about a huge mortgage/car payments. Gives you more time and freedom.


      Agreed!

      One of the things I do (and any slashdotter should consider as well) is I rent my house. I own it, and I live in it, but I have a basement suite, and a roomate upstairs. My mortgage and taxes on the house are paid for by my tennant and roomate. I just pay the cable bill, internet, and power bills. In fact, if it were not for those expenses, I would be turning a profit.

      You should lower your debts - your *BAD* debts. That is, any debt you have where it is costing you money in interest is bad. Whereas, I have a mortgage, and that is debt - but I am making money above the mortgage, so I don't have any plans of paying it off soon (that would kill my ROI).

      After you get your credit in order, it is important to understand the difference between good and bad debts, and go into good debt (leverage) and use it to make money. Either that or you can slave away to a corporation for years. (I would, in all honesty rather own the corp.)

      --
      Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
    10. Re:People with debt = hard working people by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1
      Silly me. I went to school and got educated.

      I bought a house, and between my wife and I we pay about as much in loans as our mortgage.

      In most of the rest of the civilized world, your higher education is free. Sure, you might be driving ambulances, or dodging bullets for a couple of years.

      Then there is the issue of WHERE THE HELL ARE YOU GOING TO LIVE. I can't find housing in the city that's less than $800/month. That is, of course, I move WAY out into the country (and spend more than that on gas and car repairs), share a place with 8 other people, or move into a slum.

      For folks considering a slum, I spent more than my rent in utility bills and replaceing stolen and vandelized stuff than I saved. Don't bother to argue. I survived 4 years of living off campus in West Philadelphia. And "survived" is not sarcasm or exaduration.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    11. Re:People with debt = hard working people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh, pensions. Yeah, I'm owed money because I worked a while ago and I'm old now.

      Bullshit. :)

  72. Try a little personal responsibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't get yourself up to your head in debt so that your monthly income can only sustain the minimum payment on twenty different lines of credit. Also, DON'T FUCKING HAVE KIDS if you can barely feed them as it is.

  73. Software Dev Unions WON'T WORK by AAAWalrus · · Score: 1

    Remember, unions only work if everyone buys into them. Join the game developer's union, pay your dues, and you can no longer work for an game shop who hires non-union developers. (If a company is able to find non union workers to replace you, they will!) In exchange, you get guaranteed working hours and/or compensated overtime. Welcome to the clock in/clock out daily grind where minutes must be accounted for. It's all part of the collective bargaining aggreements that the union lawyers and leaders hammer out with each individual company that hires game developers.

    Basically it comes down to this: Companies don't like unions. It forces them to work within the stipulations of the CBA's, which can be very restrictive and cost-prohibitive. Employees don't want to *have* to work under the shield of a union. It severely magnifies the lens under which they work, and every action becomes scrutinized. They have to stick behind union decisions, whether they agree with them or not. Employers and employees are benefitted more from working together under mutual conditions. In most areas of software development, this is what happens. In the cases of a few specific companies (like EA) they take advantage of their employees. In this case, a class-action suit will soon sort it out. Yes, it's true that unions are established to prevent worker exploitation, but if you explain to everyone in our industry everything that is involved with establishing a union, you will find very little support.

    1. Re:Software Dev Unions WON'T WORK by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      FUD

      You are looking at the auto workers unions from 20 years ago, and extrapolating what you think a union is, and must be. There is no reason union workers can't work in the same place as non-union workers. It is illegal to fire you for being in a union so if they fire all the union workers, they will have to pay them compensation anyway. There is no reason a union has to enforce specific work hours, or time clocks. And there is no reason why a union member has to go with the union on all issues. You said that companies don't like unions. That is true, their reason is because it shifts some power back into the hands of the employees. Collective bargaining is just a counter to the consolidation due to unregulated capitalism. It would be great if more companies ran their business with their employees happiness as one of it's high priorities, but that is just not the reality of today's market. Businesses are run by executives who's priorities are usually, personal profit, person power, gaining allies and subordinates, maximizing shareholder returns, keeping the business going, and finally, making employees happy. Unions allow the workers to share a little more of the power, and usually a little more of the profits.

  74. HR: People gambling department by dangermen · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'd concurr with this. HR is about 'people gambling'. They do what it takes to keep you on board for as little as is possible. Remember, the more they pay you, the worse their numbers are. They in effect are incented to screw you.

  75. Firing vs environment by phorm · · Score: 1

    Most companies have a way around this though, they just make your life hell, or in the case of EA I suppose more hell than it already is. Move your desk to the back room with no windows, perhaps near a noisy AC unit and with a power plug that overloads regularly so your PC reboots itself. Throw in some lighting and other conditons that make your work area look more like a level from doom3, and basically you're put in the position of quit or suffer hell for years until legal retaliations can be made.

    1. Re:Firing vs environment by Algan · · Score: 1

      ...make your work area look more like a level from doom3

      So if my work space looks like a D3 level... can I bring my trusty shotgun? :)

      --
      If con is the opposite of pro, is Congress the opposite of progress?
  76. Where do you draw the line? by StikyPad · · Score: 2, Interesting

    While I agree that the conditions imposed are/were arduous, and I myself have endured employment by an equally demanding employer, I'm curious about the rights of a salary worker to demand overtime. As much as we enjoy deriding doctors and lawyers, many of them work 80-90 hour weeks, albeit usually for substantially more money than the average programmer. If you agree to be paid on salary, and you agree that time worked in excess of 40 hours per week is acceptable when your employer deems necessary, then can you still complain that you have to work overtime without compensation? I guess I'm a little fuzzy on labor laws in the US.. Perhaps someone can elaborate.

    1. Re:Where do you draw the line? by KD5YPT · · Score: 1

      The idea of this is that workers, when signing a contract, can automatically assume that the normal working hour is 40hrs/week by mandate of law. The law also specifies that any hrs in excess of 40 in a week must be given an overtime pay (I think it was 1.5 times the normal pay). An exemption to this is IT workers with annual pay above $90,000 (I think it 90,000).

      --
      In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.
    2. Re:Where do you draw the line? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      First off, very few people actually inderstand what salary means within there state. This includes HR people. Many people thin its, we pay you X, and you are aways on the clock. it's not.
      Point in fact, many state have to pay a salaried employee overtime ubless the fall into a very specific catagory defined by state law.

      Doctors and lawyer often work to much as well, but they are often contractors providing a service, and not employees.

      If you are in the US, check your laws with your state. Someinformation should be posted at your workplace.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Where do you draw the line? by taustin · · Score: 2, Informative

      There are minimum federal standards on such things, but it varies somewhat by state. The only way to really know what your rights are is to consult a local attorney who knows labor law.

      In general, there are three categories of employees: hourly, salaried, and salaried/exempt.

      Hourly employees get paid for the work they actually do, at overtime rates for work over (at the federal level) 40 hours a week (in some states, like California, also for work over 8 hours a day, regardless of weekly total). There are other rules, too, and the details do vary considerably by state.

      Salaried employees get paid per day or week (or sometimes, per month). They get paid their full salary regardless of number of hours worked (though they can be docked for missing full days of work, if there is a policy of doing so). If they they qualify for overtime (over 8/over 40, or whatever), they get overtime.

      Salaraied/exempt employees get paid a set rate, but are exempt from overtime requirements.

      It is not entirely up to the employer which category an employee fall in, despite what many employers seem to believe. Only certain types of employees are allowed to be salaried exempt, even if the employees would willingly be classified that away. Again, the rules vary by state, but in general, only management and executive staff, and in many states, state regulated professionals (like doctors and lawyers, but not programmers) can be classified as salaried exempt. The key criteria is that the employee must either be licensed by the state, or must have discretion in how he does his job, and spend the majority of his time supervising others.

      One dodge that many employers try is to make professionals who are not supposed to be salaried exempt "contractors." They do not hire the employee, they contract with an indepenent contractor to provide certain services. This, too, is badly abused, because, to be a contractor (and thus exempt from overtime laws), the contractor must have complete control over how he does his job, and the hours he works. There are other requirements, as well, but those are the major ones. Even something as simple as requiring the contractor to use tools provided by the employer can make them an employee, and thus subject to overtime laws. Many software companies, including Microsoft, have been burned badly for abusing contractor status.

      Again, all this is governed by a mininum set of federal standards, but many states give employees additional rights, so all of it varies by state. Again, if it really matters to you, consult a local attorney who specializes in labor law.

      But, in general, if you are not licensed by the state, and do not spend most of your time supervising others, and have little discretion in how you do your job, you should probably be getting overtime.

    4. Re:Where do you draw the line? by mutterc · · Score: 1
      The problem is just like getting a cellphone - onerous terms & conditions can be put on you because you have no power in the negotiation.

      Since the employer is holding your livelihood over your head, they can get you to agree to pretty much any condition they want. Typically getting another job won't help you because practices that are evil enough tend to become industry standards (market forces push them that way).

      Example: I once stopped shopping at Circuit City because my wife had picked up an employment application while we were there, and one of the things they made you sign was a binding-arbitration clause. It was pretty strongly worded too ("I realize if I do not agree to the use of binding arbitration, I can cancel my application within 3 business days...") I gave up recently, as those clauses have turned up pretty much everywhere on everything.

    5. Re:Where do you draw the line? by Watcher · · Score: 1

      In the case of doctors and lawyers, especially in private practice, working 80-90 hours a week has a payback. Bear in mind, the more these guys work, the more hours (or patients) they can bill. The overtime actually pays off for them. Its insanity to work 80-90 hours a week when you're paid a salary, though-you're basically screwing yourself by doing two jobs worth of work for the company, and unless there is some kind of payback all you've done is burn up a little more of your limited time on this earth.

  77. Game Development Sweatshops by MooseByte · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "If you want to earn the big bucks be prepared to pay the price."

    Except that the game dev industry doesn't really pay all that well relative to other software development jobs. Because everyone and their cousin wants to develop games. They'll burn you out like a backyard BBQ because they know they can just replace you.

    And all the while they dangle the high salaries of the Top Tier Talent as the crack-laced carrot to keep you slaving away.

    You'll find exceptions, but reality is quite ugly.

    1. Re:Game Development Sweatshops by UncleSocks · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yep - my wife works at EA. Over the last couple of years they've really started to mistreat their employees.

      Too bad - it used to be a good company.

  78. /contemplates this idea thoughtfully by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nahhhhhhhh.

  79. Customers Should pressed EA to change by Laoping · · Score: 1

    Really, who gets hurt the most? Well, yes the programmers get screwed, but really the long hours lead to bad code. I mean after 8 hours of programming your code can get a little messy. These work conditions lead to bad bugs and bad games. We sometimes hear stories about big bugs in software and wonder how they got passed QA, it's because the employees are over worked and don't care.

    I know of several software companies that actually discourage working over 40 hours a week most of the time. It is because they have learned that the overall cost in the extra bug fixes and employee turnover negates the bonus of making these people work extra hours.

    1. Re:Customers Should pressed EA to change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Re:Customers Should press[ed] EA to change

      We did. Starting about 1985 when we stopped buying their lousy games.

      The company reached a peak with M.U.L.E. and has been on a steady decline ever since.

  80. Corporate Politics by null+etc. · · Score: 5, Informative
    It's a real shame this guy hasn't been around the block a few times with regards to management. There are some very clear actions he could have taken to ensure that the noose wasn't just around his neck, but also around the next of his supervisor and HR contact.

    Just some examples:

    • Get all job requirements in writing or email. If your boss asks you to complete something, send him an email asking him to verify the scope and priority of the work to be performed. If necessary, use clauses such as "Do you agree that until completion of this task, this task takes precedence over all other requests made of me, unless otherwise communicated by you?"
    • Get all reprimands in writing or email, and get as much clarification as possible. If your boss reprimands you verbally, follow up with an email asking him if your interpretation of his reprimand is correct. Ask him to describe or verify the actions that will be required to resolve the issue.
    • Follow up on every contradiction. If your boss says "good job" one day, and yells at you the next, ask him via email to clarify the situation so that you can take steps to avoid repeating the situation. This is especially important if you need to represent yourself as a dutiful employee during future lawsuits.
    • Ask to be educated about the formal HR policies for reprimand. Many companies, in order to avoid lawsuits, have clearly defined policies for reprimanding employees. These include written warning, signed by the employee; mandatory HR sessions upon reprimand; follow-up performance evaluations, etc. Some companies get lazy and stop following the policies they've defined. If so, your lawsuit will be much stronger! Try to get all reprimands processes as clearly and officially as possible. This will require your employer to make clear and rational decisions regarding your reprimand, unless they want to risk facing an unlawful termination suit.
    • Save all email. During a lawsuit, your lawyer will need emails that may be years old, in order to make certain cases such as "this company promoted an atmosphere of such and such, as evidenced by these emails going as far back as..." I know of a lawsuit in which an employee saved his spam, and used that as evidence that the company wasn't serious about enforcing "corporate use only" policies.
    1. Re:Corporate Politics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      good ideas ... and i have to point out that a good union with good stewards will insist on these kind of measures to protect their employees ... one of the things a union does is force the company to state its policies and document how each employee has been treated in regard to them ... i know of many cases where a union's forcing the company to document their firing of an employee has been used to get the employee's job back ... with back pay

    2. Re:Corporate Politics by deanj · · Score: 1

      Agree 100%.

      Only thing to add is "Save all email",should say "Save all email offsite". It's not going to do you much good if the e-mail is saved on a hard drive that you can't access.

    3. Re:Corporate Politics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You really think a manager is that naive and stupid to answer all of your little questions by
      email? I don't think so.

      Hmm. Email deleted.

      Managers will only use email to screw over the people they employ, not the other way around.
      It's a power thing.

    4. Re:Corporate Politics by drew · · Score: 1

      Or find yourself a new job where CYA doesn't have to be your first reaction to everything that could possibly happen during the work day.

      --
      If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
    5. Re:Corporate Politics by null+etc. · · Score: 1
      You really think a manager is that naive and stupid to answer all of your little questions by email?

      Considering that many managers, especially those who need to pin the blame on underlings, are incompetent - yes, I do.

    6. Re:Corporate Politics by horza · · Score: 1

      Please please please listen to the parent poster. His is giving very good advice. Don't feel too intimidated or want to avoid the impression that you "want to make a fuss". Put on a professional and un-antagonistic front and be direct.

      Save all email. This has saved me before a few times. Regularly back-up your email and upload it off-site or take it home. In some companies they won't let you know anything is wrong and then suddenly have security escort you off the premisis. You will not be able to recover anything from your work machine.

      Phillip.

  81. Right by Safety+Cap · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ~ there is likely a term in their employment contract that says they "will not organize".

    They can put anything they want in the contract. It doesn't mean it is enforceable.

    A contract I once received had all kinds of kooky stuff in it: I wasn't allowed to contact any of their "potential" clients after terminating employment. I ran that past my Lawyer and he laughed; it was patently above and beyond the bounds of any contract and thus not likely to be held up. The best comment: "They probably downloaded this contract off the Internet."

    That's also why you get what you get when you sign anything without getting it vetted by your lawyer.

    --
    Yeah, right.
    1. Re:Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's also why you get what you get when you sign anything without getting it vetted by your lawyer.

      Exactly. Thats why I run everything by my lawyer I've got chained up in the basement. Wait, you mean you don't have your own lawslave? Well, surely you've been saving up a few thousand bucks over your last three months of unemployment while your whole family ate ramen, right?

    2. Re:Right by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I better go ask the lady I have chained up in my basement if she knows anything about the law. Hang on a sec...

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    3. Re:Right by PostScience · · Score: 1
      it was patently above and beyond the bounds of any contract

      Wouldn't it be interesting to actually patent something along these lines, i.e, "Method for Enforcing Employee Retention and Compliance".

      Then we could sue EA and other exploitative companies if they didn't license our "technology".

      Who says two wrongs don't make a right?

    4. Re:Right by Safety+Cap · · Score: 1

      Well, surely you've been saving up a few thousand bucks ~.

      Not at all.

      You can get a short (3 page) contract vetted for anywhere from $75US to about $150. Some referral services will get you the first thirty minutes for almost nothing ($20)--enough to go over the more egregious sections of your contract. That's nothing considering how much you would lose if you signed a contract that screwed you.

      --
      Yeah, right.
  82. Worst Idea Ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder if these folks who suggest unions have actually ever had a union job. I have, and I can assure you that I will NEVER again. Unions are just as corrupt and as much of a "good old boys club" as the stereotype suggests. They are just as interested in screwing over the worker as the employer is, especially if you are a COMPETENT worker. Don't be fooled.

  83. A Word of Caution Re: Unions by geoffrobinson · · Score: 1

    Unions may cause there to be less work by making wages higher. It may also spur more outsourcing.

    For freedom's sake, feel free to unionize. But they're free to get out of Dodge as well.

    --
    Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
  84. Can I ask all you socialists something? by smithmc · · Score: 2, Interesting

    To the authors of Excuse me sir, but could you please evolve?, Libertarianism at its worst, and the post beginning with uhm... you realize that not everyone has the luxuary of quitting a job.:

    Do you expect to have the right to decide who you want to work for, and to leave one employer for another if, for instance, they offer more money or more desirable conditions?

    If so, then why do you think that a business should not be able to choose who it will employ, and for what salary and under what conditions?

    The freedom to choose your means of livelihood brings with it responsbility for your livelihood. No one is responsible for you but you.

    Actually, I have another question: Why does it seem that lefties are more apt/willing to resort to really nasty, personal insults when characterizing their enemies? I don't see people calling you folks "animals" just because you espouse a hive/pack mentality rather than believing in individualism. Why is the reverse OK?

    --
    Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
    1. Re:Can I ask all you socialists something? by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      Do you expect to have the right to decide who you want to work for, and to leave one employer for another if, for instance, they offer more money or more desirable conditions?

      The capitalist model works just fine, if no one employs anyone else, and everyone produces goods or services and trades them. It breaks down when moving to a macro scale because the more consolidated either businesses or unions get, the more centralized the power is and the more likely abuses will occur.

      If business grow, they can screw over their workers, because quitting, despite your assertions, is not a viable option for most people. If you quit, your family begins to starve. That is capitalism. Consolidated workers are a response to consolidated work. If a company controls 80% of the jobs in an industry, they can dictate whatever terms they like to people who work in that industry. Look at Wal-mart already. When workers organize, they balance the playing field by controlling 80% of the labor pool, and allow bargaining on an equal level, rather than a subservient one.

      As for the previous poster's comments about animals, it was uncalled for and incorrect. Many animals are more organized and cooperative than humans, and he should stop badmouthing them by comparing them to humans. What humans who espouse your world view are is selfish. Humans waste a large part of their effort competing with one another when cooperation would yield better results for all involved. That is not to say that competition is bad, it can motivate people and in some cases results in rewards that are more proportional to a persons abilities and effort. A focus that does not allow for cooperation, however, is just as foolish as one that does not allow competition.

    2. Re:Can I ask all you socialists something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      why do you think that a business should not be able to choose who it will employ, and for what salary and under what conditions?

      Because businesses exploit their employees. Exploiters deserve NO rights, much less the godlike rights that corporations have. The exploiters created government to fool people into thinking that exploitation is "legal" and thus okay. People with morals and the ability to think logically can see that it is not okay.

      Why does it seem that lefties are more apt/willing to resort to really nasty, personal insults when characterizing their enemies?

      Because their enemies think exploitation is okay. Their enemies actively promote the evil of exploitation and in fact lie about it, saying that it is a good and "legal" thing. Exploiters work under a backward and dangerous system of morality. "Personal insults" has nothing to do with it. Calling an exploiter evil is not a "personal insult". It is a fact. Getting all pissy about "personal insults" is like Ken Lay getting pissy because someone called him a thief.

      And if you think the exploiters promote individualism in any way you are truly delusional.

    3. Re:Can I ask all you socialists something? by ChuckleBug · · Score: 1

      Actually, I have another question: Why does it seem that lefties are more apt/willing to resort to really nasty, personal insults when characterizing their enemies? I don't see people calling you folks "animals" just because you espouse a hive/pack mentality rather than believing in individualism. Why is the reverse OK?

      Ahem...

      Here's a little exchange:

      ALAN COLMES: Are all the American people that don't support him [President George W. Bush] dumb?

      ANN COULTER: No. I think, as I indicated in my last book, they're traitors.

      How about this:

      MICHAEL SAVAGE: And we have all of the leaders -- we have Obergrupenführer Clinton; we have Grupenführer Carter; we have Brigadeführer Daschle. ... There are only a few rotten führers on the bottom of the corporals; they're the ones wearing the little funny green costumes down there. But they're all there. That's how I see them.

      MICHAEL SAVAGE: You know you're part of a left-wing fringe that will destroy the Democrat party even further than it's been destroyed. Keep on talking George, because it doesn't play outside MoveOn.org, an organization of rat-bastard Communists.

      The point of these few snips is simple: "Lefties" get as much abuse as anyone else. You have every right to complain about being insulted if you wish, but please drop this nonsense about how your side hardly ever stoops so low. It's crap. It only seems like "lefties are more apt/willing" because that's clearly what you want to believe.

    4. Re:Can I ask all you socialists something? by smithmc · · Score: 1

      The point of these few snips is simple: "Lefties" get as much abuse as anyone else. You have every right to complain about being insulted if you wish, but please drop this nonsense about how your side hardly ever stoops so low. It's crap. It only seems like "lefties are more apt/willing" because that's clearly what you want to believe.

      It's not "my" side. I ain't no damned conservative - that's another insult in itself. But I can say, that as a libertarian (i.e. neither conservative nor liberal, 'cause you guys are both wrong) I've personally received a lot more vitriol in my life from libs than from cons. This doesn't mean that cons are any less vocal in their disagreements with me, but they don't get so personal and nasty and vicious about it as the liberals sometimes do.

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
    5. Re:Can I ask all you socialists something? by ChuckleBug · · Score: 1

      It's not "my" side. I ain't no damned conservative - that's another insult in itself. But I can say, that as a libertarian (i.e. neither conservative nor liberal, 'cause you guys are both wrong)

      Oh gawd.

      Another libertarian who's oh, so above the rest - and also can't understand why they're considered so insufferable.

      All right. Sorry. Didn't mean to be nasty. But really, when you call anyone on the left a socialist, and talk about "hive/pack mentality", do you really expect those people not to be insulted?

    6. Re:Can I ask all you socialists something? by smithmc · · Score: 1

      All right. Sorry. Didn't mean to be nasty. But really, when you call anyone on the left a socialist, and talk about "hive/pack mentality", do you really expect those people not to be insulted?

      Yeah, it stings, don't it? I was doing it to make a point. Which you, apparently, missed.

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
    7. Re:Can I ask all you socialists something? by ChuckleBug · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it stings, don't it? I was doing it to make a point. Which you, apparently, missed.

      Doesn't sting me. Odd way to make a point. You determined that an abstract group of people was nasty and then insulted them to give 'em a taste of their own medicine. Doesn't really make as much sense as you think it does in this context. Your rhetoric lacks focus. You need to let go, and *be the insult*.

  85. You'd think that about Hollywood, wouldn't you by Sagarian · · Score: 5, Informative

    A business (the movie business), with an unstable labor pool (infinite supply of people with stars in their eyes), short project lifespans (1-2 years), ...

    yet there is a Screen Actors' Guild.

