Slashdot Mirror


EA Reconsiders Overtime Position

bippy writes "An internal memo leaked from EA to its employees says that the company plans to make more employees elgible for overtime. Rusty Rueff, senior vice president of human resources, bemoans the bad press and begs forgiveness: "As much as I don't like what's been said about our company and our industry, I recognize that at the heart of the matter is a core truth." GamesIndustry.biz has commentary on the story as well.

511 comments

  1. Fill me in by bigberk · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Can someone tell me why there are so many articles about EA? What is this, the message board for one tech company?

    1. Re:Fill me in by zaffir · · Score: 0, Redundant

      The "overworked without compensation" problem is prevelant in the tech industry, and EA just so happened to be a huge target that several people went after and it snowballed from there. Hopefully this will have an effect on policies everywhere.

      --
      "Upon attaching the waterblock to my penis, I began to notice that I know nothing about computers." -- JRockway
    2. Re:Fill me in by Cecil · · Score: 4, Funny

      The answer to your question has two parts:

      This is games.slashdot.org.
      EA is the only game company. Any supposed "other" game companies are either worthless, or EA just hasn't gotten around to acquiring them yet.

    3. Re:Fill me in by SpiffyMarc · · Score: 1

      It's called news. Sometimes one story gets a lot of coverage.

    4. Re:Fill me in by Ignignot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is a perfect example of the power of press in action. This is how reporting is supposed to happen in the united states - find something wrong, and talk about it and raise such a furor over it that things get better. And since EA employs programmers and many slashdot readers are programmers, we should all keep ourselves informed.

      --
      I submitted this story last night, and it didn't get posted.
    5. Re:Fill me in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can someone tell me why there are so many articles about EA? What is this, the message board for one tech company?

      It's called pack journalism. It's much easier to research and report on what everyone else is reporting on than to do all your work from scratch.

    6. Re:Fill me in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kinda like the way reporters get credit for 'reporting' what goveernment officials say as if it were fact, without doing any research into the reality of the claims. Perhaps it isn't the lawyers you are angry at here, but the lazy reporters?

      Perhaps it isn't the lazy reporters, but the companies that hire them and tell them to report but provide little or no budget for actual investigative reporting, sinnce that takes time and effort that doesn't immediately result in profit.

      Oooops, there we are back at evil, profit-hungry corporations again!

    7. Re:Fill me in by badasscat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why is EA in the news? For the same reason Vioxx is in the news. Some lawyers are trying to get the word out in order to find members of a class action. They're also trying to gin-up hatred for the company and sympathy for the "victims" in order to cash in on a big judgement against the company.

      Jesus, talk about cynicism. I'm guessing you don't work in the tech industry or you'd know exactly why the EA story is a big story, and hint, it's not what you seem to believe.

      The EA story is a big story because the problems at EA are endemic to the video game industry, and are at least somewhat prevalent in the IT industry as well. Employees who by law should not be treated as exempt are being treated as exempt. Being that this is a tech news site, and being that EA is such a large company, what happens at EA in this case could have a big impact on the tech industry in general. This is a chance to improve the quality of life for tech workers across the country.

      That's the idealist response. The most cynical I'd ever get about this, though, would be to say that this is a large company that its employees believe are breaking the law, and it's always news when large companies break the law on a large-scale basis. Either way, it's news, and I hope this site continues to follow it.

    8. Re:Fill me in by boodaman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You know, sometimes things are wrong and need to be corrected. Even when lawyers are involved.

    9. Re:Fill me in by Kohath · · Score: 1

      I agree. Unfortunately, when lawyers are involved, usually lawyers get huge sums of money and things don't get corrected.

    10. Re:Fill me in by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 1

      Without the financial incentives for the lawyers most of the bad things brought to light perpetrated by companies and industries would still remain unknown.

      --
      Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
    11. Re:Fill me in by lottameez · · Score: 1

      "This is a chance to improve the quality of life for tech workers across the country."

      Oh quit it, you're making me cry. Living in your tar paper shack wondering where your next meal is coming from?

      Seriously people - you are responsible for your own quality of life. It's a free country. You don't have to do tech work, you don't have to work at EA, you can take a lower-paying job and not work weekends. But no. You want both a high paying job and no extra hours, don't you? What make you feel you've earned it? Some special skills? But I can hire dozens of other people that have the same skills you do....Because of company loyalty? How loyal are you if you were offered a higher paying salary+better benefits somewhere else?

      FLAME ON!

      --
      Yeah? Well I think you're overrated too.
    12. Re:Fill me in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how is a first post redundant? 0_o

    13. Re:Fill me in by Kohath · · Score: 1

      So without huge payments to lawyers, some people would be better off and some people would be worse off. Since lawyers consume so much and produce nothing at all, it's not hard to argue that the people who do produce things would be better off, on average, without lawyers.

    14. Re:Fill me in by boodaman · · Score: 1

      I think that's a sweeping generalization, and inaccurate.

      Lawyers don't define how much money they get. Juries define how much lawyers get by determining the award amount given to the plaintiff.

      Even then, the lawyers only collect if the plaintiff collects.

    15. Re:Fill me in by wizbit · · Score: 4, Interesting
      You don't have to do tech work, you don't have to work at EA, you can take a lower-paying job and not work weekends.


      True, and I tend to side with you on this one. But this is another case of an employer exploiting its workforce to a degree that's arguably criminal. Remember the genesis of labor unions was at a time where ungodly workdays and incredibly cruel punishment was seen as the norm, and often these people didn't have a choice, they were just happy to have a job. You'd think that the talent being hired at EA would be an exception, but the trap seems to be this idealism that game developers have about making games - the sort of rose-colored glasses mentality that comes from playing games all your life and getting to work on the next big one. EA's the big dog on the block, so it's no wonder they're recruiting people that will work themselves to the bone for them.

      This is a step that's long overdue, it was a matter of time before some company pushed idealistic people like these game developers (or music industry interns, film students, etc) past their limits and undercompensated them for it. Argue what you want about how you would handle the situation, but I prefer to live in a country whose laws allow me to push back on an employer I feel is treating me badly rather than slink away and declare some kind of moral victory. EA would have continued this nonsense had we not seen the snowball effect from ea_spouse and others airing their grievances. They are well within their rights to do so and we shouldn't criticize them for it.
    16. Re:Fill me in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow! You guys are pussies!

      80 hour/7 day work weeks are not unique to you coding princesses. Lawyers and i-bankers do that as a matter of course...despite the fact we can't be outsourced! [smiling widely]

      Congrats, bitches, you just convinced ERTS and every other video game maker to embrace your "non-union Mexican equivalent," to borrow a phrase.

    17. Re:Fill me in by coaxial · · Score: 1

      Can someone tell me why there are so many articles about EA? What is this, the message board for one tech company?

      You know there's this thing called the archive. It's even on the left called "Old Stories". Perhaps you'd like to use it.

    18. Re:Fill me in by coaxial · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So without huge payments to lawyers, some people would be better off and some people would be worse off.

      No. A lot of people would be much worse off, and a few would be much better off. The reason corporations hate lawyers and class action lawsuites is because it enables the plebs to band togother and actually enforce the law. That's it. Courts find against you, if you broke the law. It may be civil law, but it's still the law.

      The reason why money is involved, is because that's the only thing courts can deal with. If you go blind, the court can give back your sight, the can only give you money.

      Since lawyers consume so much and produce nothing at all, it's not hard to argue that the people who do produce things would be better off, on average, without lawyers.

      Produce nothing? They change someones behavior, and through extension society as a whole. Without lawyers, we'd be anarchy. Like it or not lawyers enforce the laws. (Yes, Kohath, the government is primaryly lawyers.)

      You may think "yeah kill all the lawyers", but its a very sophmoric attitude.

    19. Re:Fill me in by coaxial · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You want both a high paying job and no extra hours, don't you? What make you feel you've earned it?

      Well it's not the extra hours per se. It's the fact that the workers aren't being paid for those hours.

      Yes, the EA workers should quit. Their not working 40 hours for $60k, their working two 40 hour jobs for $30k.

    20. Re:Fill me in by homer_ca · · Score: 1

      I have no doubt the publicity blitz is the work of plaintiff's lawyers, but the allegations are pretty shocking even by overworked IT standards (although I don't know if they're standard procedure by overworked game maker standards). This is a profitable company where permanent crunch time was calculated into its financials and staffing levels.

    21. Re:Fill me in by bladesjester · · Score: 1

      Not true at all. A lot of the time, lawyers get paid no matter what. They only get paid when you do if that is part of the contract you have with them.

      --
      Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
    22. Re:Fill me in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh great, lets make American IT workers who are already well paid even MORE expensive, right when the trend is to OUTSOURCE because companies cannot AFFORD to pay american workers already.

      Gee, that should be of great benifit to the American IT worker. Now that he doesn't have a job he certainly won't have to worry about being asked to work extra hours without overtime. I know I'd way rather not work hard and have no job then put in some extra hours.

    23. Re:Fill me in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is EA in the news?

      Because slavery is supposed to be illegal in this country.

    24. Re:Fill me in by boodaman · · Score: 1

      I disagree, though it could be I misread the "spirit" of the other post.

      Lawyers under contract are typically corporate lawyers. Since the discussion was regarding EA and the possibility of a class action suit, the only corporate lawyers would be EA's.

      The lawyers on the other side would almost certainly be working on contingency, and thus, would be compensated based on either a percentage of the amount awarded to the plaintiffs by the judge/jury, or compensated by some other amount agreed on with judge/jury and involved parties.

    25. Re:Fill me in by bgoss · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry but a company that has earnings like EA has (http://investor.ea.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=88189&p=ir ol-earnings) doesn't get to whine (or have others whine for them) about not being able to "AFFORD to pay american workers". That argument is specious at best for any company (has anyone actually seen those wonderful savings?). If EA underpays or outsources their workers and expects other companies to do the same - then who exactly will be buying their overpriced $60+ game cartridges?

    26. Re:Fill me in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their not working 40 hours for $60k, their working two 40 hour jobs for $30k.

      They're not working 40 hours for $60k, they're working two 40 hour jobs for $30k.

    27. Re:Fill me in by Rick+the+Red · · Score: 1

      Well, OK, but why is this filed under YRO? This has nothing to do with the general Slashdot reader's rights, and it's about working conditions, not being online.

      --
      If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
    28. Re:Fill me in by vsprintf · · Score: 1

      No. A lot of people would be much worse off, and a few would be much better off. The reason corporations hate lawyers and class action lawsuites is because it enables the plebs to band togother and actually enforce the law.

