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."
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.
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?
-_-
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.
Kyle
http://www.unlogikal.net/
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.
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.
-_-
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
"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).
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!
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
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.
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
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.
(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.
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"