    1. Re:You'd think that about Hollywood, wouldn't you by DoctorHibbert · · Score: 1

      You ever heard the term "star employee"? It comes from the movie business, where they are called stars because a huge part of the product they sell is unique actors. Its much easier to bargain as a star because you are truly unique to the end product. Thats not the case in the game business (or nearly any other business for that matter).

      --
      Arbitrary sig
  86. yep... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    i worked for origin when it closed down and was offered a nice healthy raise and bonus to move out to redwood shores, and turned it down for just this reason. i won't say austin is perfect but it sure is more laid back...and EA is basically nuts.

  87. Interesting by dteichman · · Score: 1

    how there is a link on the gamespot.com page to The Sims 2, which happens to be an EA title.

    So we have a page covering the lawsuit against EA that is marketing an EA game. Go figure.

    1. Re:Interesting by FusionDragon2099 · · Score: 0

      It would be a Maxis title if EA hadn't bought them. I cry whenever I see "Maxis is an Electronic Arts brand".

    2. Re:Interesting by Justus · · Score: 1

      You might have a point if this were, say, an independent organization of concerned citizens and EA employees (former and current) running a website supporting a campaign to improve workers' rights.

      But it's not. It's entirely unremarkable that a site which covers news and has no vested interest in seeing a story go one way or another would run ads for a company covered in the story.

    3. Re:Interesting by dteichman · · Score: 1

      My concept is that you shouldn't put up an ad for a company that is being openly attacked. It makes you look bad.

  88. Whiners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You whiners show exactly why America is losing in the world. Work comes first. Remember that and shut up.

    1. Re:Whiners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You whiners show exactly why America is losing in the world."

      I don't recall when "America vs. The World" became a contest.

    2. Re:Whiners by theAtomicFireball · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you slept through the last twenty years. We don't making anything here in the U.S. anymore, manufacturing all got outsourced years ago. Now, in the last few years, knowledge worker jobs have started going, top. Not only is it a contest, the odds are against us if we don't buck up, stop the whining, and find a way to compete in the face of the harsh new reality of today.

      Suing our employers is not likely the best way to stay competitive.

    3. Re:Whiners by Starsmore · · Score: 1

      Well, in order for all the knowledge worker jobs to complete with overseas outsourcing, we'll have to start working for a few dollars an hour, if that, 190 hours a week, 365 a year. Because that's exactly what "Big Business" is looking for in its labor force, which is why everything is outsourced to India, the Phillippines, and Mexico.

      --
      "If Common Sense was so common, it wouldn't be such a valued trait."
  89. Obviously you are not in the IT industry by CarrionBird · · Score: 1

    Considering the unemployment rate for programmers, EA will have no trouble filling it even if they paid 1.95 & a lashing an hour

    --
    Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's
  90. Well, if it was me... by Cigarra · · Score: 1
    ...I wouldn't wait till it becomes proper-full-just-like-in-movies slavery to begin demanding my dignity not to be taken away.

    I mean, Free Market Believers, just think of this: A Corporation is, abstractly a Person. Only a BIG, POWERFUL person. In the free market game, this BIG POWERFUL UGLY person just have no problem to do pretty much whatever it wants when "competing" against single human persons.
    So what's wrong about these individuals forming a stronger person (say, a UNION) to play the market game vs. the Corporation? Or, why not ,maybe another BIG, STRONG person (say, the STATE) could play a little of the game in favour of the less powered individuals rights.

    My point is: it's just not FAIR to let Corporations do whatever they want, humiliating individuals, in the HOPE that GodFreeMarket will eventually put them in place. Actually, is a little something between naive and evil.

    --
    I don't have a sig.
  91. sorry about the spelling by lazyl · · Score: 1

    nt

    --
    Aw crap, ninjas!
  92. I Will Hurt EA. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I will:

    1. Tell everyone what a bad company they are.

    2. Find people who were planning to buy their games and get them pirated copies instead.

    3. Do anything else i can think of to make the lives of EA managment worse.

  93. company info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    for a gaming company, their corporate bio page has nothing but management graduates.
    i don't find it surprising now.

  94. You'd think that about Hollywood wouldn't you? by Sagarian · · Score: 1

    A business (the movie business), with an unstable labor pool (infinite supply of people with stars in their eyes), short project lifespans (1-2 years), ...

    yet the movie/tv business has one of the strongest unions around.

  95. "Free" market hypocrites by Dogtanian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Where do you fucking commies come from anyway? You just seem to seep out of the woodwork whenever some story whining about bad work conditions comes up. Quit whining and find a better job!

    Troll, sure. But it's a good opportunity to point out something...

    It's blatant hypocrisy to support the right of companies act in their own interests (as supporters of the "free" market often do), then whine and start name-calling when employees do the same thing.

    Companies acting in their own interest. Employees acting in *their* own interest. Seems like the true free-market to me.

    No-one said the company owners on the receiving end had to like it; but they should take it like a man instead of screeching "Communists!" when the employee market (which is how you may care to look at it) decides to act together in its own interest.

    --
    "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    1. Re:"Free" market hypocrites by captnitro · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sir, if I had a mod point, I would plant it, lovingly cultivate it and nurture it in the earth, wait until it blossomed and grew a mod point tree, pick them off, and give you a big fucking mod point basket with a bow and some seasonal jellies.

      Well said.

    2. Re:"Free" market hypocrites by GigsVT · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It would be a free market, free speech, free association, if unions didn't enjoy special protections under the law.

      Should people be free to form unions? Sure. Unions shouldn't get any special protections under the law, however.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    3. Re:"Free" market hypocrites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a fair assesment on your part, if and only if you agree that I have the right to think it's in my best interest not to take part in any union. I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels a union could only hurt them. If other people feel a union is in their best interest, that's fine too. Personally I do hope they never convince a significant number of people who feel like me to change their minds:)

    4. Re:"Free" market hypocrites by zenasprime · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, they are protected from being beaten and murdered like they were at the end of the 19th and begining of the 20th centuries. ;)

    5. Re:"Free" market hypocrites by GigsVT · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, nowadays union members just beat up and kill scabs.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    6. Re:"Free" market hypocrites by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 1

      Would you say the same thing about a cartel? If more employees could act singularly in their own best interest, then wages would inherently rise. Similarly, consumers acting in their own best interest would boycott companies. It is for this reason I suggestion Consumer Unions/Associations. The purpose of such would be to inform members in reports on how best to vote their money on their best interest. An employment Union/Association would do the same thing. Collective bargaining is not necessary if people work to inform themselves, be it through their own direct efforts or through an association. The keys to the free market are an informed consumer and supplier. Perhaps that would be the best place to start.

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
    7. Re:"Free" market hypocrites by dvNull · · Score: 1

      I dont think i have ever heard a "MOD PARENT UP" put so poetically.

      - dvnull

  96. EA Stock Down today and yesterday by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&prev=/searc h%3Fq%3DERTS%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DG&q=stocks:E RTS+

  97. Employees whine? Solution==Outsourcing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess they can go ahead with their lawsuit.

    If they do, I would expect to start seeing many more studios/titles produced abroad -- like EA Russia or EA India any day now.

    The only ones that might be safe are US centric sports titles (football, baseball)

  98. Fun Fact! by whorfin · · Score: 2, Informative

    IANAL, but I did a little research on this when I left my short unpleasant stint as a 'manager' at EA, so I could pass it along to the people I refused to victimize. I don't believe that any of them followed through, however.

    According to California state employment law, the MANAGERS can be fined for requiring unpaid overtime in violation of the California employment laws.

    California Labor Code

    558. (a) Any employer or other person acting on behalf of an employer who violates, or causes to be violated, a section of this chapter or any provision regulating hours and days of work in any order of the Industrial Welfare Commission shall be subject to a civil penalty as follows:
    (1) For any initial violation, fifty dollars ($50) for each underpaid employee for each pay period for which the employee was underpaid in addition to an amount sufficient to recover underpaid wages.

    --
    Laugh while you can, monkey-boy!
    1. Re:Fun Fact! by sabat · · Score: 1

      Sounds good, but wouldn't this be just for non-exempt (hourly) employees? I doubt most EA employees are hourly.

      --
      I, for one, welcome our new Antichrist overlord.
  99. Good ol' HR by gosand · · Score: 4, Interesting
    First of all, everyone always needs to keep in mind that HR is not there for the benefit of the employees. That's what every company tells you, but the truth is, HR's job is to protect the corperation.

    You got that right. From '93 to '98 I worked at Motorola. For some of you who don't remember, let me set the stage: the WWW was in its infancy. At the company, we had just gotten access to it, and we had Mosaic. Intranets didn't really exist yet,and I was actually on the team that helped create it in our department. (I actually got an award for it, which is kind of funny now) We were on Solaris servers, 10 users per server. So we each had "web space", and people created web pages. It was kind of cool because it was new, people were putting information out there for the whole department to use.

    On my page, I had lots of work related stuff, but I also had a small collection of engineer jokes. Nothing dirty at all, just dork humor. And so it went for a few years. One day I was called into Human Resources, and my manager was there. Neither of us knew what was going on. It turned out I was being written up for using corporate resources for non work related activities. My manager stood behind me, and fought for me. He explained that my web page was internal, and that it had mostly work related things on it. There was nothing offensive on it. As it turned out, some other people in the company had discovered the intranet, and found my jokes. They were looking at them, and their supervisor got pissed because they were goofing off. So they called HR. I wasn't even informed, and asked to take the material down, and neither was my manager. I was just written up for it, and it was considered a serious infraction. All we were able to do was argue it down from a class 1 infraction to a class 2. That meant that one more infraction could result in termination. I got a little livid with the HR person, and asked her if she had ever used her email for something non-work related, even saying hi to a family member. She didn't want to answer me, and I pressed her and kept asking. She finally admitted that she had. I asked if she was going to write herself up, and my manager stepped in at that point and ended the meeting.

    I left Motorola about 3 months later. There were other factors, but I have to admit that the HR interaction helped me to realize that I didn't want to be there anymore.

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

    1. Re:Good ol' HR by deanj · · Score: 1

      I'm shocked that Moto let you actually use Mosaic. Back in the day (at least at the Moto facility I'm thinking of), they didn't want anything on their machines that wasn't "supported" by a company. I think they ended up delaying any sort of web browser stuff until Netscape hit the streets.

    2. Re:Good ol' HR by gosand · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I'm shocked that Moto let you actually use Mosaic. Back in the day (at least at the Moto facility I'm thinking of), they didn't want anything on their machines that wasn't "supported" by a company. I think they ended up delaying any sort of web browser stuff until Netscape hit the streets.

      Heh. It wasn't supported, and in fact most people had no clue what it even was. There were a couple of grass-roots folks in our facility who used it, and we kept it pretty quiet. Then one guy figured out which machines were the sites proxy servers to the internet, because they were experimenting with it. So we had internet access! We kept that quiet for several months before it leaked out. By that time, we had built up some work related materials, so management thought it was OK. Not to mention that in those days, our management was pretty cool and we showed them how to get on the internet. :-) I don't think Mosaic was ever officially supported, but by the time my "incident" took place, we were all using the official version of Netscape.

      Man, I still remember the day we figured out how to set the proxy settings to those secret servers. We got out to the internet! That was exciting. But back then, there was no search engine, so you really did have to surf. You would hear about websites via email, or through newsgroups. Can you imagine not having a search engine nowadays? I am trying to remember what the first search engine was..... webcrawler maybe?

      --

      My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

    3. Re:Good ol' HR by Tyreth · · Score: 1

      All these stories of working large companies sound quite ridiculous. My experience is with contract jobs with small companies, and there's no experience like this. Based on what is being said in this story, there's not much motivation for someone to work in a big company.
      Contracting work and small business seem like the path to sanity.

    4. Re:Good ol' HR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Web Warriors stand tall!

    5. Re:Good ol' HR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, you have to be either Eric or Clayton.

    6. Re:Good ol' HR by gosand · · Score: 1
      OK, you have to be either Eric or Clayton.


      Nope. Which Moto facility were you at?

      --

      My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

    7. Re:Good ol' HR by gosand · · Score: 1
      All these stories of working large companies sound quite ridiculous. My experience is with contract jobs with small companies, and there's no experience like this. Based on what is being said in this story, there's not much motivation for someone to work in a big company.
      Contracting work and small business seem like the path to sanity.


      Depends. I left Moto in '97 to go to a small company. I had essentially had it with their manufactured "culture". I loved the small company, even though I was making less overall (when you account for all benefits) But at the small company, I was truly part of a team. I wasn't just a "resource" or an FTE (full time employee). But....


      That small company isn't around anymore. We were a victim of the dot-com bust, our VCs got freaked out and pulled all funding, shutting down the company. Luckily, it all went down before the whole market collapsed, which was good for me. I was able to find a job quickly (about a month). So I am still with that company, and it is HUGE. There are all kinds of positives and negatives about it. I have a stable job - but I am only an FTE. If the word came down, I would be fired with no consideration to my abilities or past performance. I have seen it happen. We got no raises this year, but our CEO made a few million in salary, and with stock and bonuses, he made 50 million. Yet everyone in the company had to forego raises because of financial performance that most of us had nothing to do with.


      The thing is, you can work at a large company for a long long time without doing much. You usually have to compromise your personality, spirit, and creativity to do it though. Oh, people like to think that they haven't lost these things, but there is definitely a "group think" going on, where you accept stupid, stupid things because "that is just how things are". Some people are happy with that. Some people don't want to lose their vacation that they have built up, or whatever else they see as a benefit. They don't know what is out there, so what they have is good enough. They like to sit around and bitch about things, knowing full well that they can't change them. It is an odd, symbiotic relationship between corporate entity and employee. They really like not having to care about their job at all. Just put in the hours, work overtime when you are told to, and don't complain because nobody can change it.


      The only real option is to leave, and that scares a lot of people. Since they have been there for 10 or 15 years, they have some kind of loyalty to a company that wouldn't give a second thought to cutting their throat. See, if the "company" does something, then nobody is responsible. There is nobody to blame, because that is just how things are. Big companies will break your spirit if you stay at them long enough. So far for me, and I have just worked at two, 4 years is about my limit. After that, I start looking. It is just a damaging environment for me personally. I may even go to another big company, in the hopes that it is different. I mean, I can't judge them all on my measly 2 jobs. Even if it is more of the same, I figure I have about 4 good years before I get sick of it.

      --

      My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

    8. Re:Good ol' HR by Tyreth · · Score: 1

      Your story did more to encourage my now new view that working in a large company is undesirable :) I'm not sure if you were actually trying to give balance to that idea, but the start of your post saying "Depends." made me think you were.

    9. Re:Good ol' HR by gosand · · Score: 1
      You have to remember, this opinion comes from someone who has been at this big company for a few years and is sick of it. If I had written this after losing my job at a startup because it went under, it probably would have had a slightly different tone. :-)


      Some people really do want that secure, lifetime position at a big company. I know my friends that are still at Moto are making more than I am, and they probably are getting some nice stock options since the stock tanked a few years ago (the shares I bought when I was there are worth about 1/3 what they used to be). It is all about benefit/cost. They may not even see the "cost" in working there because they have only been in that environment. I have been on the outside, and can say that I am soooo glad I left. But I can't speak for all big companies. I have a friend who works at Intel, and he loves it. From what he tells me, it is a great place to work.

      --

      My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

  100. Mod parent way the fuck up by saintp · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Curses! I used all my mod points yesterday!

    Somehow, I find it amazing that on a site chock-full of libertarians and liberal weenies, unionization comes up so infrequently. I know striking is difficult, but software development is a field in which it is uniquely effective: it's imperative that the same people finish a project who started it, or you waste months showing the new team the ropes. You can't just hire a bunch of scabs to stamp out code like it's steel.

    1. Re:Mod parent way the fuck up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know striking is difficult, but software development is a field in which it is uniquely effective: it's imperative that the same people finish a project who started it, or you waste months showing the new team the ropes.

      Much as I agree with the sentiments (I'm a liberal with self-confessed socialist tendencies), I have to say, I can't help but wonder whether management might respond to that with something along the lines of "Yes, yes, of course we'll give you a rise and better conditions" - then add, under their breath, "(and the sack, as soon as this project ships)".

      Which would you prefer - $40k for the next five years, or $60k this year and then you're unemployed and unemployable?

      If you can see an escape route there, I'd like to hear about it. But I honestly can't see a route from here to my dream society that doesn't involve things getting a whole lot worse before they get better.

    2. Re:Mod parent way the fuck up by acvh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem with your thinking on this is that unions made sense when the product was essential (eg. coal) and the work was physically harmful.

      Video games are not essential and programming them is not physically harmful (spare me the RSI and vague notions of "stress").

      You don't have to work in a job that requires long hours. Just don't expect to earn the same pay or benefits. I did the 60-80 hour a week thing for quite a while, and now I don't have to, because doing it earned me points that, when redeemed, put me in my current position (metaphorically speaking, of course).

    3. Re:Mod parent way the fuck up by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem with your thinking on this is that unions made sense when the product was essential (eg. coal) and the work was physically harmful. Video games are not essential and programming them is not physically harmful

      I am not sure what you mean. Management does not care about "essential", they care about profits whether it is profits from coal or game sales.

    4. Re:Mod parent way the fuck up by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Which would you prefer - $40k for the next five years, or $60k this year and then you're unemployed and unemployable?

      Around here, $40k is blockbuster wages. I'll take $90-110k for the next 20 years, thank you.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    5. Re:Mod parent way the fuck up by saintp · · Score: 2, Insightful
      According to management (and the shareholders to whom they answer), the game is essential -- it's essential for profit. Physical harm doesn't have anything to do with it; it just makes the case easier to make to the press. Workers can strike for whatever reason they please.

      I think the whole point of this mess is that the EA employees are getting screwed: they're working 80-hour weeks, and getting no extra compensation. That's plain illegal, and even if it wasn't, it's something the workers shouldn't put up with. Striking -- or even threatening a strike -- would rectify this situation.

    6. Re:Mod parent way the fuck up by mankey+wanker · · Score: 1

      $40K is not the average wage of people working at Blockbuster, or at least I would think not - it's far too high a wage. Maybe the manager *MIGHT* make that much.

      The main thing is that $40K is nothing in the Bay Area. That's barely scratching out a living. Forget about getting a house any time soon. Hopeless.

      But considering the conditions many are willing to work under, that's actually close to minimum wage (SF style) if you are actually working 80 hours a week.

      The catch in many occupations is the long hours. Lawyers make decent pay, but they work 90 hour weeks in many instances. It's often specifically expected.

      I agree that such hours are not reasonable. Corporate america has forgotten it's end of the social contract - we should work to live, not live to work.

    7. Re:Mod parent way the fuck up by Overzeetop · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You've missed the bargaining conditions. Nobody wants a raise. They want a 40 (or 50 or 60) hour workweek.

      I left my job as a corporate drone when I realized that, no matter what I told the management, the schedules would always come back too short for the hours requried to do the job. They loved to promise the customer the world, and just figured we could put in the extra 15-20 hours a week to make it happen.

      Bullshit. My time with my family is worth more than that. So I quit my job and hung our a shingle. It took a year to really turn a profit, but I'm swamped now. I've got the hours I want, and then some. If I want to work the extra dozen hours one week, I can, and I make an extra grand in the process. If I don't, I tell the client a realistic completion date, and they either wait or they find another engineer.

      I'm moving to a new office in a month or two, and I'll be less than a mile from home. I help get my daughter ready for school in the morning, and I'm home for dinner and to tuck her in every night. Weekends are for playing. My blood pressure has dropped 15 points, and I rarely have stress headaches. Oh, and I'll make more this year than I made year-before last at my former company.

      (I should add that my boss doesn't care if I take an hour on a Friday afternoon to read slashdot ;-)

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    8. Re:Mod parent way the fuck up by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      The main thing is that $40K is nothing in the Bay Area.

      Hell, in SanFran, $90k isn't even that great. Isn't the poverty line around $70k?

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    9. Re:Mod parent way the fuck up by mrlpz · · Score: 1

      Guess what...there's a republican or two around here who actually AGREE with "some" of what Mr. Kerry was suggesting....Frankly, I'd rather see W fix the outsourcing stab wound on the economy, rather than Tort Reform.

    10. Re:Mod parent way the fuck up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, except W thinks the outsourcing problem is solved by retraining the unemployed at the local community college to do IT jobs....

    11. Re:Mod parent way the fuck up by Faithman2k · · Score: 1

      I congratulate you.

      I'm 31 and my dad has been in the computer industry since the late 1960s. (the advantage is that I was aware of computers and even UNIX systems from the age of five or six... I got to play space invaders on some mainframes).

      Anyways...
      He was never home much always worked obcene hours until the last few years. I have promised myself family comes first... no amount of money is worth not KNOWING your own kids. I'm starting to get to know my dad now.

      take it from me... it's better for your kids to know their dad from a young age. There is a lot less friction in later life.

      I hope all goes well with your business and family.

      Paul.

    12. Re:Mod parent way the fuck up by Gernot · · Score: 1

      Thank you very much for sharing these insights !
      I've also considered this, but the question is: when is the right age for that ? When you have been some years in the industry and know some potential business contacts already ? Or later ?

    13. Re:Mod parent way the fuck up by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      I'm a day late, but I'll answer.

      There isn't a "right" age, but rather a right time and personal experience level. Oh, and a right finacial situation.

      One: You have to have a marketable service, and a feel that the local economy can support your services. I talked to potential clients for a couple of months before I jumped, so I knew that there were very few engineers with my qualifications in the market.

      Two: I've been doing engineering for a dozen or so years, in three different but related fields. I'm a licenced professional engineer, and have been for 7 of those years. I'm comfortable with my knowledge, and confident that I can provide value. I'm also a people-person, and don't mind putting in a few extra free hours of work to make a client really happy. I've had two clients in the last year send me a check for more than my invoice, because they felt I went above and beyond what was required.

      Three: You've got to be somewhat financially stable. I was lucky - I had an open-ended second mortgage I could draw on, and a wife with a decent job that covered about 2/3 of our normal living expenses and health benefits. I also was being paid very little at my current employer, relative to my "market" rate, so I wasn't giving up too much. Figure out how little you can live on, look at your financing, and figure 6-18 months before you can really start paying for things. I know that's a long time, and you might get going in just three months, but it would suck to have to quit your own business just because you ran out of money before you really got going.

      Unless there are local issues with self-employed young people, age doesn't really matter if you're really good at what you do, and can communicate effectively with your clients.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  101. Ob OfficeSpace Quote [solution] by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Milton Waddams: [talking on the phone] And I said, I don't care if they lay me off either, because I told, I told Bill that if they move my desk one more time, then, then I'm, I'm quitting, I'm going to quit. And, and I told Don too, because they've moved my desk four times already this year, and I used to be over by the window, and I could see the squirrels, and they were merry, but then, they switched from the Swingline to the Boston stapler, but I kept my Swingline stapler because it didn't bind up as much, and I kept the staples for the Swingline stapler and it's not okay because if they take my stapler then I'll set the building on fire.

  102. It is called schadenfreude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And no, it is not inherently American

    1. Re:It is called schadenfreude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course not, it's a German word.

  103. get Sega ESPN sports games by superpulpsicle · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Just don't buy EA sports games. They have a marketing lock on the video game industries. Their sports games overall don't compared to Sega ESPN games in cost or quality. The only reason why Madden is a success is the 15+ years of football game monopoly. They are slipping away every year.