      And who has all the best lawyers? Any class action suit (like the one against the RIAA) results in a check for six dollars (I got one) for the injured party and millions for the lawyers.

      Produce nothing? They change someones behavior, and through extension society as a whole. Without lawyers, we'd be anarchy. Like it or not lawyers enforce the laws.

      Sure they do. Despite all the civil and criminal prosecutions of the RIAA and its members, it's the RIAA that is making (and enforcing) the laws by buying legislation.

      You may think "yeah kill all the lawyers", but its a very sophmoric attitude.

      Despite the TV shows you watch, lawyers are not out save the world or adopt all the orphans they run across while doing community service for their coke problems; they're out to make money. The definition of mixed feelings is watching a bus full of lawyers go over a cliff -- with two empty seats.

    29. Re:Fill me in by mikaelhg · · Score: 1

      Look up "Mohawk Valley formula".

    30. Re:Fill me in by Starsmore · · Score: 1
      You are missing the point.

      These 'coding princesses' are not getting paid for the work they are doing. Lawyers and investment bankers get a nice chunk of change for their work. People at EA get a 40hr/week salary, are forced to work 80hrs a week, 7 days a week, and are not compensated.

      And before you strike back with the EA-endorsed cry of "If you don't like it, quit!" (followed by the unspoken 'There is a shitload more suckers who we can work to the bone'), I'd love to see you up and quit your job with little to no notice, little to no outside cashflow, and try to keep up your way of life without your world coming to a crashing halt. It's pretty fucking hard. I've had to do it, and it's not fun when the bills you have start piling up, because you aren't pulling in the money you were from your 'oppressive' job, and still haven't found one that isn't so 'oppressive'.

      Banks, credit cards, house payments, car payments, utilities, etc etc etc won't go 'Oh! You quit your job because they were working you to the bone and not paying you what they should have, so we'll just let you slide for a couple of months while you get back on your feet.' It's more along the lines of 'we don't give a fuck if you don't have a job, pay your bills.'

      Christ. People are trying to make a change for the better in their industry, and people cry foul and outsourcing, and other rubbish. I'm sure the coal miners and textile workers would have loved to have you around to cheer them on.

      --
      "If Common Sense was so common, it wouldn't be such a valued trait."
    31. Re:Fill me in by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 1

      It's not just the videogame and IT industry, its also the fillm industry. The computer artists doing the fx for films that gross 2 billion world wide, are over worked just like the videogame industry. The funny thing is that the traditional crews in the film industry have unions and they only work until a certain time, and they will drop everything and leave at that time. In the computer fx workforce... the artists are expected to stay all night, sleep at the dam studio if needed.. just to accomplish a shot.

    32. Re:Fill me in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, police enforce the law. Attorneys impose the application (or defense of) that law and the judge interprets the law and its application to the case at hand as imposed by the attorneys.

    33. Re:Fill me in by Muhammar · · Score: 1

      EA is not evil - they know the labor law, how obsolete it has become. They are working on updates just as we speak. Repeat after me: "The challenge is everything. We are in packaged goods business."

      --
      I doubt that we will ever figure out - and I suspect that even if we did figure out we couldn't do much about it
    34. Re:Fill me in by Stephen+Ma · · Score: 1
      Despite the TV shows you watch, lawyers are not out save the world or adopt all the orphans they run across while doing community service for their coke problems

      No, but the liability lawyers do put the fear of God (or at least of treble damage awards) into dishonest or exploitative corporations, such as Vice President Dick Cheney's Haliburton (asbestos).

      Of course, these corporations loathe the idea of being seriously punished for their malfeasance, which is why there is currently such a loud campaign in favor of capping corporate liability.

    35. Re:Fill me in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm curious, what would keep the EA workers from just quitting and forming their own competing company?

    36. Re:Fill me in by bigberk · · Score: 1
      how is a first post redundant?
      It's not, but moderators don't seem to want these posts appearing at the average threshold. The original post has spawned lots of interesting responses, read at -1 for best results (as always).
    37. Re:Fill me in by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 1

      So EA should take a profit hit and pay workers over the market value which they command? If people are taking jobs there it is because they are paying competitively with other similar gaming jobs. Ever think that maybe its the programmers fault, it surely is their choice, that they are in their current situation? The rest of the software industry doesn't have the conditions described in the ex-EA worker postings. Maybe because these people want so badly to do something they love they put themselves into this position. Teachers have the same fucking bag, they get payed jack shit and its their choice. Shit, people who love animals more than people have to volunteer to work at shelters most of the time 'cause the market there is so saturated. If you want to do a job you love, you are almost always going to suffer monetarily because of it so long as many others love the job.

      --

      --

      WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
    38. Re:Fill me in by coaxial · · Score: 1

      Police don't enforce civil law.

    39. Re:Fill me in by coaxial · · Score: 1
      And who has all the best lawyers? Any class action suit (like the one against the RIAA) results in a check for six dollars (I got one) for the injured party and millions for the lawyers.

      Well in this case, the members of the class action suit had the better lawyers. They won a settlement that resulted in a cash pay out.

      Did you really expect to you'd get more than a token amount? Look how many people were part of the suit, and how much money you could reasonably expect was going to be paid out. You should be glad you got a check. Most of price fixing suits end with coupons, or promises to lower prices in the future.

      Do you realize how many highly educated and highly skilled people were involved in bringing the suit and negotiating the settlement? Do you realize how much each one of those individuals is worth in the market?

      You got a check for six dollars, and what did you do for it? Oh that's right you filled out a webpage, then sat on your ass for a check to come. When it came, you complained that people that actually worked for months and years to bring you that check got more money. Guess what? They earned more money.

      Sure they do. Despite all the civil and criminal prosecutions of the RIAA and its members, it's the RIAA that is making (and enforcing) the laws by buying legislation.

      I fail to see what tort has to do with undue influence over politicians. This problem is about cost of campaigns and how they are financed.

      Despite the TV shows you watch, lawyers are not out save the world or adopt all the orphans they run across while doing community service for their coke problems; they're out to make money.

      When did I say that? Of course they're capitalists. The vast majority society is capitalists. Lawyers are hired guns. Lawyers are skilled professionals. Yes, they get paid very well, and by and large they deserve it. Anyone does who:
      1. invests large amounds of time, effort, and money in an education
      2. perfoms complex tasks that most of society can not
      3. actually does their job well


      I never said lawyers act out of the goodness of their heart. What I said was they perform a needed function of society, and without tort society would fall apart.
    40. Re:Fill me in by Nerd4News · · Score: 1

      "You got a check for six dollars, and what did you do for it? Oh that's right you filled out a webpage, then sat on your ass for a check to come."

      I got a check for $13 and change. Guess I sat on my ass twice as hard.

    41. Re:Fill me in by vsprintf · · Score: 1

      Well in this case, the members of the class action suit had the better lawyers. They won a settlement that resulted in a cash pay out.

      The settlement was a pittance for the victims. Obviously, the RIAA had better lawyers, or the amount would have been greater. The lawyers on both sides made the real money.

      Do you realize how many highly educated and highly skilled people were involved in bringing the suit and negotiating the settlement? Do you realize how much each one of those individuals is worth in the market?

      Do you realize how incredibly valuable ambulance chasers are to society?

      I fail to see what tort has to do with undue influence over politicians.

      When you can buy the right to issue subpoenas and bypass due process, that's a problem. The majority of US senators are lawyers.

      When did I say that? Of course they're capitalists. The vast majority society is capitalists.

      The vast majority of society are workers who don't hold allegiance to any particular economic model. You said lawyers enforce the law. They don't. Law enforcement officers enforce the law. Lawyers do their best to twist the law to their own advantage. They often help the guilty circumvent the law.

      Lawyers are skilled professionals. Yes, they get paid very well, and by and large they deserve it. Anyone does who:
      1. invests large amounds of time, effort, and money in an education
      2. perfoms complex tasks that most of society can not
      3. actually does their job well

      Fine, you just described programmers, accountants, nurses, teachers, clergy, and a number of other occupations where the practitioner won't make millions of dollars for a year's work.

      I never said lawyers act out of the goodness of their heart. What I said was they perform a needed function of society . . .

      So do sanitation engineers, and IMHO, they're far more valuable to society than a bunch of parasites who make a living from fomenting confrontations and bleeding both sides while trying to pervert the law in their favor.

    42. Re:Fill me in by coaxial · · Score: 1

      The settlement was a pittance for the victims. Obviously, the RIAA had better lawyers, or the amount would have been greater. The lawyers on both sides made the real money.

      You're complaining that someone got paid for bringing you check that all you did to receive was file up behind the sign that read "free money". Now, who's the parasite?

      Do you realize how incredibly valuable ambulance chasers are to society?

      You mean like those "ambulance chasers" that do product liability cases because a corporation instead of spending the extra nickel per unit for a safety valve, decided to knowingly put their customers health and safety at risk? You mean those "ambulance chasers" that tilt the economic incentives towards safety instead of risk? Those lawyers? How dare they!

      When you can buy the right to issue subpoenas and bypass due process, that's a problem.

      I never said it wasn't.

      The majority of US senators are lawyers.

      And your point is?

      So do sanitation engineers, and IMHO, they're far more valuable to society than a bunch of parasites who make a living from fomenting confrontations and bleeding both sides while trying to pervert the law in their favor.

      How do lawyers pervert the law into their favor? Now they may pervert the law in their client's favor, but I've never heard of lawyers perverting the law for lawyers. There's a big difference.

      Lawyers don't exist in a vaccuum. As I said, they're hired guns. The confrontations lawyers resolve already exist. The same civil lawyer that was facing off against you yesterday, can be yours today if you pay his fee. In fact, that happens all the time.

      Lawyers don't bleed both sides. They are hired by both sides. If you don't want to pay one, don't hire one! Second in cases of tort, if you win you don't pay the lawyer. The losing side does, either directly or indirectly through a a commission based on the award. Since the awarde money wasn't yours to begin with, it's not like the lawyers took any money from you. Of course you agreed to the terms when you hired the lawyer, but I'm sure that's just a technicality.

    43. Re:Fill me in by vsprintf · · Score: 1

      You're complaining that someone got paid for bringing you check that all you did to receive was file up behind the sign that read "free money". Now, who's the parasite?

      This should be easy, even for you. The parasites are the ones who made all the money while not being involved in the original monetary transactions: the lawyers.

      You mean those "ambulance chasers" that tilt the economic incentives towards safety instead of risk? Those lawyers? How dare they!

