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."
if the company is so bad, quit. I'm sure there's plenty of people who will hire you.
so i guess the same can be said about video games
spend money here
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.
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.
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
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?
-_-
If your employer is not following employment practices laws, you could ask the courts to force them to comply.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
"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.
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.
-_-
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
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!
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.
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
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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!
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).
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"
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!
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)
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.
Another one bites the dust
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
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
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.
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.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
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.
You have to look no farther than the movie industry to see that what you are saying is untrue.
Anonymous Cowards suck.
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.
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
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.
i am a soviet space shuttle
"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.
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/
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.
"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.
$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.
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)
Search 2010 Gen Con events
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.
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
for mistreating employees.
... nearly everybody spends there own time improving their skills. Thats why so many of them have compilers at home.
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
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
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.
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.
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
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.
(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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Table-ized A.I.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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). 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. Quite the reverse in some cases - I know of unions that guard their members' overtime a little too zealously. 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"
Well I'm glad someone spoke out for management!
..
.. wtf? Customers? No. A manager treats his employees like soldiers working under his command.
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
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
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.
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"
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.
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.
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.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
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.
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
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)
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.