    EA's best games coame from small-mid size company acquisitions. Electronic Arts themselves are just martketers. Like SCO is to lawyers. The real product comes some where else, and the company is just abusing the hell out of all the developers with their over-achieving marketing tactics.

    1. Re:get Sega ESPN sports games by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How I miss the EA of old, before EA Sports, before the dark times.

      Back in the days of home computers, EA proudly called themselves a group of "electronic artists," and produced innovative titles like Hard Hat Mack, M.U.L.E., Realm of Impossibility, Archon, Battle Chess, The Bard's Tale, Modem Wars, Neuromancer, Wasteland, Project Firestart, etc. Now they're crank out sequel after sequel, and treat their talent like oxen. EA needs a wake up call.

      Classic EA games
      C64 EA games

    2. Re:get Sega ESPN sports games by superpulpsicle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just to extend on that EA monopoly power. When you watch SportsCenter, they always use Madden as a football demo. ESPN fears using their own ESPN Sega football game, since it may jeopardize $$$ of marketing dollars. That's when you know EA's got you by the balls.

    3. Re:get Sega ESPN sports games by tenton · · Score: 1

      Plus Madden technically works for them (ABC/ESPN).

      I was wondering about that (ESPN using Madden, instead of ESPN 2K5), but I think the links go a little farther than just $$$ (since EA would still want to advertise on Sunday and Monday night football broadcasts).

    4. Re:get Sega ESPN sports games by antime · · Score: 1
      I miss EOA, never liked EA and never will.

      Remember the old "We see further" ad? Oh the irony..

    5. Re:get Sega ESPN sports games by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 1

      Did you ever play Ultima VIII and try to use the morphing cube/sphere/triangle? "This gives you a headache.." heheh..

  104. Unions must work _with_ employers by microbox · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm not a pro-union guy. They just seem to corrupt themselves, and start to operate only for their own benefit.

    Unions have a bad reputation, but as you pointed out they do serve a purpose. The trick is to find a balance. In the mid 80s in Australia, the government did just that, with what was known as the accord.

    Basically it meant that unions could only ask for a pay increase if they could show an increase in worker productivity. The workers had to work harder and smarter, and the employers had to pass some of the increased wealth on.

    This worked very well, and Australia had the lowest number of hours lost due to industrial action. Store clerks also earnt $AUD15 per hour (about $US11), and a Big Mac value meal went for $AUD4.95 in those days. Win-win.

    When the conservatives got into power in the late 90s, they took the guts out of the accord with what was euphamistically called "enterprise barginning". This would allow Australian corporations to achieve the same level of exploitation as overseas. It was very contraverisal, but Howard did it anyway, just like sending Australians to Iraq against the will of the people.

    The point is that unions have a bad reputation, but if both unions and employers are forced (by law) to work with each other, the results are worth it.

    --

    Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
  105. Couldn't agree more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I used to have a director level job, and am posting anonymously because people could associate me with it. I choose to work for myself now.

    HR is not your friend - don't believe the hype.

    It is actually a well-named role in the company. Managing human resources, from a corporate perspective, is no different from managing other resources, like computers or trademarks. The goal is to extract maximal value. The difference is that inanimate objects don't have feelings, so HR has to make you like them.

    I've dealt with difficult employees before, via HR. We got rid of them through evil, manipulative, crappy mechanisms, rather than what I considered the "right way", because the right way is either illegal or difficult. It sucks, and I hated it. But that's the reality.

    If you have a meeting with your manager and an HR person, realize that it is serious. If anything comes out of the meeting in terms of agreements for what you will perform, what your manager will do, etc., get it in writing. This won't really protect you from retaliation, but it will give them pause in terms of redefining things later. And accept the fact that you're screwed - if you're in a bad work place, start developing a plan for getting to a better one. You can't fix a fucked up place, and you have to accept that - the company is bigger than you. Hey, at least this isn't the middle ages - they won't torture you for insuborination these days.

  106. I'd like to mod this comment -5, Retarded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No idea how the industry works?

    1. Re:I'd like to mod this comment -5, Retarded by mowler2 · · Score: 1

      Well, I just think it is pretty obvious that they should have some kind of union, especially when something like this happends (that must have happend several times before).

      I think the employees of EA/other programmers/game devs are stupid that they have not formed their own union and made union agreements with their employers. That would increase job security and give the employees a fair share of company profits, etc.

  107. Re:Makes me wish I was still working at Disney Wor by KD5YPT · · Score: 1

    I believe they kind of have to. You don't want an employee who's disgruntled take it out on the customers. PR nightmare my friend.

    Go for service industries, their customers is your hostages.

    --
    In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.
  108. Game Development Sweatshops-Talent Tree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    "Except that the game dev industry doesn't really pay all that well relative to other software development jobs. Because everyone and their cousin wants to develop games. They'll burn you out like a backyard BBQ because they know they can just replace you."

    There's a gap between "wants to" and "are able to". Desire isn't enough, hardwork and talent are. Since that's a much smaller crowd. Word gets around quicker that so-and-so is treating people badly. There are other companies to work for, and the nice thing about game development is that you can plop a company down anywere (Id is in Texas for example). A bunch of talented people can form their own company anytime they feel like it.

    "And all the while they dangle the high salaries of the Top Tier Talent as the crack-laced carrot to keep you slaving away."

    That's every programmers "carrot".

    1. Re:Game Development Sweatshops-Talent Tree by HiThere · · Score: 1

      But what's the career path to become a Top Tier Talent?

      In most industries you find that when the bean counters take over, it becomes impossible for new "Top Tier Talent" to emerge. After all, your ideas are already their property, so why should they pay you extra for them? Usually they will occasionally import new "Top Tier Talent" from outside the company. These may or may not deserve the label in their new environment. (Talent doesn't exist in isolation. The environment in which it's operating is quite significant.)

      When engineers (programmers, etc.) are running a company, financial concerns tend to receive a short shrift. When financial types are running a company, technical concerns tend to receive a short shrift. When bottom feeders are running a company, everyone else tends to receive a short shrift.

      There's got to be a better way to organize things. Some companies achieve a (temporary?) balence. But for an individual, the important thing is to notice what kind of company he's working for, and plan his actions accordingly.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  109. Harrumpf. Quit then by speedbump · · Score: 1

    I feel for this disgruntled spouse, because I was young and stupid once. I worked the same kind of environment when I was an Aeorspace guy, and LOVED the work. 80-hour work weeks, regardless of deadlines, was the norm. And in a tie. You know, we were *creating something great.*

    I got smart. I started up my own company whch sells stuff to MegaAeroCorp. I worked my own hours, kept all my money, and had the satisfaction to be able to say to my former management, 'you ain't the boss of me.'

    Everyone has choices. The worker bee made his biggest mistake when he found out that 85 hours per week were the expected norm, and he didn't do anything about it.

    If EA is operating illegally, rape them in a class action lawsuit. Otherwise, put up with it, or quit and support your family like a man. It may mean that you have to do something you don't 'love', like flipping burgers, or moving to Iowa.

  110. Don't quit, that's just what they want you to do by Thagg · · Score: 5, Informative

    Seriously, quitting is almost certainly painless to EA, as they can get other people to do the job pretty easily. Just send an email saying that you're only going to work 50 hours a week, and stick to it, and see what happens.

    Because firing people has consequences. I run a small visual effects production company, and we hire freelance people as we get projects, for the length of the project. The State of California doesn't see it that way, though, and to the state it appears that we hire and fire people at a high rate.

    This causes our unemployment insurance rate to be insanely high -- we pay about 10% of our employee's earnings into the state unemployment insurance system. Now, we consider that the cost of doing business -- we could even avoid it if we wanted to by various means but it does seem to us a reasonable price to pay for the privilege of hiring people just when we need them.

    But, if EA's unemployment insurance rate skyrocketed, it'd hit them right in the wallet. They might even do something about it.

    Just a suggestion. Any EA exec reading this (Hi!) can thank me privately -- as you must know, long term, that these "crunch" policies will destroy the company.

    Thad

    --
    I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
  111. Re:Employees whine? Solution==Outsourcing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only ones that might be safe are US centric sports titles (football, baseball)

    You mean almost all EA titles?

  112. just quit-Go on Unemployment. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "As long as the consumers keep buying products from them and workers keep applying for their jobs, they have absolutely no incentives to quit their practice."

    Yup. How dare the unemployed apply for a job there? In case people haven't noticed, it's a tight job market out there, And being picky is going to hurt you far more than it's going to hurt companies like EA. That's why despite all the things said about Wal-mart, people are still lining up to work for them.

  113. parent is dead right by IndependentVik · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's true, American work more hours and get less vacation time than other industrialized nation--two weeks less than the Japanese.

    A non-scientific analysis of how fewer work hours might not be as bad for productivity as we thought can be found here. (note: this link is only authoritative for those who view interesting thing of the day as having authority).

    --
    I'd suggest you don't use Slashdot as your only news source, or you will suffer permanent brain damage.
    1. Re:parent is dead right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Americans work more at their jobs than other countries. If you include housework and other non-economic labor we work the same amount as Europe. In europe they have less incentive to work for pay because pay is taxed heavily while working outside the market is not taxed at all.

    2. Re:parent is dead right by IndependentVik · · Score: 1

      This is an interesting premise, AC, but I'm reluctant to accept it without some data backing it up.

      --
      I'd suggest you don't use Slashdot as your only news source, or you will suffer permanent brain damage.
  114. Why are you so anti-american? by TempusMagus · · Score: 1

    My biggest problem with your train of thought is this: "Hey, employees can come and go anytime they want - why should'nt employers have the same right?".
    Your assumption is that there is parity in that relationship, when that is not the case. Companies recieve larger tax breaks as corporate persons than individuals do in many instances (especially public ones). Companies can leave the country to find cheaper employees and are constantly being lured away to do so. American employees certainly are not being given free work-visas and being invited to work overseas.

    One thing I've never understood about people with your point of view is that you claim to be anti-regulation and free-market, but it always translates into "pro-business".

    Another thing to poke holes in your argument about the parity between the employee and the employer is political clout. Large companies wield more political power than individuals do. At this point personal responsibility should play it's biggest role because the only way employees can match the political force of the company is to organize. However, the company can just leave the country if that becomes burdensome - and the left-over American workers are now completely "responsible" for their own livelihoods.

    I am sick of the hive/pack mentality of large corporations that I find totally antithetical to individualism. How is the enrichment of a tiny few oligarchs like Ken Lay and his ilk beneficial to the concepts of individualism?

    If you don't like being called an animal - then I suggest you stop behaving like them. And if you havent heard so-called lefties being called names then you must not have ears.

    --
    -_-
    1. Re:Why are you so anti-american? by smithmc · · Score: 1

      One thing I've never understood about people with your point of view is that you claim to be anti-regulation and free-market, but it always translates into "pro-business".

      Where do you get the idea that I am "pro-business"? All I'm saying is that businesses don't exist to provide people with cushy jobs.

      Another thing to poke holes in your argument about the parity between the employee and the employer is political clout. Large companies wield more political power than individuals do.

      You're right. And they shouldn't. I'm all for campaign finance reform and tight restrictions on lobbying. Mostly, I'm in favor of limiting the power of government so that such abuses of power can't happen in the first place. Corporations have way too much power in this country. And I'm not the only libertarian who thinks so.

      At this point personal responsibility should play it's biggest role because the only way employees can match the political force of the company is to organize.

      And they have every right to do so. I never said that people shouldn't be allowed to unionize. I'm not sure it's really in their long-term best interest, but that's another story.

      However, the company can just leave the country if that becomes burdensome - and the left-over American workers are now completely "responsible" for their own livelihoods.

      True. Maybe they could start new businesses.

      I am sick of the hive/pack mentality of large corporations that I find totally antithetical to individualism.

      Me too.

      How is the enrichment of a tiny few oligarchs like Ken Lay and his ilk beneficial to the concepts of individualism?

      Beats me.

      If you don't like being called an animal - then I suggest you stop behaving like them.

      Your repeated assertion that taking responsibility for one's own life is "animalistic" doesn't make it so. Could you explain a little further, or do you just want to go on hurling insults?

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
    2. Re:Why are you so anti-american? by TempusMagus · · Score: 1

      There is absolutely nothing wrong with taking responsibilty for one's own life - that is in no way animalistic. You've got to play the cards you are delt with. But who deals the cards? It is animalistic to manipulate the political system so that it's easy to screw your fellow human beings out of decent wages. I'm afraid I'm unfairly disparaging animals here. Followed to it's logical conclusion the story always ends the same: you end up with a smaller and smaller group of oligarchs and a poorer and poorer populace until people decide to take personal responsibilty and violence ensues.

      --
      -_-
  115. Remembering the good old days... by MagikSlinger · · Score: 1

    I knew there was a reason I got out of the game industry and into one that paid OT.

    The industry exploits the youth, enthusiasm and naivity of their young suckers^H^H^H^H^H^H^H workers. Of course, the brain dead market for games also helps encourage this.

    Who wants an interesting and innovative game that doesn't require insane hours to produce?
    Several tens of thousands.

    Who wants the latest FPS so you can live out your socipathic tendencies!?
    SEVERAL MILLION!!

    That kind of money is just too hard to say no too ("They drove a big dump truck of money up to my door!" -- Krusty D. Klown). And of course the market clamors for the game >>NOW!!<< which makes the Crunch worse.

    Of course, there's the "productivity" factor. When you factor it all in, it's cheaper to make your workforce give insane hours than to do things right. Sure they make more mistakes, but the time to fix it is cheap for the company. Sure they get ill, but because their sick days is part of their vacation time, it doesn't cost you anything. Long term health costs? Luckily, they'll quit before it becomes an issue for the company. It will be someone else's problem by then.

    --
    The bitter lessons of a veteran coder: http://bitterprogrammer.blogspot.com
  116. Understanding of Libertarianism at its worst by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 1

    So basically, we're supposed to wait years or decades for a large corporation to suffer the consequences of its own bad policies for the market to finally convince it to change its ways. In the meantime, hundreds or thousands of employees and or customers are hurt because enacting faster moving regulation would be seen as "hindering" economic activity.

    1. Those employees are free to work for another company.

    2. Those customers are free to buy from someone else.

    Where exactly are the customers and the employees being hurt, of anything but their own volition.

    Freedom works both ways, it has the power to let you help or hurt yourself. Unfortunately, the opposite of freedom, government control, offers to help you, but usually fails, providing you with a false sense of security.

    --
    Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
  117. People with debt = hard working people= Education. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The trouble is alot of people want that bigger house or flashy car [or students loans they had to take out, because the buggy whip industries folded] without thinking about how exactly there going to pay it off."

    Or were you just under the impression that all this debt is being spent friviously? Here's a catch phrase for you "You have to spend money to make money".

  118. And mod the parent to this way the gosh up as well by JonnyCalcutta · · Score: 2

    Word!

  119. EA's House of Cards by blueZhift · · Score: 1

    Depending on how EA responds to the expected lawsuits, this may well reveal the software giant to be a house of cards. Firing a few employees here and there may not do much, but an all out open revolt could bring EA to its knees. Massive outsourcing of projects would be very difficult given the nature of the business, and the game designers may not go along with it either. Imagine EA becoming the poster child for exploited third world labor, high tech or not!

  120. Karma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This Sweet Sweet Karma for putting me through 7 interviews and then not hiring me last week.

  121. Working conditions in Utopia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I don't care if someone is paid $10/hr or $45/hr, they still have rights, and those rights include decent, respectful working practices."

    We, the migrant, fruit-pickers of lower California do humbly agree.

  122. Why? by kdark1701 · · Score: 1

    Why is this YRO?

  123. Canadian Situation by zx75 · · Score: 1

    Does anyone know what the situation is like in EA's Canadian development offices? I am graduating from university soon, and EA has posted a job listing with my university looking to hire new graduates for its Burnaby BC office. However, with the recent issues regarding EA's employee situation I have been reconsidering my decision to apply.

    --
    This is not a sig.
    1. Re:Canadian Situation by Run4yourlives · · Score: 1

      I can almost guarentee you it's the same. As well, I can say that pretty much any game design company is exactly the same... want 9-5? stay away from the game industry.

    2. Re:Canadian Situation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its a front, they really are looking for fresh young content for their gay porno sites! Stay away!

    3. Re:Canadian Situation by zx75 · · Score: 1

      I'm not picky about 9-5 or working overtime especially during a crunch (I've done it before), but I know what I am able to tolerate. Fortunately there are a lot of options available for me right now, and I'm not pining for any specific job.

      --
      This is not a sig.
    4. Re:Canadian Situation by zx75 · · Score: 1

      Yeah well, if they were looking for that, they wouldn't be asking for Comp Sci grads now would they?

      --
      This is not a sig.
    5. Re:Canadian Situation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Yeah well, if they were looking for that, they wouldn't be asking for Comp Sci grads now would they?

      What else are these people going to do? The job market has dried up. Its called "exploitation"!

    6. Re:Canadian Situation by hampton · · Score: 1

      I know a guy who works in the Vancouver office. From how he describes it, it's basically the same. Long hours at crunch time and unpaid overtime.

      He says he doesn't mind too much, since he's single, but that if he had a family there's just no way he could pull it off.

    7. Re:Canadian Situation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the same. In addition British Columbia has exclusions in their Employment Standards Act for high technology industries: http://www.cle.bc.ca/CLE/Analysis/Collection/00-31 865-hightechemploystandards?practiceAreaMessage=tr ue&practiceArea=Labour%20and%20Employment

  124. Re:ridiculous by sabat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Uhhh, ok -- they may not be physically chained to their desks, Mr. Star-eyed Libertarian, but if they have mortgages and families and other responsibilities, then they can't quit so easily. Not in this job market.

    --
    I, for one, welcome our new Antichrist overlord.
  125. Observation from a former EA Sports programmer by dstone · · Score: 3, Informative

    Programmers line up at the door to EA (and other studios) to get jobs in that industry. They jump through the interviews and HR hoops. They work as 9-5 institutional programmers, government contractors, MCSEs, or anything, hoping to score an opportunity to make games. Not everyone wants this, of course, but believe it or not, thousands and thousands of people look forward to working extremely long hours to make video games. Let those people apply and work the jobs. If everyone walked out of EA today because of unfulfilled expectations, their desks would be filled in fairly short order by people who want those jobs for the guts and glory. The unionizers amongst you may call these people 'scabs', I suppose.

    Aspiring game programmers write games in their spare time, graphics demos, etc. and put these things together in a portfolio to apply for a paid job as a game programmer. I know; I did this, I write code, and I hire other coders. Show me another industry where you'll work for hundreds and hundreds of hours on your own time to craft a software demo to impress a potential banking/government/oil&gas employer...

    You could argue that programmers are lined up to work there because economic times are hard for the North American programmer right now. If you've been watching the games industry for the last 15 years or so, you'd know that programmers have been begging to work at video game studios (large and small) constantly, through boom times and bust. Not so true of other (less glorious?) programming specialties.

    During the late nineties boom times, I can assure you that the hours worked at EA Sports were brutal. I was there, coding like a monkey, and it was just fine. We all could have left; there were lots of opportunities to make more money in software for less hours. So... Different economic climate now, but what's constant? What's constant over the decades is the fact that plenty of people are willing to work unusually long hours to make video games (and other software). If game programmers see no glory in that sacrifice, why on earth did they get into video games?

    "They shouldn't have to work so much" is mostly what I'm hearing. Not an argument. They don't have to. If EA is breaking laws, nail them to the wall. But if they're matching a certain personality type and inner drive to really hard jobs, and there's a clear pattern of people freely willing to leave easier positions to code games, well, then chalk one up for EA finding a good business model.

    The other thing to consider, is that things have an end to them, and jobs don't need to last for 20 years. Some jobs simply can't because of their demands. There are jobs so physically and mentally demanding that they're simply not life-long jobs. Maybe game programming is like that.

    1. Re:Observation from a former EA Sports programmer by praedor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If game programmers see no glory in that sacrifice, why on earth did they get into video games?


      Oh my, I just couldn't stop laughing there for a while. Glory in sacrifice to create A FRICKIN' COMPUTER GAME?! GLORY?! Hell's bell's, there IS no "glory" in such a sacrifice. This isn't code that will crack some important disease, predict terrorist attacks, predict earthquakes better, improve an operation on the operating table. No lives are at stake (except the idiot programmer's who throw all perspective down the crapper and destroy their social lives and health for the sake of creating an inane copycat game). Glory. Sheesh.


      Idiots and fools is anyone who thinks there is glory, honor, or worthy sacrifice to be had in making video games.

      --
      In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
    2. Re:Observation from a former EA Sports programmer by bopo · · Score: 1
      Not everyone wants this, of course, but believe it or not, thousands and thousands of people look forward to working extremely long hours to make video games. Let those people apply and work the jobs.

      Sorry, but just because people some people might want to be abused and exploited doesn't make it ok, and it certainly doesn't exempt their employers from labor laws.

      --
      "Understand you're having a little Jimmy Page trouble."
    3. Re:Observation from a former EA Sports programmer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's all very nice, but it doesn't address the decite and lying by EA managers.

      No matter how hard people want to work for you, if you make up faults about them and then scream and yell and lie, well, you are what you are and they are what they are.

      The point of all these stories isn't that the nice friendly management sat back in surprise and watched how many hours they worked. The point is that EA managers are willing to lie, use false shame, and use bullying tactics to get those hours.

      Part of the basis of any ethical code is that you take responsibility for your own actions, and the willingness of others to participate can't exonerate your bad behaviour. I don't see how any person who is a manager at EA can expect to get into Heaven. In this world, unless you expect to spend the rest of your life at EA, you should consider how "EA manager" will look on your resume when you go looking again. If you are fired as part of the viscious company politics that this behaviour engenders, can you start your own company or business ? Would anyone work for you knowing who you are ?

      Your excuses amount to "I wasn't struck by lightening and I got away with it, therefore it must be right, and you should admire me for it." I think you should take a couple of days off and spend them thinking very hard about what kind of life you will present to your Maker when you die.

    4. Re:Observation from a former EA Sports programmer by justins · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Aspiring game programmers write games in their spare time, graphics demos, etc. and put these things together in a portfolio to apply for a paid job as a game programmer. I know; I did this, I write code, and I hire other coders. Show me another industry where you'll work for hundreds and hundreds of hours on your own time to craft a software demo to impress a potential banking/government/oil&gas employer...

      Lots of modders and amateurs do it for the love of doing it, without any desire to impress a potential employer. Some of those people are uninterested in a job in the game industry precisely because of the sweathshop conditions, and the apathy amongst some (losers) towards changing those conditions.

      If game programmers see no glory in that sacrifice, why on earth did they get into video games?

      Presumably because they didn't know what sacrifice was involved, or were proud enough to think that they could "take it" while others couldn't.

      I was there, coding like a monkey, and it was just fine.

      It was fine for you. Presumably because you don't have a family or much of a social life.
      --
      Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
    5. Re:Observation from a former EA Sports programmer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder if the Sr. executives would feel that they should work for the "glory" of it if shareholders were only willing to pay them $50,000 a year.

    6. Re:Observation from a former EA Sports programmer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it certainly doesn't exempt their employers from labor laws.

      You're right. If EA is breaking labor laws, the courts will sort it out. However, if EA is convincing their salaried programmers to work unreasonably hard without breaking any laws, then EA -may- be unethical, but the programmers aren't too bright for getting into it when that has been the industry practice all along. It's not just EA. Did the programmers not research their chosen profession and/or employer? It's not that hard, really.