      I mean like those lawyers who put late night commercials on TV asking if you have pain from your car accident and feel you weren't given the TLC you deserve, and how you really deserve some money for your supposed pain.

      How do lawyers pervert the law into their favor? Now they may pervert the law in their client's favor, but I've never heard of lawyers perverting the law for lawyers. There's a big difference.

      So perverting the law to help a client is okay? Gee, weren't you just saying lawers enforce the law? They pervert the law in order to make a reputation and more money. Does the name Geragos and his purchase of property near a courthouse mean anything to you?

      The same civil lawyer that was facing off against you yesterday, can be yours today if you pay his fee. In fact, that happens all the time.

      Which proves what? Apparently, at least half of all lawyers are willing to take money for arguing the wrong position and lose. Great ethics.

      Lawyers don't bleed both sides. They are hired by both sides. If you don't want to pay one, don't hire one!

      BS. The system is rigged to force you to hire one. My brother was set up for termination (and he was backed up by other employees) and could not get documents from his (previous) employer because they would only release them to legal counsel. It took a retainer to get the documents.

      Since the awarde money wasn't yours to begin with, it's not like the lawyers took any money from you. Of course you agreed to the terms when you hired the lawyer, but I'm sure that's just a technicality.

      So you're saying all settlement money really belongs to the lawyers even though it is in compensation for a wrong done to someone else. The injured party should just be grateful for some scraps from the lawyer's table. How's your law degree coming along? You can try to as hard as you want to make a silk purse from a sow's ear, but it still won't happen.

    44. Re:Fill me in by coaxial · · Score: 1

      This should be easy, even for you. The parasites are the ones who made all the money while not being involved in the original monetary transactions: the lawyers.

      So the ones who were sought out by parties, and successfully provided the service do not deserve to be compensated for their time and effort?

      Pray tell, how would you have gone about receiving your six dollars? And while you're at it, tell me how you found out that there was even a class action suit for you to join?

      I mean like those lawyers who put late night commercials on TV asking if you have pain from your car accident and feel you weren't given the TLC you deserve, and how you really deserve some money for your supposed pain.

      You mean like those lawyers who ran advertisements saying, "Did you buy a CD? You may be owed money! Call us today!"? You're a hypocrite.

      Or are objecting that someone would dare advertise their services to the public?

      You seem to have a lack of the basic understanding of how lawyers operate. Someone off the street comes to them and says, "I want to sue this person." The lawyer then sues that person, and is paid. The transaction is no different from your afore mentioned sanitation workers. ("Do you need trash picked up? Call us!")

      So perverting the law to help a client is okay? Gee, weren't you just saying lawers enforce the law? They pervert the law in order to make a reputation and more money.

      There's always two sides to the conflict, and both sides are using every tactic at their disposal to win. If the parties' lawyers aren't doing that, then the lawyers are either negligent or incompetent. If I found out my lawyer wasn't doing everything in his power to win, then I'd fire him, and so would you.

      What you call the "perversion" of the law is really just making an argument based on the letter of the law, and pitting two conflicting laws against each other, and revealing how the law has previously been enforced. The law is complecated, and at times contradictory. Lawsuits allow the courts to clarify the law. If you don't like how the law the law is being applied, write your congressman and have the law changed.

      Does the name Geragos and his purchase of property near a courthouse mean anything to you?

      And your point is?

      Twice now you've tried to use non sequiturs anecdotes as evidence to buttress your argument. Contrary to helping your argument, it reveals your lack of skills in forming a coherent argument. Take a rhetoric class. You need it.

      BS. The system is rigged to force you to hire one. My brother was set up for termination (and he was backed up by other employees) and could not get documents from his (previous) employer because they would only release them to legal counsel. It took a retainer to get the documents.

      Your brother could have filed a document indicating that he was serving as his own legal counsel. The fact that he didn't realize that he could have done that shows that he was unqualified to act in legal proceedings and was in desperate need of trained legal counsel. Hiring a lawyer was the prudent choice.

      So you're saying all settlement money really belongs to the lawyers even though it is in compensation for a wrong done to someone else.

      No. I'm saying the lawyers deserve to financially compensated for services rendered.

      The injured party should just be grateful for some scraps from the lawyer's table. How's your law degree coming along? You can try to as hard as you want to make a silk purse from a sow's ear, but it still won't happen.

      You agreed to pay them the fee. If it was too much, take your buisness elsewhere. Anyway, by law, the majority of any settlement must go to the injured party.

    45. Re:Fill me in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      good trolling. way to fuck up the thread

    46. Re:Fill me in by vsprintf · · Score: 1

      Pray tell, how would you have gone about receiving your six dollars? And while you're at it, tell me how you found out that there was even a class action suit for you to join?

      I see you've figured out the difference between prey and pray. I found out about the suit from a story on Slashdot and followed the link.

      You mean like those lawyers who ran advertisements saying, "Did you buy a CD? You may be owed money! Call us today!"? You're a hypocrite.

      What ads? Neener neener. I'm not, you are! Geez, grow up, guy.

      You seem to have a lack of the basic understanding of how lawyers operate. Someone off the street comes to them and says, "I want to sue this person." The lawyer then sues that person, and is paid. The transaction is no different from your afore mentioned sanitation workers. ("Do you need trash picked up? Call us!")

      Perhaps I do have a basic misunderstanding of how lawyers operate. I thought that they had to take a professional oath and that they were supposed to decline frivoluous claims and advise their clients not to do dishonest things. Sanitation workers aren't violating ethics by handling your trash, while many lawyers are.

      If I found out my lawyer wasn't doing everything in his power to win, then I'd fire him, and so would you.

      You seem to have no concern for ethics. Again, Geragos. O.J. Simpson. I believe that lawyers are not supposed to lie or knowingly help the guilty to circumvent justice. When a lawyer says, "Don't tell me anything except you're innocent," that a breach of ethics IMHO.

      If you don't like how the law the law is being applied, write your congressman and have the law changed.

      As I pointed out previously, my congresscritters are lawyers who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, and they don't really agree with my views, but you were completely unable to see the relevance.

      Twice now you've tried to use non sequiturs anecdotes as evidence to buttress your argument. Contrary to helping your argument, it reveals your lack of skills in forming a coherent argument. Take a rhetoric class. You need it.

      Your inability to make cognitive connections (or HTML tags) without having your nose rubbed in it does not constitute a lack on my part. You've pretty much dumped all your original points as they've been dismantled and professed confusion over the rest, which makes this a really one-sided and soon to be discontinued conversation.

      Your brother could have filed a document indicating that he was serving as his own legal counsel. The fact that he didn't realize that he could have done that shows that he was unqualified to act in legal proceedings and was in desperate need of trained legal counsel. Hiring a lawyer was the prudent choice.

      Once again, you choose to ignore the point: One should not have be a lawyer in order to obtain one's employment records. It's a boondoggle to ensure more business for lawyers, with the rules written by lawyers.

      I'm saying the lawyers deserve to [be] financially compensated for services rendered.

      I don't see the word "fairly" in there anywhere, but then I didn't expect to.

    47. Re:Fill me in by coaxial · · Score: 1

      I found out about the suit from a story on Slashdot and followed the link.

      So from a story based on a press release, which are in effect an advertisement.

      You still have not explained how you would have gone about getting your six dollars without enlisting the help of those "parasitic" lawyers.

      >You're a hypocrite.

      I'm not, you are! Geez, grow up, guy.


      Well, at least the irony of that statement isn't lost one of us.

      You complain about people using lawyers to sue for money you think they don't deserve, (e.g "victims of car accidents who didn't receive TLC") yet you take part in a lawsuit for damages accrued from purchasing a CD you wanted for a price you agreed to. You complain that lawyers advertise their services to these deadbeats, yet you didn't even realize harm was done to you, until a lawyer told you there was. Then you turn around and call those that perfomed all the work to bring you a check, "parasites". Interesting. You perfomed no service. You performed no action other than saying "gimme!". Yet, you receive a benefit. Sounds like parasitic behavior to me.

      Perhaps I do have a basic misunderstanding of how lawyers operate. I thought that they had to take a professional oath and that they were supposed to decline frivoluous claims and advise their clients not to do dishonest things. Sanitation workers aren't violating ethics by handling your trash, while many lawyers are.

      If I found out my lawyer wasn't doing everything in his power to win, then I'd fire him, and so would you.

      You seem to have no concern for ethics.


      I never said break the law. What I said was that it is unethical for you not to work to the best of your abilities when someone placed his trust in you. There's a whole field of ethics about that. It's called "professional ethics.

      Again, Geragos. O.J. Simpson.

      In order to use the word "again", there had to be a "before".

      Geragos didn't have anything to do with OJ.

      Yes, OJ is murderer, but the lawyers at fault aren't the defense. It's the prosecution. They managed to botch a slamdunk case. The jurors didn't understand that DNA matches was on the order of 1 in a billion, rather than 1 in 6. The prosecution setup the defense beautifully by having OJ try on the glove, which obviously wouldn't "fit", because 1) the leather shrank from being in a pool of blood, 2) no one wheres tight leather gloves while wearing latex gloves, and, most importantly, 3) OJ wouldn't put them on correctly. The prosecution allowed the defense to put Mark Furhman on trial. These were obvious mistakes and lapses of judgement. Yes, lawyers got OJ off. It was just the State's lawyers.

      As for Geragos, you've yet to say what your talking about. All I can gather is that your outraged that he would purchase choice real estate downtown. Hardly an ethical lapse.

      I believe that lawyers are not supposed to lie or knowingly help the guilty to circumvent justice. When a lawyer says, "Don't tell me anything except you're innocent," that a breach of ethics IMHO.

      They don't lie. They make an argument by selectively illustrating facts. The differnce is, everything they say is true. If people come to the wrong conclusion, then they should have been more discerning.

      It doesn't doesnt matter whether or not the lawyer's client is guilty or innocent. Everyone deserves a strong defense. It's not for the defendent's lawyer to decide whether or not he is guilty. That's the jury's job.

      As I pointed out previously, my congresscritters are lawyers who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, and they don't really agree with my views,

      Perhaps your congressman would take them more seriously if you didn't use terms "congresscritters". Terms like that aren't witty. They're juvenile. Intellgent people don't use them. Neither

    48. Re:Fill me in by vsprintf · · Score: 1

      So from a story based on a press release, which are in effect an advertisement.

      Obviously, the ads were not very widespread or well-targeted. So much for the highly educated hard work involved.

      You still have not explained how you would have gone about getting your six dollars without enlisting the help of those "parasitic" lawyers.

      I suggest you get a dictionary and look up "parasite". The lawyers were not a party to the original transactions but feed off the reparation. If your car is stolen and then recovered by the police, does the officer get half your car? Does he get a percentage of it? You will say that the officer is already being paid - so don't - if legal services were freely available as a tax-paid public service for all, that would be fine. I could use the term "leech" instead if that's better for you.

      Well, at least the irony of that statement isn't lost one of us.

      There wasn't any irony involved, so once again, the meaning was lost on you. To put it in simple terms, the name-calling was childish as was the mock response.

      I never said break the law. What I said was that it is unethical for you not to work to the best of your abilities when someone placed his trust in you. There's a whole field of ethics about that. It's called "professional ethics.

      You really don't have any idea about professional ethics. Professional ethics do not allow you to put your client/customer's interests above the good of society or the rules you agreed to. I suggest you go look at the rules of ethics for members of the ACM, IEEE, or Computer Society before you spout off about what professional ethics are.

      Geragos didn't have anything to do with OJ.

      Did you notice the period between them? Two different instances of slimy lawyer ethics and circumventing the law. You can't figure out why it would be unethical for Geragos to buy some prime real estate next to a courthouse and display an exhibit that was disallowed by the court? Then, when others turned it into a shrine to the victims, Geragos quickly removed it. No clue? None whatsoever?

      They don't lie. They make an argument by selectively illustrating facts.

      Which would be like selectively ignoring the rest of the facts? You are truly CEO material. Give up your lawyering ambitions.

      It doesn't doesnt matter whether or not the lawyer's client is guilty or innocent. Everyone deserves a strong defense. It's not for the defendent's lawyer to decide whether or not he is guilty. That's the jury's job.

      This may be the first thing you've said that I almost agree with. However, going back to that oath, a lawyer should not be defending (as in not guilty) a defendant who the lawyer believes or knows is guilty.

      Perhaps your congressman would take them more seriously if you didn't use terms "congresscritters". Terms like that aren't witty. They're juvenile. Intellgent people don't use them. Neither should you.

      It should be fairly obvious that I am polite when I write my senator, just like I am when replying to people who call me names. If the use of "congresscritters" is avoided by "Intellgent" people, then there are some mainstream columnists as well as few hundred-thousand Slashbots who are thereby rendered un-"intellgent". Jargon is. Deal.

      I do not know of a single congressmen that practices law while serving in congress.

      Obviously. Making law is the flip side of practicing law, and if you luck out, you get a black robe and get to interpret the law! Although I have to admit I have more respect for judges than lawyers or lawmakers.

      Because there was no relevance. Instead of providing context, you just repeat them.

      If you then provide the "context" in a response, perhaps you didn't think about it hard enough.

      Yes I left an out. In light of this most grevious error I fall on my sword.

      Can I hold it? Please?

      I've have c

    49. Re:Fill me in by coaxial · · Score: 1

      Obviously, the ads were not very widespread or well-targeted. So much for the highly educated hard work involved.

      Wide enough apparently. You found out about it. Anyway class action lawsuits aren't about getting every single victim. They're about getting a representitive number (sometimes as small as 5) of defendents. The main purpose of such lawsuits isn't reparations, but rather punative action.

      The lawyers were not a party to the original transactions but feed off the reparation.

      Which, you agreed to. No one forced you hire the lawyer. You made that decision. No one forced you to agree to the terms of payment. You made that decision as well.

      People being payed to perform a service to enable another transaction is nothing new. Real estate agents for one typical earn a commission for successfully pairing sellers and buyers. Would say real estate agents weren't providing a useful service?

      If your car is stolen and then recovered by the police, does the officer get half your car? Does he get a percentage of it? You will say that the officer is already being paid - so don't -

      Well that's the crux of it. How payment for services rendered is achieved.

      if legal services were freely available as a tax-paid public service for all, that would be fine.

      There has never been a right to representation in civil cases. The reason is society is not a party to the acts. Unlike crime, which is seen as an act against the state. That's why all criminal cases begin "The people of ________ vs ___________".

      Given that, how would you pay the lawyer you hired? Many lawyers work for a flat fee, or on hourly rates based on the work involved. For large cases that take many months and years to complete and enlist the services of large teams of lawyers, a commission system is used. The commission system has a long historical precedent and is used in many advocacy occupations, mainly those involving commercial transactions and asset recovery. The very things lawyers do.

      You really don't have any idea about professional ethics. Professional ethics do not allow you to put your client/customer's interests above the good of society

      Society is harmed when one is not allowed to put up a vigourous legal defense. Society is harmed when the standard of guilt is lessened. Society is harmed when someone not on the jury is allowed tip the legal scales. That is how society is harmed when a lawyer does perfom to the best his abilities.

      As far as the ACM and IEEE, neither of them are professional societies advocacy professionals, and are therefore irrelevant. I would suggest the ABA or whatever the accountants group is, or even the AMA. As an advocate, your job is to work in your client's interest while not breaking the law. If you don't, you've violated that trust.

      If the use of "congresscritters" is avoided by "Intellgent" people, then there are some mainstream columnists as well as few hundred-thousand Slashbots who are thereby rendered un-"intellgent".

      And this negates my statement how?

      Drop out of the Ann Coulter School of Writing, and and get yourself a real education, like David Brooks, William Safire, Andrew Sullivan, or Bill Kristol to name but a few.

      Obviously. Making law is the flip side of practicing law, and if you luck out, you get a black robe and get to interpret the law! Although I have to admit I have more respect for judges than lawyers or lawmakers.

      Yet you fail to reconcile how congress is pro-lawyer when tort reform is high on the current agenda.

      Consistently nothing. First it was that lawyers enforce the law;

      When did I say they didn't. The only confusion I can see is that you got criminal law and civil law confused. I'm talking about civil law, but that should have been obvious given the introduction of the topic (class action lawsuits).

      lawyer deserve more than other professions be

  2. It's about time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's about time they changed their tune and started paying developers what they're worth.

    1. Re:It's about time. by Ktarthan · · Score: 1

      Yeah, no kidding. Not only are they the ones putting their lives into making this game and making the higher-ups lots of money, but they're people too. They deserve at least a little kindness.

    2. Re:It's about time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem isn't the lack of pay, it's the insane work hours. Work should be limited to at most 50 hours a week. What good is some money if one suffers so from constant overtime?

    3. Re:It's about time. by SnapShot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is the quote that burns me up: "[developers] relish flexibility".

      This is supposed to imply that a salary-based schedule allows professionals a little flexibility in their work hours not like the poor blue-collar bastards that have to punch a clock.

      Salary was supposed to mean that some weeks you work a little more, some weeks a little less, but in general you puting 40 hours a week. The entire concept of salary is meaningless if your continued employment depends upon you working 60+ hours a week.

      --
      Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
    4. Re:It's about time. by Mikail · · Score: 1

      Rusty Rueff gave a presentation in one of my classes at Purdue about a week before this story broke. Too bad it wasn't after... The way it was, everybody just asked him "Gee, golly, wow, how can I get a job at EA??" I wanted to ask why EA was being a megalithic bitch and destroying all creativity in the industry. But I didn't...

      --
      If life is a waste of time and time is a waste of life, let's all get wasted and have the time of our lives.
    5. Re:It's about time. by mixmasta · · Score: 1

      Right, I thought the same thing. Paying overtime has exactly nothing to do with schedule flexibility.

      --
      #6495ED - cornflower blue
    6. Re:It's about time. by EvilAlien · · Score: 1

      What they're worth on some imaginary global scale, local scale, or average wage per hour?... or what they're worth after some sort of analysis of the quality and innovation present in the average EA title?

      --
      perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'
    7. Re:It's about time. by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1

      I'm with the cynics regarding the value of this memo.

      In the meantime, take a look at the kinds of contracts that the upper echelons at Electronic Arts enjoy - including $4 million forgiveable loans, and bonuses to compensate spouses that have to relocate and change jobs. It doesn't look like they are being asked to work extra for nothing, does it?

    8. Re:It's about time. by timeOday · · Score: 1
      What they're worth in an open market, when the employer is more upfront about what the job requirements actually are.

      The free market does not solve all problems. Dishonesty is one of them.

    9. Re:It's about time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell me about it!
      I used to work for the Canadian arm of a large American consumer electronics company (hint hint). The problem is that companies expect heroics of IT staff to meet expectations. Screw heroics, plan for once! The fact that IT management all over is scampering to keep costs low because of fears of outsourcing are ridiculous! In fact the parent company of this consumer electronics retail giant did just that; they outsourced their IT to a major outsourcing company.
      What kind of crap is that? Staff are getting cut all over and people are moving just to keep working; it's insane! It worries me that in most operational environments corners will (and are) cut to meet the needs of businesses all over and more and more unethical acts are occuring... it just pisses me off! Especially since outsourced offices are worked to the bone to keep costs low so that the outsourcing company can skim a bigger profit and I know because I have friends who have worked in call centers. They had to keep the call volumes up and wait times down or it was their jobs. Forget it if call QA drops. Ugh, I'm ranting sorry.

    10. Re:It's about time. by tiredwired · · Score: 1

      Yes, here's more money now get back to work punks!

    11. Re:It's about time. by EvilAlien · · Score: 1
      I wonder if these programmers and other staff wouldn't have jobs in that industry if it wasn't for game-mill companies like EA...

      It wasn't that long ago when game development wasn't a big money-making industry and a few people did it because they loved shedding blood, sweet and tears to make a game without the expectation of large monetary reward.

      --
      perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'
    12. Re:It's about time. by griffjon · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that entire passage rubbed me the wrong way -- "we're COOL, we're ahead of the curve!" "laws governing wages are soooooo out of date"

      Suck it up, EA, you cannot reasonably expect your employees to work 80 hr weeks endlessly! Or can you? Why haven't EA employees taken a page from workaday types and formed a Union?

      --
      Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
    13. Re:It's about time. by lew3004 · · Score: 1

      I agree. I'm salary and have been for more than 12 years. If, as salary, I was required to work 60+ hours a week, I'd demand to go back to salary at the same BASE rate for 40 hours. That would be some hellacious OT at my current rate for 20+ OT hours; not including Sundays (man that would be nice). I've put in 75-80 work weeks during crunch times, however I'll also admit I didn't put in much over 40 the next. My employees gave me shit about it though because I came in a little later but I stayed a little too. Acchhhh, what do they know about salary.