    7. Re:Observation from a former EA Sports programmer by One+Childish+N00b · · Score: 1

      There is honour in taking a lower-paid job creating software that would cure cancer. There is glory to be had in the geek community by helping create a hit computer game. Look at the reverence some people give John Carmack. Look at the praise lavished on successful games by kids and adults alike, millions all over the world. I don't know about your definition of 'glory', but the praise of the gaming community definately fits into mine, especially for a geek.

      --
      Dealing with lawyers would be a lot less tedious if they all looked like Casey Novak.
    8. Re:Observation from a former EA Sports programmer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So this is no glory in any creative outlet? If someone writes a book, or paints a picture, or works on a movie, or even a videogame that makes someone feel some emotion (thrill, sadness, joy) there is no value in that? While curing cancer and whatever is important, I see no less honor in bringing joy to people. I would love to be able to say I helped form a joyful childhood memory that someone like Shigeru Miyamoto has for millions of children.

  126. Re:Harrumpf. Quit then by Pierce · · Score: 1

    Hey! What's wrong with Iowa? I grew up there...and got out as soon as I could!

  127. the idea behind unions... by MikeD227 · · Score: 1

    i dunno, to me the whole idea behind unions is that the employer is out to screw the employee so in return if we all band together we can in turn gouge the employer.

    and from the sentiment i've seen toward unions the struggle is now just in the opposite direction.

    unfortunately in industries such as game development where the abuse of employees is possible due to the imbalance in employee supply and demand, more often than not managers say, "wtf, we'll just keep screwing them until the potential employee pool equalizes or until they form a union"... all in the effort to pad the bottom line.

    i've read a lot of comments from this and the previous article on these EA happenings, and i agree that a happy, focused, rested employee performs much better (at least in the software industry) than a cranky, tired, disgruntled one... the only problem here is that the EA managers are operating on false premises (e.g. the more overtime someone works, the better they perform and crank out).

    it's our job to make this painfully clear that their premises are wrong.

    btw, the way these kinds of things happen is when people who are good at certain things (perhaps organizing a business, providing financial support) are placed into management positions because supposedly that's more prestigious and pays better, but in turn they are horrible managers but since they now are in the position to decide who stays and who gos, they would rather blame poor performance or worker disgruntledness on the workers and not themselves.

    and like in many situations... despite their best efforts to fail... they succeed and are validated in their management decisions.

    oh well... that's what the courts are there for i suppose.

  128. Get used it to it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is the future of it, of you don't want to work 9 AM to 10 PM, some slave in China will, and will be shot and buried in a shallow grave if he/she refuses.

  129. Claim the copyright on your code? Brilliant! by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

    Parent is actually a damned insightful idea (I'm not saying it'd work, but the very thought of it is clever). However, the author should realise that posting as an AC at this stage means it has little chance of getting modded up as it should (IMHO).

    --
    "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  130. I agree about the tradeoffs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's capitalism at work. Those who don't want the endless hours are free to go elsewhere.

    While the hours and working conditions are unreasonable (negatively), it sounds like his compensation package is unreasonable (positively). I can imagine folks with little in the way of an outside life walking into a situation like that and concluding, "It's worth it for my career and financial position, to do this for a year." At the same time, I can imagine a parent (and more seriously, a single parent) of a young child concluding that they'd rather have a standard 40 hour work-week at a "family friendly" organization.

    Unfortunately, in my experience, there's a pay (and often "coolness") gap between the two types of opportunities. Welcome to the real world. I've worked in a number of software companies where most of the programmers tended to be young folks without families precisely because they were willing to put in the odd and/or long hours required by the culture of that organization. If that sort of work is not compatible with your "having an outside life" to the extent that you wish, perhaps it's time for a career change? Different people prioritize work and other outside interests (like family time), differently.

    As a side note, I was a game developer back in the 1980's. Working on code at 4am during ship month wasn't unusual, and "I'm sorry, I had to stay up all night with a sick child," just wouldn't have been an acceptable excuse for not doing it. Rather, it would have been a reason for you to go find some other way to earn an income that fit better with your personal circumstances.

    1. Re:I agree about the tradeoffs by theAtomicFireball · · Score: 1

      Hear, hear.

      I worked at an ERP software company for years, including through the dot-com explosion. Early on, we were all young, mostly childless. After a couple of releases, people started moving along in their lives. Some stuck with it, some moved to management or testing or strategy or left the company. Some stayed and complained, some stayed and refused to do the same level of work as their peers (with the obvious consequences).

      Needless to say, the people who pulled the all-night shifts and endless hours right before code freeze were usually rewarded with large bonuses and generous stock options. You rarely hear people complaining about that aspect of the business. I had one quarter where we had a major release, and my bonuses and stock options (at the exercise price) were over twice my base salary.

      Game companies have the additional advantage of being a highly desirable occupation for 20 year old fan-boys with a decent brain, no kids, and no real plans or direction in life (not to mention, no mortgage). A "family man" can't compete with them unless he wants his kids to grow up as strangers.

  131. Lucky by andr0meda · · Score: 1


    Well, to some extend, and reading your comments, I'm amongst the lucky ones because I still CAN quit my game industry slavery, because I'm single and don't have heaps of loans on my shoulders yet.

    On the other hand, working on games has also been pretty devastating on my social life and relationships.. so in some way you can say it's allmost balanced, except that the silly guy doing the job is eventually completely going banana's from the life behind the screens.

    Which is where this all comes down to. I'm glad this 'revolt' is surfacing right now, because it was about time that some of this got some air. We may like our job a lot, but there are limits to the amount of sacrifices one is prepared to make to do it. Of course we get constantly reminded about the kids of today that will replace us any time, that anyone wants our job, that we're cool because we play games everyday. But the reality is that 95% of the people want out. The other 5% is simply in bed with management.

    --
    With great power comes great electricity bills.
  132. Unions can be formed in the gaming industry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    because Unions in the acting, radio braodcasting and other even more precarious domains of the entertainement business do work.

    What's a computer game? It's mostly a film nowadays with voice over. It's an entertainement product, just like TV series. The OpenGL/DirectX coder has replaced the camera man. The costumes are given by the 3d modeller guy, the set is made by the scenery guy, the lighting is made by the Renderer (...though that's not a guy..heheh :-)

    It's about time things change. Just because entertainement has swiched to computers doesn't mean you have to slave like mad while all the people in movie studios are protected by very strong unions.

  133. Former EA Employees?-When Geeks ruled the world. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "The country doesn't need white collar workers to "get over it", it needs workers to stand up and tell managers to go piss up a rope. Remember people: management doesn't actually DO anything. No company can run with only management because they don't actually do any of the work. If enough people get up and walk out at once, they're screwed."

    Well I guess that explains all those companies run by geeks.

    Lets be honest with ourselves here, instead of letting our emotions run away with our brains.

    It takes all kinds to create, and run a company. Saying things like "No company can run with only management because they don't actually do any of the work." only makes you look ignorant.

    Want to prove my point? Start your own geek only company. No managment types. See how long it lasts.

    "If enough people get up and walk out at once, they're screwed."

    And the end effect is different how, when all the managment for Boeing walks out? A body has a head for a reason, and neither could exist without the other. So start using yours.

  134. Clear the Market by ahscheiss · · Score: 1

    Why is everyone b*tching, whinning, and moaning about this? We're a fairly smart bunch of people, with a couple of exceptional heads. Think this through: It's how the market clears itself to supply these jobs to the highest bidders. That's all. Nothing machiavellian going on here. As someone else already said, "Hate the game, not the playa!". Dab GAM!

  135. Re:People with debt = hard working people= Educati by LaCosaNostradamus · · Score: 1

    Question: How is that extra 1500-sq-ft of house qualify as "spending money to make money"? I mean, other than trying to flip that McMansion onto a bigger fool in 4 years?

    --
    [You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
  136. Adjust to it or quit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am currently an EA employee (entry level engineer), so don't even TRY to give me shit about me "not understanding".

    Here are the 3 main things that the people who hate it so much should think about:

    1) You DON'T love your job. You might THINK you do, and you may like it more than any OTHER job out there, but you don't love it. When you love your job, it means you'd be willing to do it day-in, day-out, without even getting PAID for it. Now obviously this is not possible because we must make a living, so the "not getting paid part" won't work (but they are paying us, even if not as much as we'd hope).

    2) Game development IS crazy, and you DO have to put in a lot of time. EA is the top of game development. What did you expect, for it to not be the hardest + most demanding? Why do you think it's the best? Because people work LESS than anywhere else? You should've thought about this before going in - some of us can handle it (and I don't only mean physical ability, I mean not having a family which depends on you), some of us can't. If you have a family and other things to worry about, maybe you shouldn't be working at EA

    3) This ones just sums up the other 2 - if you have a family to care for, and your job is simply that - a job which provides income for you to care for your family - then you're in the wrong place. There are plenty of other jobs out there which will provide this. Less $$ you say? Well, what did you expect, more $$ and less work? Be serious.

    1. Re:Adjust to it or quit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You say "Game Development is crazy" as if it were a natural part of the industry, like Commercial Fishing or Coal Extraction having a high rate of work place death.

      In fact, Game Development is software production. There is nothing inherently "crazy" about it. It is more accurate to say "Game Developers are crazy", because the problems of the industry stem from the fact that it attracts people like you.

      This is shown by the fact that there are plenty of people who work in Game Development and make more money than you do and work in a more pleasant evironment. If they choose to work long hours to make a deadline, it's a deadline they set themselves and they know the reasons behind it; most of the time, they work shorter hours because other activities, including PLAYING games, are fun too.

      You end with "more $$ and less work? Be serious" but that's exactly what you'd have if you were running your own company, and even working for another company in a few cases.

      You also claim that EA is the top of game development, and therefore we should expect it to be the harddest place to work. Clearly, you haven't had the time to play any of their games recently.

    2. Re:Adjust to it or quit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They ARE the top of game development. Whether or not they make good games is a DIFFERENT story - but if person A works at say Activision for 3 years, and wants to get into EA, and person B works at EA for 3 years, and wants to get a job at Activision - who do you think has a guaranteed job? EA is the top, no one can argue with this (it is what game developers strive for).

      You are partially right in the "people like you" part, but it is not that we're crazy - it's that we love what we do. I have been making games since I was 13 for FUN, I would stay up till 2 in the morning when I had to go to school the next morning. I would do this for FREE if I could afford it - hell, if they're going to pay me, even better.

      "more $$ and less work? Be serious" was referring to comparison BETWEEN game companies. You're right, developing for some other non-game company, you may just get this - more $$ and less work. You have to get your priorities straight - if your priority is more $$ and less work, you sure as HELL shouldn't be working in a game company, much LESS EA.

      On the other hand, if your priority is to work at a game company, the best one out there, no matter how difficult or demanding it might be, then EA is the place for you.

      Your final comment about "making your own company" seems to be a common one, a lot of people have quoted the same thing. I agree - the only thing that's above EA is starting your own game company. It is the only thing which is more demanding and requires more skill + ability. Of course, like working at EA or anywhere else, it has it's +'s and -'s, the main negative being the great amount of risk that's involved. Otherwise, all the lawsuit people would each be starting their own company instead of bitching and complaining (in fact, maybe they should, that's how infinityward was formed). Lawsuits are for pussies who don't know how to get money the RIGHT way so they bitch + complain to get their way.

      The people who are complaining seem to think that they can have everything perfect, be lazy, get a ton of $$, do what they want to do, not put that many hours in. C'mon, be serious, life is not like that. Didn't your parents ever tell you you can't have your cake and eat it too?

  137. Don't fall for it. by fahrvergnugen · · Score: 1

    Don't kill yourself for another man's dream. Don't waste your life making a private business owner's dreams come true, and don't waste your life to making a shareholder's dreams come true.

    Chase your own dreams. If you don't own your own business (and I'm not advocating that you should, necessarily), then your professional life is merely a tool in that pursuit.

    --
    Even Jesus hates listening to Creed.
  138. Claim the copyright on [EA's] code? Brilliant! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well aside from the conflict with the present Slashdot stance on copyright, it will not work because their work falls under the "work for hire" part of the law. The copyright isn't "theirs" to claim (1).

    (1) The AC's idea would be "brilliant" only if it was suggested by a lawyer.

    1. Re:Claim the copyright on [EA's] code? Brilliant! by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1
      Well aside from the conflict with the present Slashdot stance on copyright, it will not work because their work falls under the "work for hire" part of the law.

      Talk to a lawyer, but I rather doubt the "work for hire" part counts if a court finds that they weren't given the consideration agreed for that hire. Challenging their copyright is actually a rather clever suggestion, IMHO. Of course, we're talking about the US legal system, so sanity may not be relevant here, and if you could prove that the contract was broken, the copyright issue is probably the least of EA's worries anyway...

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  139. Re:Former EA Employees?-When Geeks ruled the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Neither the head nor the body could exist without the other. But somehow the body does all the work and the head gets all the cash and the glory. Funny that.

  140. Re:Makes me wish I was still working at Disney Wor by Flaming+Cowpie · · Score: 1

    Correction. You used to work for a Theme Park that happened to be owned by Disney Corp.. Actually working for Walt Disney Studios is quite another thing. Their Feature Film division is gutted now because they treat their best talent like scum. To avoid long term stability, they only contract hire animators now and fire... er, terminate their contracts early for bonus completion, when they get ahead of the project and finish a bit early. After the Great Purge of 2002 the only people that are left are accountants and lawyers. There are little or no long term employed creative staff. Those that are hanging on by their nails are expected to work very much longer hours (and yes, they are unioned employees, but you don't mention the longer hours for fear of not getting the next contract renewal) and are constantly under the fear of not having your short term contract renewed again, thus keeping your unionized thinking in line with what the Rat Bastards want you to do. There is NO "magic" anymore, unless you're counting the poor bastards that manage to eke out a miserable existence under the constant threat of "contract termination".

    --
    Sigs? We don't need no steekin Sigs!
  141. Re:ridiculous by LaCosaNostradamus · · Score: 1

    If it's not worth it then leave, don't hold EA at the tip of a gun and make demands.

    That "gun" is called the law, and it's just another market that EA will have to compete in with its employees. One would think that you -- being a free-market whore -- would respect that.

    --
    [You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
  142. Outsourcing by pommiekiwifruit · · Score: 1
    Well, India has just this month released its *first* 3d game. That puts it only a few years behind some eastern european country you've never heard of.

    China on the other hand has Hong Kong and Taiwan with established semi-official industries, and EA is setting up shop in Shanghai.

    The problem at the moment is that so many jobs at small companies have been outsourced *to* EA - as developers go broke or are bought by the behemoth. When all the jobs get dragged into California it becomes the only place to work, and there is a single point of failure for the industry.

  143. Re:ridiculous by LaCosaNostradamus · · Score: 1

    It is imperative in a free society that two parties may engage consensually in a contract and be able to expect no retaliation so long as the contract is upheld.

    The law in our "free society" covers the legal extents of contracts, hence places restrictions upon them, no matter how private or consensual they are.

    --
    [You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
  144. Memo to EA Games Staff: by Chordonblue · · Score: 1

    Challenge EVERYTHING!

    EOL

    --
    "...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
  145. Thats no excuse by geekoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

    for mistreating employees.
    And making salary employess work those long hours is mistreating the employees.

    If you have so many people knowking on your door, you pay them less, but you don't mistreat them. Market forces should apply to what you pay for something, not how you treat people.

    "Show me another industry where you'll work for hundreds and hundreds of hours on your own time to craft a software demo to impress a potential banking/government/oil&gas employer..."

    There are lots of insutries where the people spend there own time trying to craft something to make a name for themselves.
    Movies, music, radio etc..
    If you mean other areas of the software industry beside the time minority of game programmers, than I'd say ... nearly everybody spends there own time improving their skills. Thats why so many of them have compilers at home.

    I see this as a trend in the software industry. Peole having to work longer and longer hours for less and less money. If this behaviour isn't stopped, eventually we will have to to 80 hours a week if we want to eat, no matter where we work.

    Plus, if people work sane hours, they will build better products.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:Thats no excuse by mixonic · · Score: 1

      Atleast a computer is viable to learn on at home. I'm a audio professional. 3,000 might buy me an OK set of monitors (no not the eye kind the ear kind).

      bleh. grouchy and tired (and broke).

      -matt

  146. Another of my favorite quotes: by kid_wonder · · Score: 1

    Drew Carey Show:

    "Oh, you hate your job? There's a support group for that ... it's called everyone. We meet at the bar."

    --

    "Oh, you hate your job? There's a support group for that, it's called everyone, they meet at the bar."
  147. Yay by pommiekiwifruit · · Score: 1

    Kabaddi League 2005

  148. Escape from DilbertLand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The bottom line is that 8-to-5 cubicle jobs are going to the dogs.

    Excerpt from GoneWithTheWorld.com:

    The best off in my brother's suburban neighborhood are those who formed their own companies in areas such as roofing, plumbing, pest control, and real estate; while those with degrees working at the local computer lab are being downsized and jobs offshored to a humid place in Southeast Asia. The owners of these small companies started working on the bottom rung out of high school and simply slowly gained enough knowledge to run such a business on their own.

  149. Re:Don't quit, that's just what they want you to d by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is much harder to get unemployment payments if you quit or are fired. You have to justify to the unemployment office within your states guidelines if you can qualify to collect.
    If the employer states that you were fired for not showing up at work or for poor quality work, you are going to have a lot of explaining to do.

  150. Actually, you can sue them for damages... by Svartalf · · Score: 1

    EEOC violation suits aren't just about getting jobs back (in fact, you typically don't...)- they're about getting restitution for wrongful termination, discrimination, and harassment.

    This is about getting punitive damages out of the company for doing something illegal in their hiring or employment practices.

    --
    I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
  151. The numbers are skewed. by TiggertheMad · · Score: 1

    Japan's average age of death is actually around 38, due to stress, alien invasions, and giant mecha battle collateral damage. However, their medical facilities are years ahead of everyone else's, and a good 70% of the population are revived as cyber zombies or have ther conciousness transfered into computer systems.

    The 350 year old eunic sorcerers don't hurt the average, either.

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
  152. Right to work... by Svartalf · · Score: 1

    This means that working is at-will instead of contracted. In exchange, the employer is strictly prohibited from keeping you from working for anyone in your profession with a non-compete agreement. While they always put those stupid things in your employment agreement, they're unenforceable so long as you don't use trade secrets, etc. from the previous employer in your next job.

    --
    I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
  153. "IT" by pommiekiwifruit · · Score: 1

    The occupations mentioned in the article are artists, not programmers or IT. If you classify them as programmers you might as well say all secretaries are programmers since they use microsoft word (which is just as turing complete as 3ds max).

  154. Re:ridiculous by Xeger · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've been writing software for fifteen years, and games for ten. I've worked on a major 3D game title (albeit not in the critical path to development) and have voluntarily stayed at my desk for 12-18 hours a day, seven days a week, for 2-3 months at a stretch. I am no stranger to hard work.

    But my game development time was spent in a small team, three coders and two artists, funded out of our own pockets and creating our own 3D engine from scratch.

    Game programming is not special. It's not fundamentally different from any other area of software design. Do you intend to claim that 80-hour work weeks are the norm in the game programming industry? I have half a dozen friends working at variously-sized game development houses in the bay area who will dispute that claim.

    If EA is so mismanaged, and their employees so underproductive, that they are throwing their teams into 85-hour-work-week crunch mode for upwards of HALF the project's development time, then there is something very, very wrong at EA. They need to come up with more realistic schedules for their projects, or find more productive coders, or find managers who have a clue about software design, or learn to reuse code, or SOMETHING.

    OTOH, it sounds to me like EA is WELL managed. They've cottoned to the idea that more productive teams means smaller teams and a shorter development cycle. By setting aggressive schedules, they're insisting on a level of productivity from their employees that is unattainable to the employee of average skill and intelligence. So they ramp the hours up, ever more, in order to fit the overly-aggressive schedule they've devised.

    Now, if there is no incentive against EA -- or any company -- employing such a practice, why don't all of our employers go that route? How would you like to live in a world where every job keeps you at the desk from 8am to 10pm, seven days a week? If all employers have been obliged to adopt the same grueling labor practices in order to compete, then you no longer CAN leave your job -- any other job you find, will be just as bad.

    The problem with letting the market do what it will is this: optimal efficiency is achieved through destructive means. The greatest profit can be had by he who is able to create the most externalities and therefore seat others with the cost of his operations, while taking the gains for himself. This is true in the mining industry, it's true in the petroleum industry, and it's true in the software industry. If you don't impose SOME regulation, then a rational entity will always choose to maximize its own gain regardless of others' losses.

    The goal of labor legislation should be the same as the goal of environmental legislation: to close the loop, to provide a feedback path that curbs the number and magnitude of the externalities that businesses can create, and holds them accountable for the negative consequences of their actions in situations where they are not already fiscally responsible for those consequences.

  155. err...no by geekoid · · Score: 1

    Many people are working exempt jobs and making far less then 94K a year.
    It may not be legal, but companies do it anyways.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  156. EA will just Close up shop here and move to India by marz007 · · Score: 1

    200k new Computer Science Graduates a year in India, only a couple thousand here. That nice new campus that EA opened in Marina del Rey, CA...hmm, guess they won't need it much longer.

    I agree they need to try to get a handle on OT there, but some balance needs to be achieved or they'll take the easy way out and end up doing most of the programming/design/etc in India or Eastern Europe.

    Supply and Demand folks..

    TekMage

  157. I'd love to see your perspective on drug policy by clickster · · Score: 1

    The short version of what I read was "Hey, lots of people like making games and are OK with long hours, so it's OK to exploit them." This seems a bit like saying, "Hey, the crack addicts obviously like doing crack, so the drug dealers are simply providing a service to them." Taking advantage of someone is taking advantage of someone, regardless of whether or not they enjoy it. **What's constant over the decades is the fact that plenty of people are willing to work unusually long hours to make video games (and other software). If game programmers see no glory in that sacrifice, why on earth did they get into video games?** Yes, but what's changed is the number of hours, and the benefits received for working those hours (i.e. comp time, overtime, bonuses, etc)

    --
    If you mod me down, I shall become less powerful than you could possibly imagine.
  158. It seems to me.... by wardred · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That one of the big problems in game development is the stranglehold that the big 3 have on the consoles. It looks like their certification process is long and expensive, and might be truly arduous for a smaller company, with a good game, to pass. So you need to be part of a larger development house if you want to release games for the consoles...

    What if some of these disgruntled software engineers team up with some hardware engineers and come up with a more open x-box like console. I'd guess that it would have to be more expensive than MS's, but that the games could sell for a little bit less. (Make a profit on everything, rather than having the console as a loss leader for the games.)

    You'd still have a certification process - you want quality games - but it would be "at cost", with the theory being that you want to entice as many talented developers to develop for your console as possible. And you wouldn't discourage "non-certified" games, you'd just make it known that they haven't been tested, and they can't put your trademark on the game to certify it passes the quality measurement.

    And you'd purposefully tout it's open and programmable - with free tools - interface as features of the console - again, trying to get as many developers working for the console as possible. (Rather than needing an expensive developers kit to develop with.)