      --
      I still can't get the screen shots of Castle Wolfenstein for the Apple IIe out of my head.
    14. Re:It's about time. by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      Why haven't EA employees taken a page from workaday types and formed a Union?

      Because techies, when it comes to unions, are usually gullible retards. The greatest trick in the world was not the devil making you think he didn't exist, but propaganda that has convinced the Common Man that standing up for himself is bad, whether it be lawsuits or unions. You'll here crap like "I don't want to join a union because they'll make me pay dues and pay by senority and not work ethic and are corrupt blah blah blah". As if every bad thing that any union official has ever done would automatically happen in your union, anymore than we should ban all business because of Enron.

  3. Everyone, except by chris_eineke · · Score: 3, Insightful
    the company plans to make more employees elgible for overtime.
    Sorry if I'm cynic, but I doubt they will make more programmers elgible for payed overtime. Maybe the business kids, but the programmers?

    No sir. Not gonna happen. Absolutely not. I assure you.
    --
    "All you have to do is be fragile and grateful. So stay the underdog." Chuck Palahniuk, Choke
    1. Re:Everyone, except by macaulay805 · · Score: 1

      Especially since when under law, engineers are not eligible for overtime, and guess what classification the programmers are under?

    2. Re:Everyone, except by saintp · · Score: 1

      Except that there are special exemptions from said law for people in IT.

    3. Re:Everyone, except by Wm_K · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But I believe that's only when they earn more than $90k a year.

    4. Re:Everyone, except by chris_eineke · · Score: 1, Informative

      People working in the Entertainment Industry are elgible for payed overtime.

      --
      "All you have to do is be fragile and grateful. So stay the underdog." Chuck Palahniuk, Choke
    5. Re:Everyone, except by SnapShot · · Score: 1

      I thought I read recently that California doesn't allow that exemption for anyone with an hourly rate under $42. Is that correct? Maybe I read the comment out of context.

      --
      Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
    6. Re:Everyone, except by chris_eineke · · Score: 3, Interesting

      On an interesting side-note:

      I remember a representitive from EA visiting Carleton University to talk a little bit about game development and EA's corporate culture.

      Do you know what the worst sin is when you work for EA?
      Not shipping a sequel on time (for Summer/Christmas holidays or when a new season of NHL/NBA/NASCAR starts).

      He stressed the fact that EA is not about creating new ideas, but relying on "tried and tested concepts". He said, if you want to work on experimental stuff you better join a independent game company, because EA is all about creating sequels to NBA,NHL,NFS,etc.

      So don't expect them to come out with The Next Great Game anytime soon.

      --
      "All you have to do is be fragile and grateful. So stay the underdog." Chuck Palahniuk, Choke
    7. Re:Everyone, except by chris_mahan · · Score: 1

      In California, they have to earn more than $44 per hour. for 60 hours a week, that's $137K for 80, that's $183K.

      --

      "Piter, too, is dead."

    8. Re:Everyone, except by Evil+W1zard · · Score: 1

      As a good portion of tech-based companies already do they will probably pay them straight overtime (regular pay for every hour over 40 in a standard work-week) and not time and a half. This is a pretty standard practice and not that problematic.

      --
      News Reporters Make Tasty Polar Bear Treats!
    9. Re:Everyone, except by bairy · · Score: 1

      Sadly that's true. Shame on whoever modded you down.

      --


      Get paid to search..It's geniune and
    10. Re:Everyone, except by chris_mahan · · Score: 4, Informative

      some links for the google deficient:

      from http://www.dir.ca.gov/IWC/WageOrderIndustries.htm

      order number 4. That's the one posted in our breakroom.

      http://www.dir.ca.gov/IWC/IWCArticle4.html

      Look under 1 A 3 (h) and (i)

      Enjoy.

      --

      "Piter, too, is dead."

    11. Re:Everyone, except by chris_eineke · · Score: 0

      Sadly I got bad karma :-(

      --
      "All you have to do is be fragile and grateful. So stay the underdog." Chuck Palahniuk, Choke
    12. Re:Everyone, except by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      They very well might. But they will also switch them to hourly pay, and in order to make the salary they are making now they will probably have to average 80-90 hours a week.

      Be careful what you ask for...you just might get it.....

    13. Re:Everyone, except by Phrogman · · Score: 1

      Note that you are only exempt from overtime pay if you are receiving $44.63 Cdn and hour though. At 40 hour work weeks thats about 85k a year minimum which is not a bad wage from where I am sitting (over in Victoria BC and earning a lot less than that, although I only work the 40 hrs/week). If they are not paying overtime one assumes they are paying at least the same rate for further hours.

      And if its a salaried position then they would appear to be in violation of the code since it stipulates you must be receiving an hourly wage of that amount to qualify for the exemption, or did I misread something?

      --
      "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
    14. Re:Everyone, except by Radius9 · · Score: 1

      Ahh, it took me a while to find the part that puts computer programmers as an exception. At first, I thought it was the $44.63 an hour that was the exception, but there is a seperate clause that programmers fall under. Here's the passage:
      "(3) Professional Exemption. A person employed in a professional capacity means any employee who meets all of the following requirements:

      (a) Who is licensed or certified by the State of California and is primarily engaged in the practice of one of the following recognized professions: law, medicine, dentistry, optometry, architecture, engineering, teaching, or accounting; or

      (b) Who is primarily engaged in an occupation commonly recognized as a learned or artistic profession. For the purposes of this subsection, "learned or artistic profession" means an employee who is primarily engaged in the performance of:

      (i) Work requiring knowledge of an advanced type in a field or science or learning customarily acquired by a prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction and study, as distinguished from a general academic education and from an apprenticeship, and from training in the performance of routine mental, manual, or physical processes, or work that is an essential part of or necessarily incident to any of the above work; or

      (ii) Work that is original and creative in character in a recognized field of artistic endeavor (as opposed to work which can be produced by a person endowed with general manual or intellectual ability and training), and the result of which depends primarily on the invention, imagination, or talent of the employee or work that is an essential part of or necessarily incident to any of the above work; and

      (iii) Whose work is predominantly intellectual and varied in character (as opposed to routine mental, manual, mechanical, or physical work) and is of such character that the output produced or the result accomplished cannot be standardized in relation to a given period of time."


      Now under the section marked (3), what first threw me was that it says they have to meet ALL the requirements, but then, under section (a), the last word in there is "or", and programmers qualify under section (b). That's where the exception occurs. So by legal standards, programmers are exempt. The only case where you would qualify for overtime is if you are paid by the hour and not salaried AND you make less than $44.63 an hour.

    15. Re:Everyone, except by lew3004 · · Score: 1

      Nice reference for the California workforce. Oh well, it gave me a starting point for my state.

      --
      I still can't get the screen shots of Castle Wolfenstein for the Apple IIe out of my head.
    16. Re:Everyone, except by chris_mahan · · Score: 1

      It's cor California, not Canada. Sorry if I did not make that clear.

      --

      "Piter, too, is dead."

    17. Re:Everyone, except by chris_mahan · · Score: 1

      That is why section (h) starts with the word "Except".

      This is why they do qualify. subsection (h) is specifically written as an exception from the rules above, for programmers.

      --

      "Piter, too, is dead."

    18. Re:Everyone, except by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I work for a development company that does this and I never had any problem with it. I wonder just how standard this is though? I have plently of friends who aren't nearly as lucky and just get the shaft; similar to the EA employees.

    19. Re:Everyone, except by Radius9 · · Score: 1

      You mean this section (h)?
      (h) Except, as provided in subparagraph (i), an employee in the computer software field who is paid on an hourly basis shall be exempt, if all of the following apply:

      This says it only applies if they are paid on an hourly basis, which EA employees are not. They are paid on salary. Therefore they are exempt.

    20. Re:Everyone, except by chris_mahan · · Score: 1

      You can't be exempt, unless you are paid that much. You start out hourly, and can become exempt. You don't start out exempt, in the eyes of the law.

      As always, IANAL, CALFLA (Consult a lawyer for legal advice)

      --

      "Piter, too, is dead."

  4. behold... by Rev.LoveJoy · · Score: 2, Interesting
    the tyranny of the majority!

    Wheee,
    -- RLJ

    1. Re:behold... by Money+for+Nothin' · · Score: 1

      Behold, the power of the market working as it should -- labor and management duking it out for an agreeable work arrangement.

      This, as opposed to labor sitting on its hands and letting management dictate, top-down, how things should be run.

  5. Hey EA... by dethl · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You're finally learning that if you treat your employees right, they won't ruin your reputation.

    --
    "Some fight for law. Some fight for justice. What will you fight for? One day, you will see."
    1. Re:Hey EA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not? Sun Microsystems treats its employees like shit and the employees are too demoralized to bother ruining the company's reputation.

    2. Re:Hey EA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're finally learning that if you treat your employees right, they won't ruin your reputation.

      Sure it will, but only with other CEO's.

    3. re: hey EA... by ed.han · · Score: 5, Interesting

      actually, that's got me thinking about who leaked the memo:

      1. ticked off developer who sees this as nothing but HRspeke for "we feel your pain" and expect this to amount to nothing more than a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
      2. happy developer who wants people to know that EA is trying to address some serious problems.
      3. EA's PR group.

      ed

    4. Re:Hey EA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If managment sets deadlines without development input and expects a lot of overtime. DO NOT MAKE THE DEADLINE. Then managment will fail and be forced to clean up their act. We had to do this in the past. Managment was soo f'ed up at the time and the work schedule was crazy that the developers just gave up. We were like zombies at work and let the projects fail in order to make managment actually do real managment of projects.

    5. Re:Hey EA... by legirons · · Score: 1

      "You're finally learning that if you treat your employees right, they won't ruin your reputation."

      Out of interest, does anything interesting happen in the football-club manager, or realtime-strategy games if you work your simulated humans too hard?

      I know in most games (age of empires, warcraft) the people seem quite cheerful about working day and night, for however many simulated decades you let the game run for, it's only the soldiers (and dwarves, if you have those) who get grumpy.

      Though in Warcraft, the heroes seem to perform better if you let them rest between battles, letting health gradually recover. Maybe EA are deciding whether programmers should be counted as heroes or as grunts...

      Suggested employment contract at EA: "My life for the horde"

    6. Re:Hey EA... by Anonymous+Custard · · Score: 1

      Well, EA makes The Sims, and those characters lose happiness if you work them too hard and don't give them any play / entertainment.