    You'd probably need to use BSD or Linux as the operating system to keep costs to a minimum. You'd need to convince N-videa, ATI, or one of the up-and-coming 3D card manufacturers to open source their video card drivers...there would be a few other licencing hurdles to leap - like the DVD and/or blue ray one.

    You MIGHT even want to come up with some form of online service, similar to MS's. You pay one monthly bill. You get access to all the games that have an online component. I'd imagine patches and other "large" things like demos and what not could have a bittorrent download - build into the console, the trickiest thing would be building a quality network that doesn't get bogged down...

    Or maybe this is all a pipe-dream and there is no competing with the large corporations and their marketing expertise...

    1. Re:It seems to me.... by CrosbieFitch · · Score: 1

      Your pipe dream is in progress:

      http://p2pnet.net/story/2749

  159. Re:ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you think it would be ok for male managers to require sex with the female programmers as part of the job? Spankings for mistakes made? Turning over your first born to the company? Why not if the contract states it?

    The contracts do not explicitly state the employee will be working 80 hours or more per week. If they did, then I'd have no beef, however the company won't state that up front because they know most people (not all), no matter how enthusiastic would not take such a job. Well, no one who wasn't extremely desperate anyway, and the good programmers would be far less desperate than the n00bs and losers.

    That's all I'd say. My work agreement with an EA subsidary stated the company hours were from 9am to 6pm. However, once I started, my boss specifically said we had to work nights and weekends. That's deceptive, dishonest and these companies know it.

  160. The situation is simple... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It does not matter if the employees can 'quit if they want to'. EA violated labor laws by exempting employees from overtime pay that were not legally exempt. Therefore, EA has commited a crime, and will be punished in some fashion.

  161. Riddle me this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How many companies do the board of directors work for?

  162. you're a retard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sooo...you got some fat bitch knocked up, and now you're paying through the nose...
    HAHHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAAA!!!

    sucks to be you, asshole...but guess what...you're stupidity isn't my problem..ASS

    As for savings...I'm R-E-S-P-O-N-S-I-B-L-E so i've got enough to last YEARS...

    so suck it up, buttercup, you fucked yourself...

  163. There is a lesson here... by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    When you twist the company's arm for a fat compensation package, you can expect to be called on to hold more responsibility. They're not going to give you that fat paycheck just because you're you. The more you get paid, the more is expected of you - it's that simple. If you hit them up for a six-figure check just for relocation, you shouldn't be surprised when they start expecting you to work long hours to get the job done...

    1. Re:There is a lesson here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Twist the company's arm.."? You sound bitter, like, you are a manager or something that sees employess as extorting you somehow. I think I see a pattern here. Perhaps the managers resent being paid less than the programmers, and being the vindictive pricks they usually are, get their revenge by making the programmers their slaves as much as is possible in this day and age.

      My only beef is that the company does not come out and say "80 hours a week is our work week" on the hiring agreement. In my case, the EA subsidary said the company hours were from 9am to 6pm Monday through Friday but when I started, I was told within a few days by my boss that we had to work evenings and weekends until the product shipped.

      Companies don't tell you this up front because they know that only the desperate beginners, screwups and those without lives would take such a job.It's deceptive, dishonest and they know it but they justify it in their minds by telling themselves "this is how it is in the game industry. If you don't like it you can leave".

      I'd have no beef at all if they were up front about it before you started work.

      Oh, and the code there was atrocious. It was a C++ attempt, but mostly C and assembly language used completely unnecessarily. In talking to the developers they basically were tired, and said they never had time to learn anything new, that for years they'd been under the gun to just get something working. "This is the game industry" was their common cry as if this justified bad code and shady employment practices.

      It's not healthy for the company either. If one of the principal programmers left or got hit by a truck, the product line would be dead because only the original programmer who'd been slaving over his particular section of the game could debug or add features.

    2. Re:There is a lesson here... by Zip+In+The+Wire · · Score: 1

      Uh huh.

      Twist the company's arm.."? You sound bitter, like, you are a manager or something that sees employess as extorting you somehow. I think I see a pattern here. Perhaps the managers resent being paid less than the programmers, and being the vindictive pricks they usually are, get their revenge by making the programmers their slaves as much as is possible in this day and age.

      My only beef is that the company does not come out and say "80 hours a week is our work week" on the hiring agreement. In my case, the EA subsidary said the company hours were from 9am to 6pm Monday through Friday but when I started, I was told within a few days by my boss that we had to work evenings and weekends until the product shipped.

      Companies don't tell you this up front because they know that only the desperate beginners, screwups and those without lives would take such a job.It's deceptive, dishonest and they know it but they justify it in their minds by telling themselves "this is how it is in the game industry. If you don't like it you can leave".

      I'd have no beef at all if they were up front about it before you started work.

      Oh, and the code there was atrocious. It was a C++ attempt, but mostly C and assembly language used completely unnecessarily. In talking to the developers they basically were tired, and said they never had time to learn anything new, that for years they'd been under the gun to just get something working. "This is the game industry" was their common cry as if this justified bad code and shady employment practices.

      It's not healthy for the company either. If one of the principal programmers left or got hit by a truck, the product line would be dead because only the original programmer who'd been slaving over his particular section of the game could debug or add features

    3. Re:There is a lesson here... by deanj · · Score: 1

      If you hit them up for a six-figure check just for relocation, you shouldn't be surprised when they start expecting you to work long hours to get the job done...

      There's another way to look at this. They wanted him to move, and he didn't want to. In order for him to go work for them, they had to fork out the relo package to get him there. Period. End of story.

      I'm sure if the package had been "relo + hellish long hours" he wouldn't have taken it in the first place.

    4. Re:There is a lesson here... by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      I'm not a bitter manager, and managers at my company certainly don't make less than the developers (hardware and software).. but I find it hard to imagine that there isn't language in their hiring agreement that states clearly that salaried exempt employees are paid for the completion of assigned duties and tasks, regardless of how much time it takes to complete them. This is pretty standard language that finds its way into just about any hiring agreement. My company, however, does seem more ethical in that we do pay overtime for anything over 45 hours, so long as it is approved in advance. In general, any overtime that is the result of schedule acceleration is approved, but we won't approve o/t pay if someone is behind their usual schedule. We don't pay 1.5x, just straight time, but it's something.

      Obviously, there are also ethics that go into setting a schedule, but when it boils down to argument, whatever is in black and white on paper prevails. If EA deliberately sets overly aggressive schedules that presume a work week greater than 40 hours, then that violates a number of labor laws. In all of my project management experience, we know never to regularly load a person for more than 60-70% unless things are nuts. That's our best-effort basis.

      However, we do have employees that regularly ask for pay increases based on their performance, and there are some that deserve it. These are the employees that regularly exceed their schedule requirements and are naturally capable of completeting more work in the same amount of time as a regular employee. You have to understand the position of management - our goal is to pay the same rate for all work performed. Employees that earn a higher salary do so because they are more efficient and ambitious workers. So, while there is no explicit agreement, there is an implicit understanding that if we give someone an above-average or off-cycle pay increase, it is because they either have already or will in the future increase the amount of work they complete in a given work week.

      I would never pay 100K to keep an employee, no matter how good they were, unless I saw some real, tangible, and immediate performance increases. I have employees that just want to work a 40 hour week and go home, and I have employees that regularly work 50 or 55 hour weeks without prior o/t approval and without being asked. The former meet their schedule requirements and get below average or average pay increases. The latter regularly exceed their performance metrics and, as a result, receive above average adjustments in their pay.

      We have to, as managers, maintain equity across all employees using tangible metrics. We have to go out of our way to avoid creating uncomfortable working atmospheres. So, if I had one employee that was in the top 10% of pay, I would expect, well, demand that the employee sit in the top 10% of performers - plain and simple. If I had two regular 40-hour employees with equivalent experience and technical proficiency, and one was making 20% more than the other, and the lesser-paid employee found out, we could very easily have a lawsuit on our hands. So there are also legal reasons that we MUST expect higher paid employees to perform above and beyond.

      So I'm not bitter at all, there are just a lot of realities that have to be considered.

  164. My Short Union-Story by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 3, Informative

    I worked for a company stocking shelves. It's not admirable, and I take responsibility for it. However, they were a union store. I earned minimum wages, so that means after union dues, I earned less than minimum wages. The union sure wasn't too helpful to me. The supervisor was verbally abusive too, in my opinion.

    I hate unions a lot.

    1. Re:My Short Union-Story by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 1

      you're comparing a minimum-wage mindless job that any idiot can do (quite frankly) with that of trained professionals that should be respected for their knowledge and their contribution to company profits.

      As a stock boy, you were pure overhead. For that matter, all customer-facing employees in retail are overhead, costs that corporations would love not to have, but are seen as necessary evils. A retail company's perfect world would be one huge vending machine with a conveyor belt from the factory to the point where you can get it out of the machine.

    2. Re:My Short Union-Story by TykeClone · · Score: 1

      You must not have been working in a right to work state. In Iowa (and a few other states, I think), you can't be forced to join a union if you don't want to.

      --
      A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
    3. Re:My Short Union-Story by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 1
      you're comparing a minimum-wage mindless job that any idiot can do (quite frankly) with that of trained professionals that should be respected for their knowledge and their contribution to company profits.
      No, I'm comparing the value that they claim to offer, to what they actually do offer. You're right about it being mindless, though. Everybody brings contributions to the company. Even stockboys contribute by employing dexterity, speed, and smart techniques to get things done fast. That being said, I do recognize that trained professionals do do significantly more.
      As a stock boy, you were pure overhead.
      Yes, that's true. I don't mind them lowering wages. I just don't like being forced to pay union dues, and it makes it more insulting when the union dues bring a net loss to what I take home.
    4. Re:My Short Union-Story by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 1

      I worked in Delta, British Columbia. In BC, I'm surprised that companies are even allowed to not be unionized. :^) I'm happy for you guys in the US. I think that it isn't fair to force people to join a union. I heard that some of your states have right-to-work laws, which sounds good.

    5. Re:My Short Union-Story by TykeClone · · Score: 1

      If you want to join a union, more power to you. It is not right to force you to join one, though.

      --
      A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
    6. Re:My Short Union-Story by tsm_sf · · Score: 1

      As a stock boy, you were pure overhead. For that matter, all customer-facing employees in retail are overhead, costs that corporations would love not to have, but are seen as necessary evils

      The perfect definition of modern management... total contempt for any other human being.

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
    7. Re:My Short Union-Story by Jim_Maryland · · Score: 1

      My wife worked as a cashier in college a while back and she was in a similar situation as you. After paying the union dues, she was making less than minimum wage. The union provided nothing to her as a part time employee and actually cost her more than it was worth (the pay rate less than minimum wage).

    8. Re:My Short Union-Story by LMariachi · · Score: 1

      So you had a bad experience with an ineffectual union and now you hate all organization of labor? Good example of why not to extrapolate from a single data point.

    9. Re:My Short Union-Story by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 1

      I agree with you about the union dues sucking for the low-wage guys. My first job was for a union grocery store (as a carry-out), in the $4.25/hr minimum wage era, and I only started taking home decent paychecks in the last couple of months after having the dues deducted.

      I was working and going to school that summer, and even though I had given the management my schedule, and they had verbally agreed to work around my classes, they never did. Every week I was scheduled right in the middle of my classes and I had to find someone to trade with.

      When Finals came up, I called in sick - of course I wasn't, but I was scheduled something like 4-midnight the night before a 9:00 AM final and school is way more important than a grocery store job - and they fired me for it.

      I had my union dues paid up so I could have brought a grievance against the dickhead manager, and in retrospect I wish I would have, just to make his life worse, but then it wasn't worth the hassle for the $4.25/hr. I ended up doing farm labor on my days off, getting paid under the table, and made about 3x what I was making at that store.

      The nice thing about the USA is that nobody forces you to work a job where you have to pay union dues. But, sometimes it's worth it.

    10. Re:My Short Union-Story by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 1

      Regarding verbal agreements, I think that they should be as good as writting it in stone. Unfortunately, reality doesn't work that way, and it bugs me. :^/

      Regarding working around classes, I believe that workers shouldn't have to get agreement to it. In other words, as long as you can prove it, then they should be required to work around it. The idea is that since you are paying for classes which should always further your lot in life, then you should get time off for it. The thing that bugs me about my idea, is that it is so open to abuse. How does one define "classes"? If he just pays $1 for a semester of classes to get certain times blocked off, then skips out of classes, then that is obeying the letter and not the spirit of the law. I really wish that there was a way to deal with things like this. What do you think?

      I'm glad to see that you got that job at the farm.

    11. Re:My Short Union-Story by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 1

      Good point, but not quite right.

      I had learned about economics and unions before working there. Working there was the straw that broke the camel's back.

      From what little I understand of what you're saying, you seem to be interpreting this as, "Eugene worked there, didn't like it, then developed a hatred for all unions.".

      What I'm trying to say is that I didn't like unions to begin with, based on the principle that it isn't fair for them to force workers to do this or that for collective bargining. In short, there is no way to opt out of a union around these parts. When I was desperate for work, I tried to find work around here because I still wanted to be environmentally friendly [work near home, or bike, or bus, etc.]. I felt that the lesser evil was to take the union job and never say that a job is too beneath me. Of course, I expected to pay union dues, and also expected to get paid minimum wages. It all made sense until I put 2 and 2 together.

      The minimum wage was put in place to help me, the worker. Again I didn't agree with it based on moral reasons, but what can you do? I wanted higher pay anyways. The unions are there also to help me. Despite having 2 laws there to help me, I was earning less than the non-union workers. As if that wasn't enough, I was being being verbally abused [of course, I admit that that depends on our definition of "verbally abused", but hopefully we can agree that he was rude] by the supervisor. So, the union did nothing to help my wages, or protect me from the supervisor, and yet I was being deducted.

      I was being deducted by a type of organization that I didn't agree with in principle, and had my salary reduced to a wage below that of a standard that I didn't agree with in principle, and worked for a company owned by a millionare that didn't seem to care at all about the little guy. All the while, I was working there to avoid welfare, to remain productive, and to not be too proud to work anywhere.

      In the company's and unions's defense, I should point out that I wasn't the fastest worker. In fact, I was probably too slow. That being said, it doesn't justify any of this. The correct thing to do would be to fire me and hire someone who can do a better job.

      Like I said earlier. You do have a good point. We can't base our emotions on 1 experience. Hopefully, I have now explained to you how I didn't do that.

    12. Re:My Short Union-Story by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 1


      Well, legally they had the right to fire me, since a) it's in the bullshit contract that everyone has to sign and b) as far as they were concerned I was the liar. However, had they worked with me on my schedule I wouldn't have been so dismissive of the job. I was a kid living at home and didn't -need- the money like I would today with a mortgage and a family, so I could afford to not care enough to lie when I called in, and I called in because they refused to account for my schedule as agreed. But you can't really do anything in this kind of situation.

      As far as dealing with school schedules, most places that hire unskilled labor will gladly work around a class schedule, and the official corporate policy was that this grocery store would, but the local manager ignored it. Sure, it's open to abuse, but if someone is immature enough to lie about school to get out of work they're easy to catch and obviously don't n eed the money.

      Verbal agreements don't work legally because people are liars and unless it's on tape there's no way to prove that someone said something. If people cared about their word verbal agreements would be meaningful, but they never really have, and never will.

  165. HAHAHAHA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've heard a "wage slavery" alright...It's a BULLSHIT idea floated by IDIOT LEFTIST/COMMUNISTS.
    Repeat after me..
    NO...SUCH...THING!!!
    maybe if you read something other than chumpsky and marx, you'd see the shit you're shovelling...

    until then...stay away from the lunatic left and try to figure out how the REAL WORLD works...you negotiate with employers for work...they don't "raid your villiage and sell you into slavery"

    the whole idea is so insane that...well..only a blathering leftist could believe it...

  166. No, he isn't. by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 1

    He's talking about making change in society, not the severity of the adversity.

  167. Salaried != Exempt by whorfin · · Score: 1

    That is exactly the issue...who is exempt, and who is not. Salaried != Exempt, although that is a misconception that most corporations want to allow to persist.

    If you look at the laws (in the link I provided), to be exempt in California, you must be making over $41/hr (as of 2000, it has been increased since then), and there are jobs which are explicitly laid out as not being exempt, regardless of how much you make...Computer Graphic Artist is one of them.

    --
    Laugh while you can, monkey-boy!
  168. Not really lining up for making games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I work in a selective high-tech company and we do not make games. There are so many people applying that most of the people get often bogged down with interviews. For each one I interview there's at least 10 that were refused before even making it to interviews.

    What I am saying is that this kind of demand exists everywhere, not just in game industry. A lot of you that wrote stories about how everyone wants a shot at video-game programming glory are hopelessly indoctrinated by your game-company culture. My company has some of the most accomplished brightest engineers in the world and they are not interested in becoming a game programmer. Ever. We do have a few ex-game programmers who got bored of the same thing over and over again (write an engine for this, make this work on this funky platform, fork this, write this cool effect, etc.) and started working on something that is undoubtedly much more _useful_, by coming to us.
    Many people work long hours here, but there's no mandatory anything and weekends the buildings are mostly empty.

  169. Geeks are not outgoing enough to form a union by Chemisor · · Score: 1

    Unions for assembly workers function much better than geek unions because assembly workers are regular people who actually talk to each other. So do coal miners and all the other normal folk. Geeks mostly keep to themselves and confine their discontent to Slashdot. It would be pretty hard to organize a strike when most of the participants don't know, or trust, each other. Geeks also don't respond well to rabble rousing. I speak from personal experience, mind you.

  170. Perhaps longer? by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 1

    Working like that for 3 months is bad, but you can endure it, by dozing off at work. It's not really stressful until the future becomes unknown.

    The punishee should be forced to work for 6 months at peak performance or face castration.

    The punishee should be forced to work for 9 months at peak performance or lose his home.

    If he works well for all 9 months, then he has a chance at competing for another job which requires more hours per week for the remainder of the year. If he fails to be a team player, then he will be fired. It's important to fire him, so that he doesn't have any good employment references for the entire contract. If he succeeds as a team player, then we can lay him off, due to lack of work.

    Then he'll know.

  171. Slave labour leads to useless people. by Chemisor · · Score: 1

    > What's the point of having a job if it destroys
    > your health and personal life? The current
    > conditions arn't tenable; ridding the US of such
    > labour practices, either by offshoring or
    > improvement, is necessary.

    The problem is that this is eventually going to lead to all jobs being done by slaves, with little or no pay, and little or no choice in their employment. Most people don't care about slaves and the lack of quality in their lives, but when all the jobs are filled by slave labor, what are regular people to do? The choice narrows to: get a job and tolerate your own slavery, or starve. In a world of slaves, there is little room for free men to sell their skills. You might argue that slave labor can not do creative work. Consider how little work requires any creativity at all. Most programming jobs are nothing but assembly-line code factories where programs are slapped together with "proven" methodologies and any ideas "outside the box" are not only unwelcome, but are actively supressed. I suspect EA jobs fall into this category. You just can't get a job where you get to think any more. Sure, employers say they want intelligent people, but what they really are after is absolute obedience and just enough brains to do the job (and no more). This world is going to the dark ages, baby. And that's the only thing that will cure it.

  172. Oh, and just for laughs... by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 1

    ...invite him out for a 5 day retreat, get him to relax, and at the end of it all, tell him that those hours were unpaid. He must make up for it in the next week, to keep up with the schedule.

  173. Not only is this normal in the game industry.... by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 1

    But its also normal in the commercial and broadcast production as well. And its not right and needs to stop.

    For example. I had worked at x company doing a 3d work for a broadcast project. I would come in at 9am and leave at 11pm. This is in New York City.

    So the next day i come in at 12pm... and get yelled at! "You need to be here at 9am"

    I complained "BUT I WAS HERE TO 11PM LAST NIGHT.. HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY EXPECT A HUMAN TO FUNCTION LIKE THIS!"

    It really is insane work ours in 3d art and game developement.

    The funny thing is a lot of the less important workers would leave on the dot at 6pm every day and there were no problems with that.

    sigh.

    This really is a major problem. Working like that is very exhausting. I know very important higher ups in the major broadcasting networks and i know for a fact that they work endless hours, weekends etc... they also make a lot more money than i would doing 3d for their shows! :)

    But whatever.. i really dont mind working a late night sometimes but it is not fair at all to be expected to show up EARLY the next day.

    If there is anything i've learned from watching the discovery channel's, Monster House ;) ... is that when a team decides to pull an all nighter on a project... DONT EXPECT THEM TO WORK THE NEXT DAY!

    We're human beings... we need sleep. And higher pay if they expect us to be this intense of a work force.

  174. One may wonder... by RM6f9 · · Score: 1

    Earning those burnout level wages for a year plus... How much of of that money went into savings/investments? If I earned $100k+ for a year's efforts, I'd be well on my way to being able to retire - 2 years, and I might - 3 years? all done. Union might be a good idea - a solid financial plan would be a better one.

    --
    Take the 90-Day Challenge! http://rwmurker.bodybyvi.com/
  175. Re:Former EA Employees? - MOD PARENT UP Please!!! by carlos92 · · Score: 1

    I am a great fan of FOSS, but I don't think of it as a panacea. There are software categories where nothing can beat FOSS in the long run, but I don't think games are one of those

  176. Blame EA: they made the SIMS by Chemisor · · Score: 1
    > The trouble is alot of people want that bigger
    > house or flashy car without thinking about how
    > exactly there going to pay it off.

    Well, you see, that's EA's fault too. People who spend a lot of time playing the Sims get a lot of really strange ideas about how life works:

    • Expensive stuff is better for satisfying your needs.
    • Therefore, you need expensive stuff to be happy.
    • It's really easy to get a high paying job. All you have to do is look in the newspaper. Nobody will ever refuse to hire you.
    • You never work long hours more than for a few days. On many jobs you only have to work 5 hours a day.
    • You can get promoted.
    • Promotion, and pay raises, depend on nothing but your skills and how many friends you have.
    • Bills for food, clothes, and house maintenance are insignificant compared with the salary of even the lowest-paid employee.
    • If you can't pay your bills, you can always make gnomes.
    • There is an unlimited market for gnomes.
    • You can make millions by selling gnomes.
    1. Re:Blame EA: they made the SIMS by Starsmore · · Score: 1

      Wanna buy a gnome?

      --
      "If Common Sense was so common, it wouldn't be such a valued trait."
  177. Let's Name Some Names by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
    I'm a former EA employee, whose work has made EA millions of dollars over the past several years, and who they've treated like shit.

    So let's name some names of the EA managers and executives who are dishing it out. The following are my opinions. If you don't agree, then tell me what you think and let's debate. If you've worked for EA, please post your own opinions about these and other people who you think are responsible for fucking up.

    I'm extremely disappointed with how Lucy Bradshaw ran Maxis into the ground as General Manager. In public and in person, she appears to have a very nice agreeable personality. But she has consistently dropped balls, strung people along, made promises she had no intention of keeping, ignored phone messages and emails and attempts to contact her through her administrative assistant, claimed memory lapses in spite of repeated reminders and follow-ups. Lucy Bradshaw gets an F- for communication.

    If Lucy reads this, she might be able to figure out who I am, because she knows the sordid history of what she's failed to do, since I've told her what I think, although she won't acknowledge she did anything wrong. She just ignores anything she chooses to, and pretends the communication never happened whenever convenient. I'm quite disappointed in Lucy Bradshaw, and she knows it.

    I have mixed feelings about Luc Barthelet. He's brilliant and has tried to do some great stuff, but in the long run he just makes promises to employees and fans he has no way to keep, and doesn't follow through with what he says he will do. He talks the talk, but only walks the first few easy steps of the walk, which is better than some, but certainly not what anyone would expect from someone in his position. I could understand if he were a lowly engineer, but as vice president he should use his responsibility to make good on all his promises, instead of just making more promises he can't keep.

    Also, Luc has a charming way of doing the end-run around managers and dropping in on the engineers, then dumping a bunch of work in their lap that he would like them to do for him. When a vice president of the company stops by your cube and asks you to do something, you're compelled to do it, even if your manager would rather you work on more important stuff, and HR would rather fire you for not doing exactly what your manager told you to do, because you're also working on Luc's tasks. The jilted managers who were left out of the loop don't give you any credit for doing favors for Luc, and Luc gets disappointed with you if you don't prioritize his latest whims, yet takes credit for anything you do that he suggests, even if somebody else already thought of the obvious idea years ago. Luc is not as original as he thinks he is, because of his position people humor him and pretend he's the one with all the great original ideas, even when he's just parroting something Will Wright said three years before. So if Luc drops in at your cube with some suggestions, you're fucked no matter what you do.

    Luc is a dilettante. He should be teaching academic classes at some technical university instead of running a game company. He likes to do the fun easy part, and make grandious promises, and pretend to be a user advocate, but he won't put in the hard hours, stick around for the long grind, or stand up for the fans and players when it really counts. He would rather tell people what to do without taking any the responsibility of leadership. Like an Enron executive, he prefers to have a chauffeur drive him to work while he dabbles on his laptop in Mathematica, but he doesn't like to actually do any work once he gets there. It's all just a big social game to him. Although I must admit Luc was very effective at play testing The Sims, because all it required was playing games all day, bitching about bugs, and making outrageous feature requests. But any 15-year-old kid could fill that job, and live like a king on a 10th of Luc's salary. I once had hope that Luc would knock some heads togethe

  178. Re:EA will just Close up shop here and move to Ind by Zip+In+The+Wire · · Score: 3, Informative

    Let them. Using fear of outsourcing to control people is a bluff that needs to be called. I think they would have done so already if they could. Everyone assumes that third world countries are populated with slaves but it just isn't true. Many of these countries are socialist and employess have more rights that in the U.S.

    I know someone who moved his company to Mexico, expecting a windfall profit hiring cheap employees. Well, it turned out that labor laws in Mexico are much more strict that in the U.S. and it cost him more than it would have here.

    For example, when you fire someone down there you have to give them 3 months pay PLUS a christmas bonus. I'm not joking. While he did pay less hourly for people, he got raped by lawsuits, no count good for nothing slackers that had to be paid 3 months pay to be fired, and employees stealing equipment so that in the end it just wasn't worth it.

    Also, many managers are hands on people and just can't manage a remote project. I've managed outsource teams myself and most of the code had to be re-written by local talent.

    So let them outsource. I dare them.

  179. Not Unionization, Localization by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    Right folks, time to give up on compete India. Jesus, these people work for 1/20 the pay (if you factor overtime), no health, no Social Security, no Unemployment Insurance, no Safety regulations. You can Unionize or not, it doesn't make any difference. You can't compete with that.

    Instead, Localize. Switch your IT solutions to Open Source alternatives (*BSD, Linux, etc). Have everything done within the local economy. In the short run it costs more, in the long run you're plowing money back into your economy.

    In the past this was a bad idea, because of enonomies of scale and the whole reinvent the wheel thing. Open source takes care of the problem quite nicely. :)

    There's one real big problem with this: no one's gonna get _really_ rich. After all, the only way to be really rich is to have a substantial base of poor to work off, and if everything's local your base is too small. Best you can hope for is being well off. For that reason, people, greedy bastards that they are, might never go with this.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  180. Endgame by BluedemonX · · Score: 1

    The class action suit enriches the lawyers.

    The developers, after the lawyers are paid, get a $5 off coupon on the next version of Madden.

    Singapore gets the jobs, as EA simply decides the hell with this and moves out.

    --

    --- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
    1. Re:Endgame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey man, why use a $5 coupon and get a shitty game at $45.00, when you can buy a better ESPN NFL2k5 for $20.00.

  181. I'm going to try to embrace that attitude. [nt] by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 1
  182. MOD This Up by cnelzie · · Score: 1

    If I had a million or one Mod points, they would all be yours. Your above statement hits the nail right on the head.

    This is what Americans should be caring about. This is what Americans should want more then anything.

    --
    If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
    1. Re:MOD This Up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > This is what Americans should want more then anything.

      Actually, I'd like us to stop pissing some countries off so much that many of their people literally want every last one of us dead. And stop rationalizing it as "they hate freedom", when we're usually the ones propping up the brutal dictators who hate freedom so much. I'd like the country to get back its education and critical thought so we stop swallowing that bullshit year after year amd asking for more.

      Then maybe we'll be in a position to take on the rest of the world.

      </rant>

  183. Re:Makes me wish I was still working at Disney Wor by taustin · · Score: 1

    If you worked at Disneyland, in California, they didn't do you any favors. Everything you describe is explicitly required by California law.

    If you work over eight hours in one day, all hours over eight must be paid at time and a half (or more).

    If you work more than twelve hours in one day, all hours over twelve must be paid at double time (or more).

    If you work all seven days in a given work week (as defined by the employer), the seventh day must be at time and a half (or more).

    If you work more than eight hours on the seventh day of a given work week, all hours over eight must be paid at double time (or more).

    You must be given a break of at least ten minutes (for which you will be paid) every two hours.

    You must be given at least thirty minutes for lunch, which does not have to be paid, every four hours.

    Any two shifts with less than (I think) eight hours between them (might be four) is considered a single shift. This is cumulative, of course; three shifts with three hours between them is a single shift. All overtime rules for a given single shift apply.

    This is all California law. Most of it is federal law, as well.

    IANAL, so if any of this actually matters to you, you'd be a damn fool to take my word for it. Consult a local attorney who specializes in labor law.

  184. It might also help... by Crash+Culligan · · Score: 1
    EA was one of the best companies that made games for the C64.

    I too remember those glorious salad days. They did quite a bit for the Atari 400, 800, Apple II, and even some PC stuff. They were a game company then rather than a multinational giant, and they seemed more intent on making games than money.

    until they start treating their human resources like people.

    Language is a virus. It might also help if you referred to them as "workers" or "employees" instead of "human resources."

    --
    You cannot truly appreciate Dilbert until you read it in the original Klingon.
  185. Re:Don't quit, that's just what they want you to d by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've never been fired in my life, but I have plenty of school buddies and relatives who have. Only one was actually "fired" where they told him to get out. The rest just had their jobs made progressively more miserable until they had to quit, either by cutting back hours til you HAVE to find a different job, or just subjecting you to the worst kind of (unprovable) mental abuse. They aren't stupid either, they won't just fire you unless they absolutely want to cut their losses NOW.

  186. Mod UP!! by TamMan2000 · · Score: 1

    Unions are organisations representing their members. And the members can make their union how ever they want.

    They don't have to be based on seniority The Union could (for instance) negotiate that a particular year the company may eliminate no more than n% of the workforce, or m% of the union salary pool. This particular arangement would limit both the elimination of huge numbers of employees, and the exclusive elimination of those with the best pay package.

    --
    "I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
  187. It's not REALLY a zero-sum game by feepcreature · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Your understanding of unions is "a bit biased". It's like a caricature of unions in pre-thatcher Britain. Maybe it IS like that in the US - I wouldn't know. Out here there are good unions and bad ones. Good ones work with the company, in enlightened self interest. Just like good management works with their staff, in enlightened self-interest, in fact.

    The Union's job is essentially to stop management from putting a [possibly illusory] chance of short term profit ahead of the longer term interest of the employees (and the company as a whole).

    Don't unions collectively bargain for pay rates? Doesn't that ensure that every employee at a position category will receive the same pay no matter how well/poorly they perform?
    Yes and no, respectively.

    A union may ask for any deal that is in the interests of the membership as a whole - and many unions happily work with systems that reward performance. They may demand that the systems be fair (and avoid victimisation), or that the overall increases be good, or that no employee be too badly disadvantaged. But that's quite compatible with rewarding excellence.

    Unions protect the employees by making employee termination much more difficult to the employer. While the advantages are probably pretty obvious, this puts additional burden on the employer to build a case against an employee for termination if the employee truly deserves termination?
    Good unions won't have a problem with fair termination of bad employees. On the other hand, they may assist all their members with any appeals or due process there may be. At the end of the day, a fair process is in everyone's interest (unless you're the bad employee).
    Unions typically prohibit companies from hiring non-union employees...
    In the UK that's called a "Closed Shop" and it's illegal - one of the more enlightened reforms of the Thatcher era. Unions cope just fine. A good union (especially if the employer's management is moderate to poor) will be able to attract members on its merits.
    Unions see overtime as potential for another worker rather than an opportunity for current union members to pick up additional income.
    Quite the reverse in some cases - I know of unions that guard their members' overtime a little too zealously.
    I guess if I were an underachiever, I'd probably welcome a union.
    I think you miss the value of a union - at its best it provides balance, and promotes enlightened self interest and good management. Industrial relations are not supposed to be a zero-sum game!

    Personally, I didn't used to be a member of our union - but I joined because I thought it was doing a pretty good job.

    --
    Paul "Say no to feeping creaturism"
    1. Re:It's not REALLY a zero-sum game by GileadGreene · · Score: 1

      What you have described as a union sounds more like a company that provides contract labour to other companies. Not that I'm saying that's a bad thing. Just trying to put more of a "free market" spin on it.

    2. Re:It's not REALLY a zero-sum game by Justice8096 · · Score: 1

      There are two sides to unions in the US. Taking as an example the Teamsters (which is one of the most powerful unions)
      Good Side:
      1. When my aunt's husband died in the performance of his duty, without life insurance, they paid her monthly compensation (and still do).
      2. His salary was decent, and there were good health benefits (hard to get in the US in blue collar jobs)
      Bad Side:
      1. Wages tend to be the same across the industry, since they are negotiated across companies.
      2. If one company will not bargain, all companies in that type of business have strike action done against them (this is what makes the Teamsters so powerful).
      Unions in the US were made to counterbalance the associations the owners made to collectively force costs lower by fixing the wages and benefits (and deciding collectively, illicitly and illegally to not hire workers whom they did not like).
      While there are still small businesses in this industry, unionization will not be worth it - because the small businesses can be shut down on illegal behavior, and they would be destroyed by industry-wide bargaining. If we ever get to the point where there are no small businesses, then unionization will be needed - because large businesses will never be able to be totally shut down. It's too easy for the owners to open up again as a different business.
      As for benefits... many programmers left in the US getting good wages have jobs that are related to government functioning or vital services. Strikes will be crushed by the government in both of those cases - and you can be jailed for striking and denying governmental or vital services.

    3. Re:It's not REALLY a zero-sum game by Gi77+B4t35 · · Score: 0
      "Wages tend to be the same across the industry, since they are negotiated across companies."

      That's a good thing? It means the guys in NYC don't earn in enough to live on and the business in Des Moines is uncompetitive.

    4. Re:It's not REALLY a zero-sum game by darco · · Score: 1

      In the UK that's called a "Closed Shop" and it's illegal - one of the more enlightened reforms of the Thatcher era. Unions cope just fine. A good union (especially if the employer's management is moderate to poor) will be able to attract members on its merits.

      Unfortunately, this is not the case in the United States. In the US, they are called "Union shops". It is where the companies enter into an agreement with the Union to hire only union employees in return for some sort of benefit. They are quite common in some areas, like Philadelphia. In some cases this can be a form of discrimination, because a union can simply deny membership to someone they don't want employed.

      I will never work for a union shop, because I refuse to be forced into doing something that us suppose to be for "my own good" that is completely out of my control. I really wish it were against the law over here.

      There are more than a few unions over here that have their own economic interests in mind, using extortion tactics to get their way and pushing companies that are on the verge into bankruptcy.

      What is happening at EA is sick and twisted, and it seems like they NEED a union. I just hope that if that is what happens, that it truely is in the name of enlightened self-interest--unlike many unions in the US today.

      --
      — darco
    5. Re:It's not REALLY a zero-sum game by Cryptnotic · · Score: 1
      Unions typically prohibit companies from hiring non-union employees...


      In the UK that's called a "Closed Shop" and it's illegal - one of the more enlightened reforms of the Thatcher era.

      In the U.S., it might be legal and might be illegal, depending on the locality and on the industry. It's definately illegal for them to break the knees of a non-Union worker though. Effectively though, you have a "closed shop" in a lot of industries.

      --
      My other first post is car post.
    6. Re:It's not REALLY a zero-sum game by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      THats all it is. I find it funny that so many free-marketers are anti-union. If they truely wanted a free market, they would respect and admire labor's decision to organize and pool their resources to maximize profits.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    7. Re:It's not REALLY a zero-sum game by GileadGreene · · Score: 1

      I suspect that (speaking as a bit of a "free-marketer" myself) the complaints arise when unions attempt to use the force of government to make companies use union labor no matter what, or attempt to obtain monopoly status for their union in a particular industry (union-only shops). I don't mind unions that are voluntary to join - if the union provides reasonable benefits then they'll get lots of members.

    8. Re:It's not REALLY a zero-sum game by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      Yet most of those same free-marketers call it savvy buisness when companies use similar tactics. Thats what I find so amusing.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    9. Re:It's not REALLY a zero-sum game by GileadGreene · · Score: 1
      Hey, I'm not saying that there aren't hypocritical idiots in the "free-marketer" camp. Just that not everyone in that camp is an idiot :)

      Kind of depends on whether you support the "free market" because you are truly interested in freedom and voluntary association, or if you are just using it as a code-word for "let corporations do whatever they like" (while conveniently forgetting that corporations are themselves an artifact of government interference in the market).

  188. Not a fair comparison by JumperCable · · Score: 1

    The Japanese stats specifically exclude people eaten by Godzilla.

  189. A Libertarian Problem by version5 · · Score: 1

    That's pretty much it. Libertarianism would probably work, but the costs are way too high.

    Just for interest, here's a question for libertarians: Nuclear power plants currently have stringent safety regulations that are enforced the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I'm assuming that a under a true laissez-faire system, such regulations are best left to voluntary regulatory organizations in much the same way that manufacturers of dangerous chemicals insist on voluntary guidelines for securing their plants against terrorist infiltration. The logic is that market forces will weed out companies running unsafe nuclear facilities, which of course is completely true - following a nuclear meltdown, its likely that the company responsible will go out of business. Unfortunately, in this case, "market forces" would include (let's say) an uninhabitable area the size of Montana. Don't you see? The market corrected itself!

    That's somewhat of an exaggerated example, but I can't really see how else the situation would be handled.

    Another thought-provoking problem is this: Libertarianism assumes that consumers will make rational choices that reflect their best interests i.e. not buy products that are harmful and faulty. This assumes that the information that consumers receive is accurate, and not manipulated or blatantly fabricated by companies who also happen to own media outlets, or who advertise using false or misleading statements. I suppose it could be argued that the media has a financial interest to broadcast truthful statements, but judging from the state of the media today, I'm not so sure that's true. Wasn't it Fox News who successfully argued in court that they have no obligation to broadcast the truth?

    Another question I have is on contract law. Why should the government regulate and enforce legal contracts between companies, or indeed, between individuals? Surely that's also an unacceptable interference by government into your private affairs? After all, companies and individuals have a long-term financial interest to keep their promises, and if they don't, they will eventually go out of business/be shunned by society.

    --

    "It's Dot Com!"

    1. Re:A Libertarian Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fraud is still fraud, even if you're a libertarian. If a company willfully lies about their product, then that would be illegal.

      As for contracts, you should have the right to designate, in the contract, who will handle disputes and how they will be paid. Whether or not you want them to be legally binding by the government could also be handled within the contract.

    2. Re:A Libertarian Problem by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1
      With regard to the nuclear example:

      Under a libertarian system there would be no limit to the liability of the owners, operators, insurers and manufacturers of nuclear power plants. Negligence bad enough to cause loss of life would probably lead to poverty or prison for those responsible. That's a powerful incentive to get it right.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  190. The crux of the matter by TempusMagus · · Score: 1

    I'll let you eat lunch but I think I can distill our differences down to your comment:

    Honestly, it seems to me that ethics is aesthetics writ large. What strikes any given individual as 'good' or 'bad' is almost never of a product of rational decision making, but rather of what is pleasing to the sentiments. It's the cumbersome gray areas between where things grow tricky.

    I believe that we should strive to engage in rational decision making even if it is an affront to our sentiments. I personally believe that the striving for this, even if it is an impossible ideal, is better than succumbing to sentiments alone. I belive that we are in the possesion of, like the stoics used to refer to it, a ruling or rational faculity that distinguishes us from the animals and that it should be used (although most choose not to). You believe that rational decision making is not something humans are reliably capable of and, more times than not, use the guise of rationality to present their prejudices and sentiments. Assume they will act in accordance with their lower-natures and react accordingly.

    --
    -_-
  191. If Joe Straitiff codes like he writes... by Dzimas · · Score: 1

    It is no wonder he was turfed. Wow, what an angry, incoherent ramble.

  192. DITTO! by ghost_world · · Score: 1

    Why the 7734 isn't that post score 5 (at time of this post)?

    If I had to guess, I'd say: because it's too long. If /.ers won't RFTA, then their not going to read a multi-page treatise on it either. Ug.

  193. jobs moving out!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The jobs are moving out anyway, fool. Any dope can see that! Wages for high school grads in India and China are less than two bucks a day and transport for the finished 'goods' is dirt cheap. Once here the stuff goes straight to WalMart where the idiots snap it up without a care in the world where it comes from. Slave goods from all over the world comes here because of sweetheart deals our politicos made with foreign governments and the WTO in order to protect our so called 'intellectual property'. Only two problems facing more and faster hollowing out of our economy are high energy prices overseas and lack of money here. Whenever a stupid workfarce 'agrees' to any 'givebacks', that gives employers extra capital in their pockets so the jobs can leave even faster.
    Until and unless the WTO treaty is abrogated and foreign trade regulated and curtailed, domestic jobs will be lost at an ever increasing rate. Ross Perot described this elequently when he made the comment about the 'giant sucking sound' of our jobs going overseas. We never had a clear choice about going this road. Our bankers and politicians conspired together to do it to aggrandize themselves at the expense of a gullible population anesthetized by the media and false religion. One day the people WILL wake up. Maybe a latter day Vladimir Lenin or Benito Mussolini will be there to help them. Believe it or not, they both once considered becoming priests when they were children.

  194. non-hot-rod-poking-lovin'? by SimHacker · · Score: 1
    I get the "long-haired", and I get the "hippie scum", but what's "non-hot-rod-poking-lovin'"? Am I missing out on some new perversion?

    -Don

    --
    Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com
  195. Chinese Compares are Far Worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most Chinese companies treat their employees like shit. I know some in Silicon Valley, and compared to the Chinese companies, Electronic Arts is heaven.

  196. PLEASE MOD +10 YOU'RE SO FUCKING INSIGHTFUL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    n/t

  197. Hollywood is like that, too by Animats · · Score: 1
    The same applies to Hollywood, but there, most of the crafts are unionized, which keeps the hours under control.

    Doing software for a film production is a pain. Either they're in development, and they don't have any money, or they're in production, and they don't have any time.

  198. Re:MAGGOT by pooh666 · · Score: 1

    Thanks so much for showing your true self in this reply. My case is made.

  199. Ditto! by ghost_world · · Score: 1

    Indeed. I work for a medium sized company, and there is no pressure at all to work more than 40 hours (except when there are things that must be done at night or on the weekend - which is not very often). In fact, this is my fourth S.E. job, and this story has not changed. So the use of "every" in the grand-parent post is way off.

  200. If you don't like the job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    quit. It's as simple as that. Also, read your contract before you sign up. And expect corporations with more than 1,000 employees to push you to your limits.

    Always have a plan out.

  201. The "Dims" by spaceage · · Score: 1

    A new game concept:
    You are a bright-eyed recent grad employed at a sausage-making company with a REAL shiny new logo. You write code for the sausage casing machines.

    Every hour you are at your desk working decreases your energy bar. Also, every time a a) manager, b) hr rep, or c) senior exec corners you in a meeting, you also lose energy. Once in a meeting, you have to do everything in your power to avoid having "action items" added to your "to-do" list or you lose energy.

    Every hour you are out of the factory, your energy bar charges. Dodging emails, performance reviews, hr reps, senior mgmt, "demos" etc and not getting fired gives extra bonus points.

    The setting of the game is dim, flourescent lit hallwalls with cubes in a multi-story building. Its a first-person "shooter" with endless drone zombies wandering around in your way and muttering phrases like "bought-in", "synergistic", "shareholder value" and "target audience". If you can actually engage a zombie in a meaningless conversation which results in s/he saying something meaningful or leaving early scores you major recharging points. Otherwise, if a zombie gets too close, your energy level gets drained.

    How do you "win"? That's the great part about this game that makes it so realistic--you can't! This way, people will keep playing endlessly until the next release comes out.

  202. time for a contract by JW+Troll · · Score: 1

    well-written, properly spelled out: it's the only way to do business with EA.
    Try it.

    --
    just like the humble blood clot... turboporsche@telus.net
  203. Do they owe us a living? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How is this different from ANY job I've held in the past 10 years?

    Let me clue you in- litigation is a poor substitute for conscience, but I applaud the guy who is sticking a face to the complaints. At least it doesn't scream suing my way to a better income.

    Unless a whole development team can say "We will not" and walk, the situation is ripe for further abuse long after the lawyers have cashed their checks.

    And yeah, there will always be those who will take it up the ass out of some misplaced priorities, but how can you respect a company you had to sue into better working conditions? Certainly no place I would work.

    Either you're a whore or you're not.

  204. From out of the trenches and into the cockpit. by Musenik · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Over the last twelve years, I have worked as a software engineer for Sierra Online, Digital Pictures, Stormfront Studios, and 3DO. Everyone of them had killer crunch times, but the one factor that made those 80 hour weeks bearable versus intolerable was the way management motivated its staff. The bigger ones said, 'work or die'. The smaller ones said, 'if you can'.

    Whenever I was the (fool?) one who decided to work my ass off for the company, compensation never offered, I felt very proud to have given my all. For those who emotionally whipped their employees, I took the next boat out. There was always a job offer with more pay waiting, until the dot bomb crushed game careers in its wake. Instead of swimming against the current with the rest of the salmon, I smelled the waters. The game industry is teetering over its own success. Too much emphasis on big budgets. Too much emphasis on retail and seasons. Too little emphasis on expanding the type of games produced. EA is swimming faster and faster to keep in place. Obviously, the employees are suffering because of it.

    Board games are going through a renaissance. The market for internet, downloadable games is growing faster than the PC retail market. The console market is starting a new cycle with more expensive hardware sold at a greater loss with software expected to make up the difference. Mobile oriented games are gearing up to blow everything else away (in numbers of sales only). The great thing about mobile and downloadable games is, these games are profitable ONLY with small budgets. That means, the independent scene is a fabulous place to be looking for work right now! Small companies are exploding across high-tech nations to build tiny, fun games. Oh, there's still crunch time, but on a game that has a $10,000 budget, and three months of one engineer working, crunches are short and exciting! Just don't expect, ever, to get rich.