      So I wonder how pissed off the developers on that game must have been getting while writing the Sims' happiness ratings code late one saturday evening :-)

    7. Re: hey EA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      We are looking at reclassifying some jobs to overtime eligible

      I read that as "we're going to give overtime to a few people so they'll stop whinging and we'll get good PR, and the other whingers will just get uber pissed off and leave"

    8. Re:Hey EA... by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 1

      Technically they havent begun to treat their employees right.

      Its important for all of us, including myself (a videogame/film 3d animator) to hold EA and the other companies to their word. OR else this will just be forgotten and EA will have glossed over the bad PR and havent done a thing to improve the issue.

    9. Re:Hey EA... by sesshomaru · · Score: 1
      In Dawn of War which is a RTS from Relic not affiliated with EA, if you play as Chaos you can put your builder units on Forced Labor.

      If you leave them on Forced Labor they die, but that's OK, you can always get more builder units.

      I like the way that each sides built in tactics get you into the mindset of that side. In this case, an Aspiring Champion from the Chaos side would make a good middle manager at EA.

      --
      "MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
    10. Re:Hey EA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In response to your sig: Screwing for virginity is opening up a lot of back doors"

    11. Re: hey EA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read it and thought: "some jobs", eh? Maybe they're thinking about making the cleaning ladies and cafeteria workers overtime eligible.

      But definitely not the tech people and artists: this is made clear by the next couple of sentences in the memo, which state that coders and artists are creative people who require flexibility; more flexibility than the current outdated labour laws allow. (You know... the laws which require overtime to be paid after 40 hours a week, the ones that EA doesn't abide by anyhow.)

      definitely seems like a bunch of doublespeak to me.

    12. Re:Hey EA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AC below calls BS... not so, this is true.

  6. leaked? whatever. by Karma+Sucks · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This reads more like a PR stunt than anything else. Expect work conditions to be more of the same at EA. The same, constant, broken promises.

    --
    (Please browse at -1 to read this comment.)
  7. Double speaking money pinchers by deletedaccount · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We are looking at reclassifying some jobs to overtime eligible in the new Fiscal Year. We have resisted this in the past, not because we don't want to pay overtime, but because we believe that the wage and hour laws have not kept pace with the kind of work done at technology companies

    In other words, we didn't want to pay overtime.

    Gah. Dil-bert!

    1. Re:Double speaking money pinchers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't understand what they mean by "reclassifying some jobs to overtime elegible".

      Either you're paid hourly or you're a salaried employee. If you're paid hourly, they have to obey state laws and pay you over time. Some states, that is over time for every hour over 8 worked in a day. For most states, it's every hour over 40 in a week. If you're salaried, then they can work you however much they want without additional compensation.

      So what is this "reclassifying some jobs to overtime elible" bullshit?

    2. Re:Double speaking money pinchers by NardofDoom · · Score: 5, Interesting
      We are looking at reclassifying some jobs to overtime eligible in the new Fiscal Year. We have resisted this in the past, not because we don't want to pay overtime, but because we believe that the wage and hour laws have not kept pace with the kind of work done at technology companies

      Translation: "You sit on your ass all day and hardly break a sweat. Why the hell do you need overtime? So what if you never see the light of day or your family?"

      Repeat after me, people: "This wouldn't happen if we had a union."

      --
      You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
    3. Re:Double speaking money pinchers by c_king · · Score: 4, Insightful

      but because we believe that the wage and hour laws have not kept pace with the kind of work done at technology companies

      "In other words, we didn't want to pay overtime. "


      More like,

      "Not because we didn't want to pay overtime. Because we didn't have to pay overtime."

      chyld

    4. Re:Double speaking money pinchers by rusty0101 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not entirely correct. In several states, if you are hourly, and are paid more than some arbitrarily selcected rate, say $25 per hour, you do not get 'overtime' in the sense of time and a half for every hour over whatever period is in consideration, (8 per day, 40 per week.)

      A significant fraction of games developers are earning more than this rate, so while they may get paid for the hours they work, they don't get 'overtime'.

      A possibility is that EA is going to internally classify these jobs as eligable for 'Overtime' rates, of 1.5 times hourly rate per 'overtime' hour. The question then will be where they set the starting point for overtime hours. If they are exempt from state regulations relating to when overtime begins because of the pay rate, they could set the start at 12 hours per day, or 60 hours per week, and discourage developers from exceeding these limits.

      -Rusty

      --
      You never know...
    5. Re:Double speaking money pinchers by Rycross · · Score: 1

      In other industries maybe, but there are plenty of kids fresh out of college who would take the job for a chance to break into the game industry.

    6. Re:Double speaking money pinchers by carlos_benj · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Not so. I have the dubious distinction of being what is known as an hourly exempt employee. What that boils down to is that if I work less than 8 hours today I get paid only for the hours I worked. If I work more than 8 hours I get paid for 8.

      --

      --

      As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.

    7. Re:Double speaking money pinchers by Politburo · · Score: 1

      Yes this is called salary-plus. It is not at all uncommon. EA has no excuse.

    8. Re:Double speaking money pinchers by Stephan+Schulz · · Score: 1
      Either you're paid hourly or you're a salaried employee. If you're paid hourly, they have to obey state laws and pay you over time. Some states, that is over time for every hour over 8 worked in a day. For most states, it's every hour over 40 in a week. If you're salaried, then they can work you however much they want without additional compensation.
      Possibly naive question: Are companies forbidden from paying overtime for salaried employees? Here in Germany, nearly every employee is salaried. But you still have a fixed number of hours per week, and unless your contract explicitely excludes it (only possible for high-paying jobs outside the normal pay scales subject to employer/union contracts), you get compensation either as comp time or as a bonus for hours worked above that limit. And if you have that excemption in you contract, you can certainly leave after your 35-40 hours of contractually agreed working hours - nobody can order you to work longer.

      Indeed, I find that a very good thing. You can argue about overtime or long hours all you want. But if overtime is free for the employer, he has no financial incentive to avoid it by hiring enough people. Overtime should always cost the employer more than regular time.

      --

      Stephan

    9. Re:Double speaking money pinchers by RealAlaskan · · Score: 1
      In several states, if you are hourly, and are paid more than some arbitrarily selcected rate, say $25 per hour, you do not get 'overtime' ...

      True, but think about this: if you normally work a 40 hour week, and get $50k per year, you are getting $25 per hour and are exempt by that rule. If you normally work 60 hours per week for that same $50k, you are getting $16.67 per hour, and shouldn't be exempt.

      In Alaska, the Department of Labor is always headed by a union boss. I suspect that our Alaskan DOL would be very receptive to that argument.

    10. Re:Double speaking money pinchers by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      what the employees need to do is document their hours and then send in massive complaints to the state labor board.

      get EA in trouble legally where if they are wrong they will have to pay ALL the employees BACK overtime.

      it happened around here for a production company, they were fined big time plus forced to pay all back overtime with interest for the past 2 years.

      to hell with talking to the suits, they KNOW they are screwing the employees. the only way to get them to do the right thing is by getting them in trouble with those that can force them to.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    11. Re:Double speaking money pinchers by themusicgod1 · · Score: 1

      "This wouldn't happen if we had a union."
      Do you work at EA? No? Then shut the fuck up. I'm pro-union too, but I'm going to guess you have no idea what you're talking about. I bet you have never tried to organized one of your workplaces, ever. Prove me wrong.
      As for me, I've worked at places where if you even say the word 'union' you can be fired on the spot.

      See This guy? He knows what he's talking about because he has taken into the account
      1) the large, swarming horde of unemployed geeks and poor, cheap trained labour available in the fieild.
      2) the size of the company, and the nature of the company
      3) the large, swarming horde of unemployed geeks and poor, cheap trained labour available in the fieild.
      Don't bring a bad name to unions by trying to bring them into situations where they are not possible.

      --
      GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
    12. Re:Double speaking money pinchers by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 1

      Companies can pay employee whatever they want. That is why this memo is so bogus. If EA really cared they would have figured out long ago that working people 70 hours/week and only paying them the salary they were hired for to do 40 hours/week is something they shouldn't be doing.

      They don't need to "reclasify" anyone to fix the issues. A salary based employee can be paid extra, or given more time off at the sole discretion of the company.

    13. Re:Double speaking money pinchers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Repeat after me, people: "This wouldn't happen if we had a union."

      Yep, because you wouldn't have a job in the first place.

    14. Re:Double speaking money pinchers by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So? Seriously, why should that matter?

      It's fine that so many kids just out of college are willing to put in absurd hours because they don't know any better. But by the time they actually figure out how to do their job well (and it will be a few years), they might have pesky distractions like families, hobbies, etc.

      The wizened old geezer of thirty is going to have a certain level of comprehension that he lacked when he was twenty-four and fresh out of college. But the management, in its infinite wisdom, only looks at the hours put in, and figures that if they won't put in the same number of hours as the college grad, then it would be inefficient not to replace the geezer with the grad. Hence, the geezer's choice is between massive overwork his entire career, and taking his hard-won knowledge and exiting the industry.

      Hell, unionization would be a huge service to the game industry, but they're too focused on crunching out the next Mary Kate and Ashley crapware on an unrealistic deadline to notice.

      Okay, that was funnier before Acclaim went under.

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    15. Re:Double speaking money pinchers by dmdollar · · Score: 1

      If we as technology workers unionize, there will be far less incentive to keep the jobs here rather than say India.

      Unions are not the answer. If you are truly good at your job, either demand better treatment or find a new job. If you're that good, you shouldn't have a problem.

      If you're not good enough to find a different job, get out of the industry, please. A union won't save you. Those of us with talent will continue to receive our benefits and fair treatment the old fashioned way, through merit. I for one will not be joining any union.

    16. Re:Double speaking money pinchers by carlos_benj · · Score: 1

      Geeze, the moderators are harsh today. Posts separated by five minutes marked redundant. Learn how to read all the information and judge accordingly....

      --

      --

      As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.

    17. Re:Double speaking money pinchers by Sloppy · · Score: 1
      Repeat after me, people, "This wouldn't happen, if employees had the balls to Just Say No."

      Unions are a totally cowardly way out of letting your employer know that you don't like their offer.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    18. Re:Double speaking money pinchers by lew3004 · · Score: 1

      Unions...yeah. That's always the answer because we all know how squeaky clean they are.

      --
      I still can't get the screen shots of Castle Wolfenstein for the Apple IIe out of my head.
    19. Re:Double speaking money pinchers by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      It happens to me. I am forced to work 6 days a week, from 1-9 PM. I see about 2 hours of daylight. We have a union.

    20. Re:Double speaking money pinchers by Money+for+Nothin' · · Score: 1

      Involuntary unions, yes.