    This is where I ended up, building my own titles. I still work on games, and I am very thankful that I still love it.

  205. Chris is a sysadmin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's one of those junior sysadmin dudes. Probably got his MSCE and everything!

    Cripes. You're barely in the IT industry and you think you know what management wants?

    Dude, I'm in management (if Director at a F1000 counts) and believe me, nobody works stupid like this. People who put in that many hours usually have a screwed up personal life, and they do poor work from the stress and overwork.

    I routinely do 50 hour weeks, and I've done 100 hour weeks, but it ruins your life. I expect people to finish their work, but they have an expectation that I have enough resources to do the job.

    EA is getting rich off their employee's life force. Its not a matter of dedication or " can do attitude", its simply a way to pay your employee a lot less.

  206. What about the lies ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about the description of how EA managers would say one thing, then have a meeting and claim something different and scream and yell ?

    Do you believe all bad behaviour should be punished by "shunning" in a quaker-style community, or is there some action which constitutes a crime, and can thus be punished by law ?

    A second key here is the breaking of the contract. When you buy a car, you don't have to ask if it has breaks; similarly, when you start working somewhere, there is a certain basic level of working conditions that is expected if not spelled out -- overtime happens only in emergencies and is compensated in pay and/or time off, etc.

    In short, it's all nice chatter about freedom to make contracts, but when one party enticed another into a contract that turned out not to be what it was advertised, you just sputter about walking away, not about ENFORCING it. Why should people enter into contracts if they don't mean anything ?

  207. There are limits to verbal contracts. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In most states verbal contracts are only good for subject matter involving less than $15k. Verbal contracts aren't good for real property, the assumption of another's debt or anything lasting more than a year.

    The value of the additional benefits promised by EA for a promotion might fit under the $15k limit. It may be less in some states.

  208. Re:Words to live by...SURE, BUT.... by TechDogg · · Score: 0

    "If it's in the game, IT'S IN THE GAME!"

    --
    Got MILF? It does a body good!
  209. Suicide rate by MunchMunch · · Score: 1
    The commonly cited statistic is suicide rate, which is "highest among advanced nations."

    I can't find the statistic, but for young people, the suicide rate I believe is quite a bit higher due to the cram-course/get-a-good-college-or-you're-a-failure culture--but since I can't remember the exact figures or place, take that one with a grain of salt.

    1. Re:Suicide rate by jrumney · · Score: 1
      The commonly cited statistic is suicide rate, which is "highest among advanced nations."

      I can't find the statistic, but for young people, the suicide rate I believe is quite a bit higher

      You have it backwards. Japan's overall suicide rate is near the top of Western countries, though not the highest. Probably around the same as US (I can't find the overall statistics right now). Their youth suicide rate is among the lowest (half the rate of the US for males, though higher for females). It is the middle-aged salarymen that have burnt themselves out working crazy hours for no compensation or recognition that push the suicide rate up in Japan.

  210. After 60 hours/week, weekly productivity goes down by dplank · · Score: 1

    What's ironic is that this is a no win situation for everyone involved. Employees work long hours for no extra pay, but the company also loses because studies have shown that after a certain number of hours per week (around 60 if I remember correctly) weekly productivity actually starts to decline as fatigue sets in and people start making dumb mistakes.

    The net result is that working more than about 60 hours per week actually makes things progessively worse.

  211. Anecdotal, but on topic... by pythian · · Score: 2, Informative

    I recall at SIGGRAPH, say, 3 years ago? My buddy and I, highly interested in new game technologies, stopped by the EA booth. My buddy lingered. He talked for quite a bit to the rep there. The rep had stated that EA has the highest divorce rate of any company, and they were proud of it. They could suck the souls out of their coders. They would eagerly replace the older coders (late 20s?) with the young kids of the street if the kids knew there things.

    The place sounds like occupational hell, it has for years, glad it's getting the (geek) press finally.

  212. It seems their new slogan is... by GreatBunzinni · · Score: 1

    "EA Sports: it's in the pain"

    --
    Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
  213. Re:Cry-Fucking-Babies by adewolf · · Score: 1

    It's a little different when you are getting $200.00/hour. Also as a lawyer you can set up your own office (I know not easy) and still charge $200.00/hour. If people got reasonable compensation for overtime (comp or $$) it would not be so bad. So what makes lawyers so special?

    --
    "The Brady Bunch is back...working homicide"
  214. Chris, if you were really talented by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Chris if you had real talent, you'd be making a lot more and not working weekends.

    I find people like you singularly lacking in talent because I can usually do in 4 hours what people like you take their entire weekends to do.

    You remind me a truism I tell people... "Beware of desktop support people who have been in desktop support for more than 6 months. Desktop support is the worst job in IT, and you only get the job to get some experience. If you have talent, you move upward and onward, usually quickly. So if a guy is at desktop support a long time *it means he's no good at it because if he was, he wouldn't be doing that job*. So if you see a desktop suppot guy come to work on your PC, ask him how long he's had his job. If he says "2 years", then REFUSE TO LET HIM TOUCH IT.

    Now how does this relate to you? You're a guy who is very average at your job. But you want to be noticed and move up. So you're working weekends. Great. But if you were really good, you wouldn't need to work weekends, and worse, you would have already been promoted.

    But you have a job, you like not having weekends to yourself. And you hope that you'll be noticed move into upper management.

    Chris, you're middle management material. Sorry.

  215. What kind of company? 10 am till 11 pm??? by lcsjk · · Score: 1
    You have to be at work by 10 am?

    I work a 9-5 day?

    Where do you find such a company? I worked Texas Instruments back in the late '60s when the division had a standard 45 hour week. And you were expected to be there "at least" that many hours. 30 minutes for lunch and work till 5:30. That's 8-5:30, not 9-5! Many people worked longer, but no-one ever was allowed a 10am start time. In fact every company I have worked for (Collins/Rockwell, TI, Honeywell, NCR, and 5 smaller ones, have all had 9 hours with one hour lunch. I would like to have one of those short day jobs sometime.

  216. Chris, I hate to break it to you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    " in that most programmers are pussies compared to network support."

    No chris. Its just that most programmers are smarter than you.

    Its true. The pinnacle of the IT profession is programming. Its the place where real talent thrives, and bullshitters are shuffled off to buffalo.

    I don't code anymore, and I'm out of practice, but if you haven't coded, you're a glorified operator (sysadmin I think they're called these days).

    BTW, what you're doing is not network administration, its called "being the low guy on the totum pole".

    Sorry dude, you are so at the bottom of the IT industry here.

  217. Re:ridiculous by goldspider · · Score: 1

    What's wrong with the job market? I see 'Help Wanted' ads in the newspaper every day.

    Oh, you mean you want a GREAT Job? Well that's what you keep your eyes open for while you're working at Mediocre Job and cutting back on family expenditures until then.

    You aren't going to change anything by continuing to work at the Shit Job.

    --
    "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
  218. Can someone please post the article? by clickster · · Score: 1

    Gotta love workplace filtering

    --
    If you mod me down, I shall become less powerful than you could possibly imagine.
  219. I've Seen It So Many Times by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I'd like to share a few stories... I used to work for a software consulting company that specialized in the telecom industry. When the telcos hit hard times a couple of years ago, we suddenly had a lot less projects. Of course there were layoffs and pay cuts. Then we caught a break. We had a telco partner who had a relationship with a large cell phone company. We wrote a small client-server app for them, so people could get account usage, etc. directly on their phone over HTTP. Soon we landed a deal to do a game for this company.
    It wasn't long before we had many more games projects than telco projects. Of course they paid way less than the telco projects, but could be cranked out quickly. We split the company into two divisions, mobile and telco. We hired a guy with experience in the game industry to run the mobile division. We started bringing in all the usual types you need for games beyond just programmers, like artists and producers. Meanwhile our telco division survived the tough times, and about two years ago started to turn things around.
    Everything seemed really great for our company, but there was trouble on the horizon. I started to notice a huge turnover in our mobile division. People were constantly leaving and being replaced with new people. I sat down and talked with one of my colleagues who used to work with me on telco projects, but now was a technical lead for games. He explained to me the game programming culture.
    First I should talk about the programming culture I was used to. I think it was pretty typical for software: people worked pretty much whatever hours they needed to work, as long as they got their work done and were available for necesarry meetings. I managed several programmers, and I had one who would usually be in around 11 AM and work until about 8 PM. I had another who was in around 8 AM and would work until 6 PM. People usually worked longer hours near milestones, such as releases, customer demos, etc. If somebody got behind on their work for whatever reason, it was up to them to get back on track. That might mean long hours, or weekends, or whatever.
    The game culture seemed to be much different. People tended to work very long hours, often there until after 10 PM on most nights, and often on weekends. They also tended to be much younger programmers, typically straight out of college. Most of our telco programmers were much more experienced. Not surprisingly, the game programmers were poorly paid. I would estimate that our telco programmers were paid about 40% higher than our game programmers. So our game director had a very simple system. Hire young programmers. Pay them very little. Work them incredibly hard until they burn out. Repeat.
    And it worked. Our game division was and is very succesful. Our telco division grew as well. At some point, the president of our company must have compared the two divisions and decided that what worked for one would work for the other. We had several new projects last year and were severely undermanned for the projects. New people were hired for them, but they were young and inexperienced. Problems arose and the more senior people took up the slack because of professional pride. Things shipped on time, profits swelled. New projects were added, and the same pattern became apparent. So what happened? All three of our tech leads resigned within a month, after being with the company for five years on average. The president of the company tried to replace the technical leadeship, but after trying for a month or so, instead shut down the telco division to concentrate on games.
    Is there a moral to the story or even a point? I don't know. I thought that the game programming culture that I witnessed was crazy and unsustainable. Then I read about this EA business, and it sounds like it is indeed sustainable. Of course offshoring is a big fear here in Silicon Valley, but it looks like game programmers have little to worry about. Their work winds up being very cheap when you look at the amount of money they earn compared to the number of hours they work. Will more sophisticated gaming systems require more skilled game programmers that will command more money? I don't know enough about game programming to say. I'm just glad I'm not a game programmer.

    1. Re:I've Seen It So Many Times by hibiki_r · · Score: 1
      Will more sophisticated gaming systems require more skilled game programmers that will command more money? I don't know enough about game programming to say. I'm just glad I'm not a game programmer.

      In my experience, you need at least a couple of great programmers to make a modern game from scratch. As far as I've seen, those guys get a solid salary (60-100% more than entry level), and are surrounded by code monkeys, artists and level designers that are paid peanuts. As long as you keep those couple of guys happy, there's really no problem if the rest quit every year.

      Now that big publishers command many development teams they have figured out that they can just have those few programmers build the technology that 5-6 teams of 'drones' will need to make their games. Modern consoles need a few extra programmers, but the biggest increase in cost comes from needing more artists. Unfortunately, finding cheap artists is not hard, so the EA model works just fine.

  220. Re:Cry-Fucking-Babies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    re-read the post...its talking about associates or non-partners which are paid a salary which is similar to programmers. they aren't paid by the hour.

    programmers can freelance also, right?

  221. Contracts in the US by Smoodo · · Score: 1
    To address your questions, I thought it would be helpful to post some notes about contract law in the US. There are some exceptions and other little wierd quirks, but I think you'll find it pretty straight forward. I've seen that this is generally the same in other contries as well.

    The law provides few barriers to contract formation. The law assumes that the parties contracting are of similar bargaining power. Not only that, but it also supports your freedom to, when in doubt, ask questions! There are few essential terms (subject matter, etc.) and the parties' conduct is often evidence of an existing contract. To be a contract, an agreement must be based on mutual assent. The standard used to determine whether the parties have met this requirement is objective, that is: Each party must, through her words and conduct, lead the other to believe that she wants to contract. We use a "reasonable person" standard here.

    That's the basis, then you have:

    The Offer: Usually a contract begins with a proposal, called an offer, which is a serious expression by an offeror to form a contract with another, called the offeree.

    For example, purchase orders used by buyers to purchase goods to be resold are typically offers. For a communication to be an offer, it:

    1. Must manifest contractual intent - using objective test, the offer must lead a reasonable offeree to believe that the offeror wishes to contract;
    2. Must include essential terms (common law: subject matter and price/UCC: subject matter and quantity); and
    3.Must be communicated to Oee. An offeree cannot accept an offer of which he has no notice.

    You both will probably have some idea about 'Duration' which is pretty straight forward. - Unless otherwise stated, an offer is open for a reasonable period of time.

    An offeror can revoke the offer at any time before acceptance. This included those cases in which the Oor tells the Oee that the offer is open for a specified time. Exceptions: 1.Firm offers (UCC 2-205) - offer in writing and signed by merchant giving assurance that offer will be open for stated or reasonable time. 2.Offer to enter into unilateral contract - Oor can't revoke once Oee begins performance. 3.Option - Oee pays Oor to keep offer open for defined period.

    Acceptance of the Offer
    Having general rules:

    1.Occurs in any manner reasonable under circumstances;
    2.Must be communicated to Oor
    3.Must mirror offer- if attempted acceptance doesn't mirror offer, then is counteroffer.

    One thing that is vital in a contract is what's called consideration
    Generally this is what is required to observe to see if you actually have consideration.
    1.Consideration is the legal benefit or detriment flowing from each side of the agreement to the other.
    2.Must be a bargained-for exchange of promises (bilateral agreement) or a promise for performance (unilateral agreement).
    3.Freedom of Contract: Adequacy is not issue; i.e. assuming a bargained-for exchange, the court will not examine the relative worth of the exchanged considerations.
    4.In determining whether consideration exists, courts should look only at the agreement (and time of agreement), not to pre or post agreement happenings.

    For example, my promise to give you $100 dollars because you were nice to my child is not enforceable because you have given no consideration in exchange for my promise.

    The term Legal Detriment is a promise or performance in which a person forbears doing something she has legal right to do. If bargained for by other side, it is consideration.

    You would have to prove that you actually formed a contract with the other person. The potential employer is probably doing something the law might see closer to advertising than actually offering something. Your actual contract with an employer probably starts with an employment agreem

    1. Re:Contracts in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Contracts or not...the fact that the word is getting out and continues to get out, that game corps, like EA, are exploiting their employees will affect their long term success. When a junior manager/pm/animator/modeler/or artist hears about a job at EA, they probably will jump on it right away. But a seasoned manager/pm/animator/modeler/or artist hears about a position from EA they will either already know it is a sweat shop with little integrity in management style or they will find out through research. Over time with a bad reputation (assuming EA doesn't change their practices), they will have a higher ratio of crappy employees turning out mediocre material than their competition. And, that contributes heavily to a corporation's failure.

      So at the very least continue the communication. I know I have been working in IT for 8yrs as a Project Manager, and I was entertaining EA's job postings...I know now, that I will not apply to EA.

  222. Re:ridiculous by mobby_6kl · · Score: 1

    > [They can't quit] if they have mortgages and families and other responsibilities, then they can't quit so easily. Not in this job market.

    This should be taken into consideration when choosing a job. You don't go flipping burgers permanently when you have a huge debt and a large family; don't get a new house/car if you're planning to wash the dishes for the next 10 years.

    That said, I'm not arguing against suing EA for violating the contract/agreement, I think it's a valid (even from a liberterian POV) defense.

  223. An example of a strike still going after 6 months by kpogoda · · Score: 1

    No cure in sight for nurses' strike

    The four-month-old walkout at Lourdes Medical Center is at an impasse. Both sides say they remain determined.

    It is no surprise to their union that nurses who walked off the job at Lourdes Medical Center of Burlington County more than four months ago are still picketing this Labor Day.

    Shortly before the union's two-year contract expired at the end of February, its leaders showed the nurses video of a similar hospital strike that lasted two years. They wanted the nurses to know they would need resolve.

    The labor action remains bitter, with no negotiations scheduled since talks broke down early last month.

    The Willingboro hospital has hired permanent replacement workers, and as many as half the striking nurses are working other jobs to help support themselves or their families.

    As the strike drags on, union representatives say that maintaining big pickets has become harder, but that nurses are determined nonetheless.

    "We have been staffing the lines during rush hour," Pierre Joanis, a negotiator for JNESO, said Friday afternoon when no nurses were picketing. "The pickets have dried up some because so many have found other jobs."

    One sign at a hospital entrance on Sunset Road read: "Friends don't let friends work at Lourdes."

    About 80 of the 280 nurses who walked off the job April 19 have crossed the lines to work, Joanis said. About a dozen of those have resigned or been fired, he said.

    About half the nurses honoring the picket line have found supplementary or full-time work elsewhere, Joanis said. Other health-care facilities have been recruiting them because of a nationwide nursing shortage.

    A central issue in the dispute is a management push for contract language that would allow it to change nurses' schedules as it saw fit for flexibility.

    Nurses say that would be a giant step backward and alter their lifestyle and finances because some of the changes would mean three 12-hour shifts instead of five eight-hour shifts - a loss of four hours a week and full-time status.

    Indeed, nurses began fomenting resentment almost a year ago under the last contract when the hospital began making shift changes and laying off workers.

    Few talks were held after the nurses walked out. Negotiations stopped Aug. 10 when both sides agreed they had reached an impasse. The hospital said it had given its last offer.

    Scott Share, a hospital spokesman, said Friday afternoon that no new talks were scheduled. Both sides are awaiting rulings on several issues under arbitration.

    In the middle of last month, an arbitrator sided with the nurses on shift changes, but the ruling is unlikely to have an effect on the walkout.

    The union has filed a grievance with the National Labor Relations Board, contending that management had no right to hire permanent replacements. So far, union officials said, the hospital has hired about 12 replacements.

    Management said it had to act because the high pay rates for temporary replacements were a financial strain. It also maintained that the National Labor Relations Act permits the move.

    So both sides said they were dug in for the long haul.

    "We will be there for the fight and engage them every step of the way," Joanis said.

  224. Stop EA Canada cold by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Their draconian style, their abusive atitute and stupidity should come to an end. Them as other studios in canada treat people like you know what. Ubisoft, Bioware you name it, if you see their games look away, remember your dollar keeps and idiot torturing and mistreating a guy like you.

    If you ignore this reality soon or later it will come to you to bite your ass.

  225. Self inflicted slavory by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

    This is exactly what I've been saying for some time. Untill the world reaches an ecconomic equilibrium, western civilization will be at a lull untill 3rd world catches up to our standard of living...or untill we drop down to meet theirs at some halfway point.

    I don't have any answers to this issue. As much as I would like to rant and rave about how parts of this world has gone hell in a handbasket, there is nothing I can do about what happens in Africa or Asia. But one thing is for sure, I'm starting to think a simple life is a better life. Maybe...just maybe I should just drop all this high-tech industry stuff and just be a local farmer. I would be piss poor. But then again, what the use of money if I will end up spending it again on medical bills from all my long years of stress i've accumulated in my lifetime.

    Irronic isn't it? At first we fought slavery. Now, we are fighting slavery put forth on our selves.

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  226. Why EA Will Not Outsource by Bruha · · Score: 1

    For the most part Indian game programmers could do little to program up a game that would appeal to american kids.. it's a huge culture thing. Sure they could probably do back end mechanics of the game but everything else would have to be put in by the american programmers.

  227. Working Long Hours lowers work throughput by akc · · Score: 1

    I worked a lot in software development in the 1970's and 1980's, First as a programmer, but by the later 70's as a project manager and then later as a line manager for a unit built customer systems to a deadline based on a product and its enhancements. (although I am in the same company still, I now am doing business development in another area)

    One of the most important lessons that I learnt during that period is that although you can raise productivity with overtime when you are reaching a deadline, trying to do so over a long period is just counterproductive and normally makes you miss deadlines AND budget and deliver crap code. In one mess I had to sort out, the previous project manager had driven the team so hard that they reported the project ready for client acceptence when it wasn't. This was an international project and the client came one quarter way round the world to witness acceptence tests only for them to fail dismally. It took us nearly a year to fix that mess. But proper re-planning (remembering every extra man day on this project was off the bottom line - since it was a fixed price contract) allowed us to beat the revised schedule by a month.

    In the late '80s early '90s I was the "chief engineer" of our particular subsidiary and I spent some time examining the software development process in depth to understand how to get better at it. I looked at this overtime issue and why productivity goes down.

    There are several reasons for this

    1) With an alert mind, programmers (or anyone doing a serious mental task) have to move into a concentration mode. If not tired, it takes about 15 minutes with out interruption to achieve. Firstly when you are tired it takes longer to get into concentration mode, and secondly as the time pressures grow the supervisor level spend more time interrupting you to get "progress reports"

    2) when people rush around without taking time to stop and think its a lot easier to go in the wrong direction. To solve bugs, or just to plan what to code need the ability to release oneself from the pressure.
    [I vividly remember from my early days working in the middle of London and slaving all day over a bug or a design problem. Many a time, I remember realising what the problem was within a minute or two of getting on the train home]

    3) A large part of a project is about communication and a common understand and vision of how everything fits together. Its the leader that is pulling the team forward and creating the environment for good communication that makes things happen more right the first time (nobody gets it completely right the first time do they). When the "workers" in the team get pressured into long hours then resentment sets in and that in itself kills productivity.

    4) People use their lunch hours and the time after work to do essential domestic chores - such as visiting the bank or posting letters etc. If they skip lunch they just do them anyway in other times.

    I would very rarely allow my project managers to authorise overtime - normally it was only when a deadline was close. In the later days I also used to teach on our internal project management courses and this point was always somewhere on the syllabus.

  228. This thing gave me nice little idea.... by JollyFinn · · Score: 1

    1. Grow long hair.
    2. Marry a lawyer.
    3. Get in EA and record their promises.
    4. keep a recorder always with you.
    5. First month do as long hours as management makes you.
    6. Get T-shirt where in your back reads, (under your hair so that no-one sees it)
    MY WIFE IS A LAWYER
    7. after that 40-50 hour weeks if management starts shouting at you, well that why you have the recorder. Best thing would be talking to a mobile phone while walking away. Let manager shout at you.
    Say him that your wife needs you at home. And she heard EVERY SINGLE WORD HE SAID and has recording device always on her phone just in case. Then pull your hair in front and turn your back at boss and walk away.

    --
    Emacs is good operating system, but it has one flaw: Its text editor could be better.
  229. Re:Cry-Fucking-Babies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You work those hours because you're sucking up to the partners 'cause you want one of their spots in the firm. If you're not, then you're doing the time until you can pass the bar, get your license, and hang out a shingle. It's the price you pay for education.

    It is interesting that you would work 5 hours for a 1.8h payoff. You lawyer types need to take a look at the automotive industry. In their world, they work 1.5h to complete a 3.5h job "by the book" and get paid for the 3.5h. Hourly rates aren't as high as for lawyers, but a 85+/hr billed, they sure look like they should do well.

  230. Well after this shitstorm by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

    Going down on EA, there wont be to many people wanting to work for EA anymore, guess EAs lets get skilled people and press them out like ripe oranges hire and dump scheme will backfire in the long term.

  231. Re:Not only is this normal in the game industry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More importantly, higher pay won't keep you awake at the keyboard. What you need is more time, or more people to do the work. Now, there are certain projects on which time is the only answer (I need a baby in one month...get me nine women), but there are often times that you can parallize the process, though it is never 100% efficient.