      But voluntary unions, no. Voluntary unions (which allow employees the option - rather than be forced - to join) are simply the "board of directors" on the labor side of the economic equation, rather than the management side.

      Labor has unions; management has a well-to-do board of directors. The two sides fight, reach an agreement, and nobody goes home completely-satisfied -- that's how it *ought* to be (otherwise, one side is taking advantage of the other).

      Individuals standing up and telling their boss they are overworked either get fired to let the next guy in, or else are ignored because their voice is simply a baying-in-the-woods. Only the force of voluntary cooperation among laborers has the impact to put the company's bottom line on the line.

      (look at it like taxes: nobody is going to pay for a public good unless everybody else does too. But not everybody wants to pay for that good. Hence, the government steals the output of our work in the form of income taxes to pay for things we may or may not individually want; it's not a voluntary arrangement. Neither is an involuntary labor union. But a voluntary labor union would be analogous to a consumption tax: you pay your taxes according to how much you consume, so you have a choice as to how much you pay in taxes...)

  8. Finally. by kyouteki · · Score: 1

    Congrats Slashdotters, you changed the world. All the publicity this got, I'm sure Slashdot did it's fair share.

    --
    A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    1. Re:Finally. by 787style · · Score: 2, Funny

      If getting a vice president to write an ineffectual memo that is considered "changing the world", then the world gets changed 100 times a second.

  9. Uh, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's the big deal?

    Most large companies have saleried employees that get no overtime.

    Try working for the government some time.

    1. Re:Uh, what? by DaHat · · Score: 1

      And small companies too. My company is only ~150 people strong... oh how I miss the days of being an intern with OT... now, like many, when that clock strikes 5, I feel ill the longer I am at my desk, and of course make it a point to feel ill as infrequently as possible.

    2. Re:Uh, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure. Working for the government where you leave every day on time. Don't compare this to the tech industry you dolt.

    3. Re:Uh, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I was enlisted in the military we sometimes didn't get off on time. Sometimes we even had to get up in the middle of the night and go work out in the middle of the woods for crying out loud! And it was cold and they told us to suck it up. And if we complained, we were sent to "the pit". Trust me, you don't want to end up in "the pit".

    4. Re:Uh, what? by blueZhift · · Score: 1

      Actually, a couple of close friends of mine work for the govt and from what I've heard, it sucks way more than the well publicized EA situation. At least the bad publicity may result in positive changes at EA and elsewhere within the industry. But if that story had been about some state agency no one would have done anything. Indeed, if the mayor or governor had decided to improve conditions, some cheeky reporter would run an exposee on how the govt was wasting tax money! Ever read Snow Crash? Working for the government is sort of like that!

    5. Re:Uh, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly which government? US or foreign? Federal, state or local? I used to be a federal government employee. I was a civilian working for the Air Force as a programmer. At the time I left, which was 11 years ago, I left basically because I could make a lot more money in the private sector and frankly I wasn't real keen on the place I was living and wanted to move. However, I will say this. I went to visit some of my former co-workers about 7-8 years after I left and almost all of them looked like they hadn't aged a day. Those people were not exactly stressed out. My experience is that in every office, 20% of the people did about 90% of the work and everyone else just coasted on their efforts. Even the most stressed out people I knew working at our base had themselves to blame for most of the stress and NOBODY in the government regularly works 80 hour weeks without compensation unless they are an idiot or a workaholic. I never saw any job that even came close to what I read the EA employees were having to do. There are all kinds of laws to protect federal workers to prevent this kind of crap from happening.

      Now if your friends work for a state, local or non-US government agency, well, I can't comment on that. If your friends are not truly government employees but contractors hired to work on a project, that's different as well.

    6. Re:Uh, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha! Riiiiight.

      Especially not government contractors which is what I was referring to.

  10. Hooray by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now we'll only have a fifa game every two years!

  11. Utter BS by amigoro · · Score: 2, Insightful
    From TFA: "As much as I don't like what's been said about our company and our industry, I recognize that at the heart of the matter is a core truth," Reuff admits in the memo. "The work is getting harder, the tasks are more complex and the hours needed to accomplish them have become a burden. We haven't yet cracked the code on how to fully minimize the crunches in the development and production process. Net, there are things we just need to fix."

    Umm in that case, hire more people


    Moderate this comment
    Negative: Offtopic Flamebait Troll Redundant
    Positive: Insightful Interesting Informative Funny

    --


    Nothing to see here
    1. Re:Utter BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And make sure you hire those additional people about 3 months before project deadline, so everyone can stay extra busy....

    2. Re:Utter BS by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 1

      Hiring more people when you're nearing a deadline often results in a longer development time. The reason is that the developers have to spend time training the new developers. Now hiring more developers way ahead of time is the way to go.

    3. Re:Utter BS by chris_mahan · · Score: 1

      Exactly. It's always management's fault. They should have planned better for capacity. It's expensive? Too expensive? Let the invisible hand of the Market wipe your inefficient little company off the face of the earth, but don't violate the Law.

      Ultimately, things like this are expensive to make. Movies are expensive. Yet, thousands still are made worldwide, and still are overall profitable. (for now).

      --

      "Piter, too, is dead."

    4. Re:Utter BS by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      Hiring more people could result in too many people during non-crunch time. I assume that the project has dependencies that require that most of the work needs to be done at the end. You couldn't just put more people on to accelerate non-crunch-time tasks because putting more than 1 person on a software task gives you diminishing returns. Perhaps they need to rethink their scheduling to not set unrealistic goals or unlink some dependencies so some of the work can be done earlier.

    5. Re:Utter BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Umm in that case, hire more people

      I think it was The Mythical Man-Month which said that "adding more people to a late project makes it later."

    6. Re:Utter BS by Xiaran · · Score: 1

      Movies are expensive. Yet, thousands still are made worldwide, and still are overall profitable.

      And the grunts that work in movies(including the actors)have unions.

    7. Re:Utter BS by twiddlingbits · · Score: 3, Informative

      Bingo! One of Murphy's Laws of Software Development States: "adding more programmers to a late project makes it later". Also read "The Mythical Man Month" and "Death March". Good software management is NOT easy, thats why there is so much poor management. Just telling the lead programmer he is now the project manager is not the way to do it. Technically EA does not have to pay OT or they would have been sued by now. What they MAY do is pay for the extra time but not at 1.5X and maybe not for everyone. It's mostly a PR stunt, they might do it for one project, get the heat off, and then go back to the old way.

    8. Re:Utter BS by chris_mahan · · Score: 1

      > And the grunts that work in movies(including the actors)have unions.

      That's right.

      But programmer unions? Naah, I don't think so.

      --

      "Piter, too, is dead."

    9. Re:Utter BS by Tet · · Score: 1
      Movies are expensive. Yet, thousands still are made worldwide, and still are overall profitable. (for now).

      Movies (much like computer games) are largely unprofitable. The makers rely on a few big hits to cover the losses made by the rest.

      --
      "The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
    10. Re:Utter BS by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1

      Only a fraction of the people in game development are programmers. Many are artists, sound engineers, etc. who do work very much comparable to that done in the film industry. If all the artists unionized, and the programmers didn't, and we then saw artists enjoying a higher quality of life while programmers continued to labor in the salt mines - I bet we'd see programmer unions pretty quickly thereafter.

    11. Re:Utter BS by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 1

      As long as some of those people you hire are good Project Managers, they will be able to find ways to use more people efficiently.

      _Blindly_ adding more people is not a good idea - but if your employees are working 80+ hour/week to meet deadlines, then you've either got to slip the deadline or use more people to meet the deadline with less work/individual.

      As the saying goes, you can get quality, speed or cheap - pick two of three.

    12. Re:Utter BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well heres why artists won't unionze. They have tallents that will get them a job in ANY industry if they don't like whats going on. Programers? Ummm...software development is about it.

    13. Re:Utter BS by malkavian · · Score: 1

      Yes, but getting the right number of people in there at the start to make sure that the project is on time is one of the primary responsibilities of the project manager.
      You don't set one person to work on a hydroelectric dam across a large river and expect it complete in two years.
      It's meant to mean that when you've already screwed the project up to the point that it's late (i.e. you miscalculated earlier), adding more people to it at that point only serves to soak up more time (skills transfer), making the project later.
      If the projects always run into crunch, then the project managers aren't doing their job/are incompetent. Sack them, and get ones that DO the job they're paid for.

    14. Re:Utter BS by DeadScreenSky · · Score: 1
      Technically EA does not have to pay OT or they would have been sued by now.


      Yeah, except EA has been sued for it by now. It isn't finished yet, but this stuff takes time. EA does have to pay overtime, because they have been breaking the law.
      --
      There is no excellent beauty that hath not some strangeness in the proportion. -- Francis Bacon
    15. Re:Utter BS by chris_mahan · · Score: 1

      Yes, but overall, they are profitable.

      --

      "Piter, too, is dead."

  12. Reducing overtime pay.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    May not be so bad after all.. give the Republicans some credit. Without overtime pay, maybe, just maybe, American workers will just say no to overtime because they no longer have the lure of extra pay. Also, prices of goods will go down since paying employees overtime is expensive. Don't tell me you never heard someone say they worked overtime for extra cash. If they didn't have an incentive would they still work the same number of hours? I wouldn't think so. And I think that's a good thing considering workers in the U.S. work too fucking long.

    1. Re:Reducing overtime pay.. by Bohnanza · · Score: 1

      What if it's a choice between unpaid overtime or no job at all?

      --

      -----

      Sorry, I'm only a 1336 h4x0r.

    2. Re:Reducing overtime pay.. by trigeek · · Score: 1

      Most developers of software or hardware are no salary and get no overtime pay. When theye refuse to work the extra hours, projects miss their unrealistic deadlines, and they lose our jobs. That's no solution.

      --
      Sometimes I doubt your committment to SparkleMotion!
    3. Re:Reducing overtime pay.. by saintp · · Score: 3, Interesting
      So you're saying work your ass off for no pay or sit on your ass for no pay? Seems like an easy decision to me.

      More like a choice between unpaid overtime and unionization. Workers aren't the powerless peons your comment makes them out to be.

    4. Re:Reducing overtime pay.. by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      The solution is to force them to pay overtime; then maybe they'd be more realistic w/deadlines b/c not going so suddenly got more costly. Right now they just make people work more hours for $0/hr after the inital 8.

    5. Re:Reducing overtime pay.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That sort of logic is what inspired Unions to flourish during the Industrial Revolution, with the result that companies began to offer reasonable pay for reasonable work.