    The real question is: are you generating income, or are you an expense? If you're the latter, you goose is cooked.

  232. Another bad gaming boss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    John Cooney, assclown buttfucker, who stole his employees' money. I'm sure there are a lot of people who would like to kill him.

  233. You left out one important detail by ChrisPee · · Score: 1

    The name of Company #2 is?

  234. Sure you don't get overtime... by duckpoopy · · Score: 1

    but they'll feed you pizza or Boston Market every night. Oh yeah, you can play foosball at work too. As long as your priorities are warped enough and your standards are low enough, you can have a happy career in game development.

    --
    word.
  235. Ea by DaMa9eD · · Score: 0

    Six figure relocation package and he thinks he's bring exploited....

    --
    Have you been DaMa9eD today?
  236. Re:EA will just Close up shop here and move to Ind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The dollar has depreciated 10% already. Another 10% on the way. And when it hits bottom I'll only be able to buy American products, labor and services.

    Just paying for the gas to get product to America will be too expensive.

    By the way, as a result of the dollar depreciation already, Chinese microwaves selling in Walmart make *zero* profit.

  237. I feel sorry for all of you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Judging from a lot of the comments in this thread, I feel sorry for a whole lot of you. There are so many comments talking about how imcompetent their management is, how awful their working environment is, how little they get paid, what long hours they have to work, etc. Everyone seems to assume that a large company will always treat their employees like shit.

    I guess I'm just really lucky. I work for one of the largest financial services companies in the US. I get paid pretty well, I work 40-45 hours a week, my manager is well informed and understanding. If I need to take a couple hours off some afternoon to attend to a family matter, no problem. I have good benefits and get treated with respect. If I have a concern, I can go to management and it will be addressed. I guess my management realizes the reality: Talented and happy employees are the company's greatest assest and are a competitive advantage.

    Sorry for all of you that hate the company you work for. It amazes me what kind of shit people will put up with.

  238. hello? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a little known fact is that there are more professional athletes in the world than video game programmers.

    think about that

    furthermore, unlike professional athletes, where slight differences in ability make a huge difference -- the HR ppl at EA are dealing with a largely homogenous group in top whatever percent of programmers out there.

    what this all adds up to is a huge sellers market for them. why should they pay someone, say person x, overtime when there is another person, person y, out there who's credentials are indistinguishable from x's and who will happily work all hours of the day for no extra money? It would be bad business policy for ea not to deal with HR this way.

    in the end--it's just business sense. if you don't want to be in the most competitive field in software engineering -- here's a tip -- don't be. go work for microsoft or google [both are expanding their work forces]. there are plenty of amazingly cool and prestigous jobs outside the game industry for talented developers. If you choose to stay at EA or in the generally fucked up game industry, it's your own fault.

  239. A Beautiful Mind by Mark+of+THE+CITY · · Score: 1

    John Forbes Nash

    --
    The clearance system sounds logical. It is not. It is completely arbitrary. -- John Bolton
  240. Oh please, get over yourself. by Old+Man+Kensey · · Score: 1
    Somebody needs to RTFLJ.

    SilentChris wrote:

    Contrast that with this guy: a game programmer. Paid to sit by himself and code all day for entertainment purposes. His boss hands him a long list of assignments, some of which come last minute. A network administrator would say "fine" and finish the job, regardless of the fact that it ate up some of us weekend.

    You missed the part where these assignments didn't come from his boss. They came from other people. As he stated in his entry, which you obviously didn't read or retained little of, he was supposed to and did prioritize and complete items given him by his boss. Other items were, according to his understanding as given to him in a previous meeting, subject to his own prioritization:

    Well the week cruised by with me not hearing a peep from my supervisor except in reply to almost daily status reports I was sending him (on my own perogative, to forestall any suprises). I worked my butt off and completed the list. I had several "great job" emails from my supervisor during this time.... Now we had discussed this in the previous meetings and I wasn't supposed to prioritize stuff from anyone except from my supervisor, and he also said we'd talk if something new was supposed to replace anything on my must do list.

    Then he came in on Monday and started work on the (as he understood it, non-required) items he didn't get to the previous week, and was still reamed for not meeting expectations which were never communicated to him.

    SilentChris wrote:

    I knew going headfirst into system administration that I'd work some crappy hours. Things break, people mess up, it happens. But I don't sit around like a pussy programmer and complain that my 6-digit salary isn't enough, or I have "special needs" when the company moves. He wasn't part of upper-management, he doesn't have the right to make those decisions.

    First of all, get off the completely immature "pussy programmers vs. manly sysadmins" trip. I'm a sysadmin too, and from your comments you wouldn't last two days in the shops most of the admins I know run. They have no tolerance (nor do I) for that kind of artificial ego-inflating crap.

    Second, he and I and you all have every right to decide what we consider acceptable. And if the company decides to meet your or my or his demands, they better make good on their promise. They had the choice at the beginning to say, for example, "No, we just can't do that kind of relocation package, here's what we can do" or just "See ya later, you greedy bastard." But they decided to hire him. To my mind that's not being a pussy, it's smart negotiating to extract whatever you can out of an employer who most people here know can more than afford it.

    Don't imagine that being a grunt employee in the computer gaming industry is a bed of wine and roses with a hot blonde secretary who gives you blowjobs every day after you knock off at 2 in the afternoon (except Fridays, which you take off and she comes over to clean your house, wash your BMW, and then spend the rest of the day in bed with you in full bondage gear). If you really think that, you obviously haven't ever worked in the industry and probably don't know anyone worth anything who has.

    --
    -- Old Man Kensey
    1. Re:Oh please, get over yourself. by SilentChris · · Score: 1

      "You missed the part where these assignments didn't come from his boss. They came from other people."

      The article didn't say where the assignments came from. Could have been his boss. Could have been other superiors. If it was underlings I'd usually tell them to shove it, but what if they said "Uh, supreme programmer god with the 6-digit salary, if you don't fix this, the thing won't build at all." He doesn't go into any detail about what these "extra" assignments were, who gave them, or how important they were. They could've very well directly affected the project.

      "Second, he and I and you all have every right to decide what we consider acceptable. And if the company decides to meet your or my or his demands, they better make good on their promise."

      And the employee better make good on their promise. You think this guy got a comfy moving bonus with no stipulations? I don't think I've ever gotten a raise where a boss didn't say "You've done well. This is partially to reward that, but also to acknowledge that you have more responibilities now, and you better meet them".

    2. Re:Oh please, get over yourself. by SilentChris · · Score: 1

      "First of all, get off the completely immature "pussy programmers vs. manly sysadmins" trip. I'm a sysadmin too, and from your comments you wouldn't last two days in the shops most of the admins I know run. They have no tolerance (nor do I) for that kind of artificial ego-inflating crap."

      Oh, by the way, the reason I have an attitude at all is because I know I'm smarter and work harder than the programmers I've worked with. They have a small set of defined skills (code in X language for Y purpose). Take them out of their "shell", in an environment where everything isn't so clearly defined (for example, adjusting to a crashing computer and they crack. Rather than figure out the problem, they instead complain and take a smoke break.

      Meanwhile, I use a bevy of skills as a sysadmin. I administrate, I code (if something needs to get done, like a log analyzer, I don't wait for the programmers to "find time" to do it; I just write the damn thing), and I adapt.

    3. Re:Oh please, get over yourself. by Old+Man+Kensey · · Score: 1
      The article didn't say where the assignments came from. Could have been his boss. Could have been other superiors.

      Actually it did, in the part I clipped:

      The communication problems were going to be solved by a clearly defined task list that "had to be done" by Friday with the posibility of it changing if higher priority things came along. In the words of my supervisor "This is a very aggressive schedule are you sure you can get it done -- it will require a lot of extra hours." I agreed to it, partially to clear the air between us and partially because it was now late in the project and we had to ship the pig.

      Well the week cruised by with me not hearing a peep from my supervisor except in reply to almost daily status reports I was sending him (on my own perogative, to forestall any suprises). I worked my butt off and completed the list. I had several "great job" emails from my supervisor during this time.

      Then things went nuts. On monday, when I came in, I was pulled into a meeting (on 5 minutes notice) with my supervisor and our HR contact. Apparently my work the week before was "unacceptable." I got everything done on the list, but I didn't get every single new thing added by everyone else. Now we had discussed this in the previous meetings and I wasn't supposed to prioritize stuff from anyone except from my supervisor, and he also said we'd talk if something new was supposed to replace anything on my must do list.

      So the sequence of events was:

      1. His boss gave him a list of tasks.
      2. Other people added to the list
      3. He completed the items added by his boss.
      4. He completed some, but not all, of the items added by others.

      So he does say where the tasks came from, and unless he's outright lying, he completed everything he was supposed to on the list by COB Friday.

      --
      -- Old Man Kensey
  241. Without Halo 2 EA will go the way of... by Ingolfke · · Score: 1

    Gentoo and BSD. They'll follow them down the path to oblivion. RIP Gentoo, BSD, and EA. So long and good riddance.

  242. Re:Cry-Fucking-Babies by DaveCBio · · Score: 1

    Yeah, good luck with getting a decent freelance gig for a gaming company.

  243. My 2 cents... by imsirovic5 · · Score: 1

    Marketplace takes care of the problem, there is no need to add inefficencies to the process by adding unions..

    For example, if EA treates its top talent really bad, and if it managment sucks, then what does the top talent do? It either a) forms its own company or b) joins the competitor with capable managment team...

    Bottom line EA treats its human capital bad = human capital leaves = EA left with no good human capital = EA games start sucking = revenues go down = Wall Street punishes EA = EA goes under.. thats how it works.. its a nice process, and it works.. Those companies with best procedures get rewarded, those with bad managment get punished... simple...

  244. Standard Practice by ThisIsFred · · Score: 1

    I see this type of thing all too frequently in my government job too. Only a drooling moron manager would believe that Taylor-style micromanagement is going to improve the quality or speed of a job that is so complex. My guess is that the guy was expensive, and they were looking to get rid of him.

    The best way to do it is what I call "piling". It's basically sabotage. The manager gives the employee more/impossible work. We're all human, we have limits for endurance. Even if the employee makes his quota, there's a good chance his work is going to be subpar.

    So it's a lose-lose situation for the employee. I'd bet some senior manager took a walk down to HR one day and saw the 6+ digit figure they paid the guy for relocation costs, and made the decision to try and force him out without obligation for unemployement or severence.

    It also didn't help that the rest of the guys team was working 16-18 hour days and he wasn't. Not saying that he was somehow "asking for it", but I'm sure his secret antagonist was using this as justification for further piling.

    p.s. I'm union. It's both good and bad. I don't think the software industry should be unionized, but some of these companies are just asking for it.

    --
    Fred

    "A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
    -RMS
  245. Re:Mod parent way the fuck up [Spare me the RSI?] by Da_Biz · · Score: 1

    While I'm not terribly fond of unions, I'm going to have to disagree about your apparent disbelief in RSI.

    I've been working as a systems engineer for about ten years. I don't play contact sports, but eat well, exercise moderately and am in good health. How exactly do you think I developed tendonitis? I'd say that 60-80 hours a week with poor ergonomics over the last few years certainly didn't help.

    You know it's bad when your neurologist says that it may be time to find a new job, and the pain in your wrists and forearms may be permanent.

  246. Mod parent up! by Da_Biz · · Score: 1


    It's amazing how many people complain that they don't have enough money to put back as savings but drive a $20,000 or up car and spend $50 - $80 a month on cable or satellite.


    Here here! I was definately in this class at one point: while life was rather pleasant tooling around in my Mercedes and eating out constantly, I never saved money, and that became a tremendous source of stress later in life.

    I get by just fine right now driving my ailing (but still working) $800 Volvo wagon and cooking at home. On that note, I get more dates now that I cook :-)

  247. Re:Cry-Fucking-Babies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >So what makes lawyers so special?

    They have skills which people are willing to pay for and which take a LOT of time, effort and expense to acquire.

    I guess that just doesn't compare with M4D HTMl picked up from a web site do-it-yourself course, huh?

  248. Re:parent is dead wrong by mjs0 · · Score: 2, Informative

    I have worked in both the US and the UK and I paid more in direct taxes (Federal+State+fica+casdi) and tax related expenses in California than I ever did in the UK. Admittedly the indirect taxes go some way to balancing this out BUT in CA I then had to pay extra for inferior health care and way more to educate my children.

  249. I could be wrong.... by zarthrag · · Score: 1

    ...but weren't new rules for overtime pay implemented under Bush's first term? - I specifically remember something about programmers/IT workers no longer *qualifying* for overtime pay ("overtime exempt")

    Googling for it turned up this link

    But if EA pays by the hour, they are in trouble. Salary jobs may have a difficult time.

    As an indie game developer, my hours are similar. But since I can basically do what I want/enjoy - so it isn't quite so bad - I'm not in it for the money. (I may change tunes if I ever start a family or something.)

    --
    Why can't all fpga/microcontroller manufacturers just release free optimizing compilers???
  250. Westwood liquidation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On the day they closed shop, there were a lot of cheesed-off programmers getting drunk in the local bars. :-P A friend of mine tried to get a lease on the building they used to work out of for his video production business-- it's a heck of a studio-- but that turned out to be another problem: the capital market seems to be completely dried up at the moment.

  251. sounds like it's time for a union... by the-build-chicken · · Score: 1


    insane hours
    little pay (when you project your wage over the hours you work)
    offshoreing

    sounds like maybe it's time to unionize software development...strength in numbers and all that.

  252. Re:Agree, and here's why... by symbolic · · Score: 1


    It might interest people to know that according to an article in USA Today, EA CEO, Mr. Lawrence Probst, III, pocketed $696,535 in salary last year, with an additional $1.1 million in bonuses. Mr. Probst also retained $15.2 million in options in 2003, bringing the total compensation to well over $17 million.

    Seems to me that Mr. Probst needs to have his wang reeled in.

  253. Re:ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, you mean you want a GREAT Job? Well that's what you keep your eyes open for while you're working at Mediocre Job and cutting back on family expenditures until then

    Have you tried looking for work when you have a 9-5?
    This is difficult but not impossible.

    Have you tried looking for work when you have a 7-7?
    This is a little more difficult.

    What about 7am-11pm and weekends?
    This is the point where you get your spouse to mail out resumés to every Tom Dick and Harry, get your own mobile and try your best not to get canned before you have something else lined up.

    You have shit jobs, and you have sweathouses.

  254. Re:Cry-Fucking-Babies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Go fuck yourself you ass fuck.

    I was dating a legal secretary during my time at EA, and she'd say the same thing you just did. Lawyers do work hard, for the first year. Plus you know going in what to expect AND you're working towards partner and you're making more money than the coders. Oh, and then there's that secretary that wipes your ass for you all day. There's no comparison.

    Days don't start at 9am at ERTS, they start at all hours and go to all hours. Know what you're talking about before you open your mouth again.

  255. Another thing you need to keep in mind by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    HR is not your friend, just like legal is not your friend. It doesn't matter if you know the person working in HR from a chat system, from your bedroom, from the coffee shop, from your AA group, THEY ARE NOT YOUR FRIEND. If they are your spouse or significant other in general, they might not be willing to fuck you over.

    Otherwise the HR person's job is to make the decision to fuck you over on behalf of your employer and they are NOT repeat NOT your friend. Assuming they are doing their job, their mind is working at all times on providing you the bare minimum service and that means coming up with creative ways not to do things for you.

    I know this sounds paranoid and/or trollish but I am dead serious. There are two pieces of advice I can give you in life without getting older, and they are 'always get a receipt, contract, or other piece of paper when doing any form of business' (the "worth the paper it's printed on" theory) and 'never assume the HR person is your friend'. Hold these two principles dear and they will help you avoid undue woe.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  256. indemnified? by ebonum · · Score: 1

    It may be time for someone to start sending letters to every winblows user demanding payment for each illegal copy of the software.

  257. Umm... by May+Kasahara · · Score: 1
    I don't see how it's not an option. I work on television animation, which has (in the US) been outsourced to various countries since the '50s. Outsourcing only became the well-oiled machine it is now starting in the early-to-mid '80s.

    If the preproduction planning is tight enough, any creative work can be outsourced with little inconvenience. You're right that the quality isn't nearly as good (and the Blizzard comparison works in regard to many US feature animation houses), but do you think that's going to stop big name publishers, especially when they're releasing mostly repetitive franchises like Madden?

  258. Newer stats by MunchMunch · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Thanks for the reply, but those statistics are a bit old. I did some research and came up with this article from July, 2004.

    It turns out we were both right and both wrong. Although both youth and middle-age suicides are bad and getting worse, the highest number comes from the elderly, which is surprising considering they are only 19% of the population (2004 statistics)

    Anyways, an excerpt on the youth rates:

    "The latest NPA data confirm that suicide by elementary- and middle-school students is a serious social problem. The suicide rate for this group rose by a massive 57.6%, representing a total of 93 innocent lives lost, 34 more than in 2002. Among high-school students there was also a sharp rise of 29.3%. In total, 225 young lives were lost in this category. There was also an increase in the number of college students killing themselves. The overall suicide rate among people aged 19 or younger rose by 22%."

    And generally:

    "Based on provisional data for 2003, Japanese male and female suicide rates per 100,000 people are now roughly 40.2 for men and 14.9 for women, approaching levels normally witnessed in countries suffering severe economic hardships such as Russia, Latvia or Lithuania."

    Anyways, here's another source for more up to date statistics.

  259. RETRACTION by darco · · Score: 1

    Forget my first paragraph. Hell, just ignore that whole post for now. I apparently don't know shit.

    http://www.unionreform.com/taft.htm

    --
    — darco
  260. Re:ridiculous by blitz487 · · Score: 1
    Uhhh, ok -- they may not be physically chained to their desks, Mr. Star-eyed Libertarian, but if they have mortgages and families and other responsibilities, then they can't quit so easily.

    So who put those chains of mortgages, etc., around their necks?

  261. Impressive by Mechaniork · · Score: 1

    It's sad that I'm in the frigging military and my hours are better. My hours were only close to being that bad last time I was in the desert, and was working 5 pm to 5 am for 4 days, getting a day off, and then doing another 4 days of 5 to 5. But I got paid lots for that deployment. My opinion is, you get paid for the hours you work. If it's a 9 to 5 job, then you work from 9 to 5 and you get paid for 9 to 5. If they make you stay longer they pay you more or compensate you somehow. Failing to pay a person for the work they do is called stealing. Far as I'm concerned, EA is stealing from the people who work for it. If I had any desire whatsoever to play a crappy formulaic EA game, stories like this would make me not feel bad about getting that game in a less then legal manner.

    --
    ~~"How can you have a war on Terror? It's not even a noun!" -Jon Stewart~~
  262. hey! by Saturninus · · Score: 0

    Shut up and come out with the Sims 3!

  263. Yeah, right... by Cryptnotic · · Score: 1

    And this system you propose has done so well for Cuba.

    --
    My other first post is car post.
  264. Re:parent is dead wrong by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

    I then had to pay extra for inferior health care

    but the "inferior" health care is pretty much available on demand rather than getting put on a waiting list to see if oyu die before you get care.

    --
    Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  265. Re:parent is dead wrong by mjs0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Have you experienced both systems?

    I have, and there are waiting lists in both countries that can of course be skipped if you are wealthy.

    Yes, for non-urgent care you may wait slightly longer in the UK but everybody gets treated with no questions, no paperwork and no insurance companies second guessing doctors!

    For urgent cases the care is outstanding.
    Let me give you an example, my father recently recovered from cancer surgery. For the 3 months following the surgery (he was in the hospital for 2 weeks, not rushed out before prudent as happens in the US) he had home visits from doctors once a week, and nurses twice weekly. Everything (medication, supplies etc) was top quality and delivered at no cost. When he mentioned that his son lives in the US several of the nurses were scathing in their condemnation of the mercenary US healthcare system and pointed out that many of the supplies he was getting would not even be offered to equivalent patients there as the cost was unacceptable to the insurance companies.

    To bring this back on topic, one of the advantages companies in the US have over their employees is the chains that health insurance bind them with. It is a lot harder to quit your job when treated badly if you know that would lose you your healthcare, especially if you or one of your dependents have a chronic illness.

    My sister-in-law has a serious heart condition, here in the land of the free she is shackled to her corporate job and denied the opportunity to start her own business because she would not be able to afford the health insurance premiums.

  266. weighing the costs of unionization by jdkane · · Score: 1
    If the software industry unionizes, I wonder if software workers will find themselves out of jobs faster than, let's say, a car manufacture (e.g. I see other references here to GM unionizing in 1937).

    We (programmers) unionize. They (companies) outsource the work to overseas, or open the main branch of the company elsewhere.

    I believe unionization -- at least in North America -- at this point could be more of a detriment to programmers.

  267. Re:Harrumpf. Quit then by speedbump · · Score: 1

    Nothing is wrong with Iowa. My point is that this family may have to go where the jobs are.

  268. Buttmunch by sabat · · Score: 1
    So who put those chains of mortgages, etc., around their necks?

    You're right. If you want to own a house and have a family, you should be prepared to be a slave to corporate America and its rich owners. It's the patriotic thing to do.

    Dick.

    --
    I, for one, welcome our new Antichrist overlord.
  269. Re:pay~~performance??? you think like a slave!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If higher pay is proportional to higher performance (e.g. the self-perpetuating slave mentality upon which our free-trade fraud-dollar bizarro world depends), then might I request that you ask ...

    Who produced Bill Gates (who in terms of higher pay must be acknowledged as the best performer ever!!), and how much is she making?

    Under our new-American System, the pay "earned" by American prettyboys, has nothing whatsoever to do with their productivity, or their performance.

  270. Re:parent is dead wrong by s.fontinalis · · Score: 1

    In the US 13.4% of the GDP goes towards health care. That's almost twice the rate of some of the "inferior" systems. Yet we have a lower life expectancy. Which system is inferior?

  271. Worst for all...? by iceperson · · Score: 1

    Nice to know that you're edumacated.
    Actually I have a great job with great pay and average benefits (I negotiated for more $$$ in lieu of some benefits.) My last job sucked and my boss treated me like crap and because of that I left. Not long after I left the company it went out of business because the other sysadmin and 7 of 9 developers followed my lead and found greener pastures. The free market works for the people who work. I can see why people who refuse to try harder so that they are more valuable to a company never make it in life. My mom and I were homeless for much of my childhood. After I graduated HS I joined the Marines, used the GI Bill, and now I make more than 80% of the people in the region where I live. If I can do it then anyone can. Now if you're handicapped then I'd be more than happy to point you toward some of the organizations that I make charitable contributions to that help people with disabilities.

  272. Spot the difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I'm not a pro-MANAGEMENT guy. They just seem to corrupt themselves, and start to operate only for their own benefit.

    Come on. Any human organisation is open to corruption, be it unions or management.

    Good ol' Kenny Lay & Co. certainly didn't look out for any one but themselves. But to say all management is sociopathic is silly.

  273. If you work for EA and want to sue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I work for a huge class action firm in California.
    As their resident geek I know they win almost every case they enter. Send me an email, the sharks here smell blood.

    =D
    v00d00chi1d@yahoo.com

  274. Lawyer up and get paid! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you work for EA and you want to get paid, email me. We can sue the pants off those sweatshop owners. The OTHER magic of a free market. Litigatiion.

    v00d00chi1d@yahoo.com