      Some have suggested that it's time for developers (at least in the game industry) to organize, and collectively demand better working conditions. Others have countered that this will merely push such work offshore, where concepts like "overtime" and "fair pay" are as-yet unheard of.

      Perhaps this would be the case in the short term, while we transition to a truly global workforce. But in the long term, competition for jobs and workers will force the issue.

    6. Re:Reducing overtime pay.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Find another employer. Your employer will then have to find a replacement for you. It may take a few iterations of hirings and firings, which are costly due to HR and training costs, before your former employer learns that employees don't want to work overtime when they aren't paid extra. When they find out that it's cheaper to pay someone a decent rate than it is to deal with high turnover, then they'll change heart, especially if they risk being fired themselves.

    7. Re:Reducing overtime pay.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a false dichotomy. The job you currently work is not the only job out there, nor is the set of jobs out there today the set of all jobs that'll ever exist. Sure, job hunting today is tough, but nobody ever said life was easy.

      Bad management doesn't want you to realize this, 'cause it can't hang the implied threat of "at least you have a job" over your head, if you're willing to call them on it and take a shot at something new.

      Good management, of course, works with the reality, and also pays you overtime where appropriate. The worst phrase ever invented in any industry has to be 'Human "Resources"'. Good management recognizes you're not equivalent to the office photocopier.

      When you have Bad Management burning you out, even if they're compensating you for it, sometimes you have to take responsibility for your well being and go take a shot at something better, even if all you're seeing is the yawning abyss of unemployment. 'Cause if you don't you know that the next day will be more of that burnout.

      Pick your battles.

      TFOAE

    8. Re:Reducing overtime pay.. by realdpk · · Score: 1

      Er, no, he's saying work your ass off for pay or sit on your ass for no pay. How did you miss that?

      Oh, you're pro-union. I get it. Selective understanding.

    9. Re:Reducing overtime pay.. by realdpk · · Score: 1

      "When you have Bad Management burning you out, even if they're compensating you for it, sometimes you have to take responsibility for your well being and go take a shot at something better"

      There's also nothing (not counting non-compete contracts, signed willingly) preventing a set of programmers from getting tired of the working conditions and starting their own company.

      Of course, they're going to find the hours are probably the same, but they'd be doing it for themselves, and maybe that'd help them feel better.

    10. Re:Reducing overtime pay.. by saintp · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Actually, unpaid overtime is working your ass off for no pay. I don't see how that's hard to understand: you're working above and beyond what is considered normal (thus "your ass off") and not getting reimbursed for it (thus "for no pay"). I could understand if it was paid overtime, but, at best, you could claim that the choice was between sitting on your ass for no pay or working your ass off for gross underpayment, although, in the latter case, the actually divestment of ass comes during the unpaid period.

      Hence, I stand by my original comment, although your head was evidently too far up your corporatist ass to understand it.

    11. Re:Reducing overtime pay.. by realdpk · · Score: 1

      Nobody's forcing these people to work at EA or wherever. Why not just get another job or move on and do your own thing, if it's so bad?

      No, it's far easier to just have someone else fight your battles for you, take your money, tell you when to work and when not to (without pay, of course), etc.

    12. Re:Reducing overtime pay.. by saintp · · Score: 1
      Why not just get another job or move on and do your own thing, if it's so bad?

      1. Noncompetes. Many software development firms make you sign an agreement that says you can't work for a competitor for months or years afterwards. These can be challenged in courts, but if you don't have a job, where do you get the money?

      2. Job market. Things are looking up slightly, but still the market for IT jobs is very slim, and EA is darn near the only game in town when it comes to game development.

      No, it's far easier to just have someone else fight your battles for you, take your money, tell you when to work and when not to (without pay, of course), etc.

      Are you talking about the government? 'Cause that's what it sounds like to me.

      When you join a union, you become part of a group that does cooperative negotiation -- in other words, you're fighting your own battle. Or do you honestly think that striking is "having someone else fight your battles"?

      Yes, unions charge dues. Massive coordination on workers ain't cheap. Striking is expensive. Poor working conditions, on the other hand, are deadly. Worth it.

      Unions are democratically run, at least in principle. (Unsurprisingly, when there's a buck to be made, the union bosses become corrupt. There are no saints.) If you don't want to strike, speak out against it. In the end, if you want to be a scab, be a scab. If you don't want to strike because you feel working conditions are acceptable, it's the best thing you can do, short of graciously licking the shit off the jackboot of your corporate master. Oh, wait, same thing.

    13. Re:Reducing overtime pay.. by realdpk · · Score: 1

      Many software development firms make you sign

      make? I think you mean "ask you to".

      2. Job market. Things are looking up slightly, but still the market for IT jobs is very slim, and EA is darn near the only game in town when it comes to game development.

      I have a couple shelves full of games, the majority of which were not made by EA (and that aren't owned by EA now). I have a couple games made by independant developers.

      Are you talking about the government? 'Cause that's what it sounds like to me.

      No, I'm talking about a union, of course. The government doesn't tell me when I "shouldn't" work.

      Or do you honestly think that striking is "having someone else fight your battles"?

      I do think it is. How many times have you heard that such and such a union's leadership is bringing a contract back to its members and is recommending a yes vote? I'm in Seattle, with Boeing here, and I've heard it *all the time*. The workers aren't doing the fighting, they're basically "employees" of both the company and the union bosses.

      In the end, if you want to be a scab, be a scab. If you don't want to strike because you feel working conditions are acceptable, it's the best thing you can do, short of graciously licking the shit off the jackboot of your corporate master. Oh, wait, same thing.

      Amusing. You have to strike when other people think they're being mistreated, or else you're a scab, licking the shit off a "jackboot" of a "corporate master" -- nevermind if you're OK with the conditions, your opinion doesn't matter.

      I don't buy in to it (heh, obviously). I can make these decisions for myself.

  13. In other news.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    EA renames Saturday to Monday Reloaded and Sunday to Monday Extended Edition Director's Cut..

    1. Re:In other news.. by Pelops · · Score: 1

      Actually if you want to be accurate, saturday is Friday Reloaded and Sunday Friday Extended Edition Director's cut !

  14. If EA was really concerned about its employees ... by nemaispuke · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It wouldn't take a Class Action lawsuit to get management to recognize that their actions is causing their product to suffer through abusing their staff. So much managerial bullshit, all about profit. If they actually have to pay their employees overtime, that would cut into profits. We can't have that!!!

  15. Update by Jumbo+Jimbo · · Score: 5, Funny
    (Fake) Update: 12/03 15:51 GMT by Jumbo Jimbo:

    Whoops, just kidding, the memo linked there is wrong; GamesIndustry.biz was apparently hoaxed into putting an EA memo on its site that wasn't actually written by EA. EA has no plans to clean up its act and no plans to compensate its workers. Hope this clears things up.

    Apologies to M

    1. Re: Update by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      In Korea, only old people post hoaxes.

    2. Re: Update by stupidfoo · · Score: 1

      In Japan, only old people read hoaxes.

    3. Re: Update by bairy · · Score: 1

      On slashdot, normal readers get fucked off with these stupid repeating jokes

      --


      Get paid to search..It's geniune and
    4. Re: Update by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Soviet Russia, jokes repeat YOU!

    5. Re: Update by AyeRoxor! · · Score: 1

      You *pay* for slashdot knowing full well what to expect. But just because you pay doesn't mean you can speak for all normal readers. I'm a frequent/normal reader, and I certainly don't get "fucked off" when someone's sense of humor differs from mine. Get a grip.

    6. Re: Update by stupidfoo · · Score: 1

      In Korea, only old jokes are repeated!

    7. Re: Update by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Japan, only old repeated jokes are read!

    8. Re: Update by stupidfoo · · Score: 1

      In Korea, only old people have all their bases belonging to us!

    9. Re: Update by nacturation · · Score: 1

      In Soviet North Korea, only old jokes from Japan repeat YOU.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
  16. Re:leaked? whatever. by PTBNL · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I agree. This is likely total PR bullshit.

    I work for a Fortune 500 software maker (non-games), and we get promises like this all the time. In fact, I was just talking to a co-worker who was promised that they were eliminating overtime this season. Last year, he worked Saturdays during the crunch. This year, it's been Saturday and Sundays. And this is a totally seasonal job, very predictable. This is not a company pushing to meet some artificial marketing-inflicted deadline.

    The bottom line is that big companies will continue to find new and creative ways to milk productivity from people at the lowest cost possible. The game industry is no different than any other industry.

  17. This is good. by jon855 · · Score: 0

    the company plans to make more employees elgible for overtime
    This is great, I mean i thought that anything over 40 hours is automatically considered as over-time unless they were contracted but this is good, i mean EA is now coming on in really strong this could be considered as their bonus eh?! Hell I bet those CEOs doesn't do anything but own them and makes a lot of money while the low wage people works their asses off and makes EA happens, and they are the poeple that earns this overtime wages.

    --
    May /. rule the /.ing realm
  18. Suprised... by MysticalMatt517 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm actually surprised that EA was concerned enough to even go as far as sending out a memo. Most companies that demand the hours like what's been said about EA wouldn't even go that far...

    I'm almost wondering if that memo wasn't purposefully released as a PR move...

    1. Re:Suprised... by Greyfox · · Score: 1

      Are you kidding? Take a beating on slashdot, which every programmer in the world reads, and you damn well better do damage control. Life would be awfully hard if even people in India have heard you suck and don't want to work for you because of your sweatshop-like working conditions.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    2. Re:Suprised... by Feanturi · · Score: 1

      Looks more like a rather poor attempt at damage control to me. To confess awareness of core problems, but only to offer such confession after having their name dragged through the mud? Yeah, that's really looking out for the 'team' isn't it? If nobody had beaked off about it, this supposedly 'known issue' would have remained obscured, I think that is screamingly obvious from the double-talk in the memo.

  19. Re:leaked? whatever. by gmajor · · Score: 1

    And what if EA is truly sincere about changing? How much different from this "PR stunt" would their response be?

    They're damned if they do, damned if they don't.

  20. Up next: Wal-mart by BlueThunderArmy · · Score: 2, Interesting
    If only Wal-mart would be so responsible as to admit their mistakes.

    Like EA, Wal-mart took great pains to deny its workers overtime (or promotion, if you happen to be female), and like EA they were eventually called out on it. Unlike EA, they are maintaining that it is necessary to their business model of offering a gallon jar of pickles for $3 that they not deviate from paying minimum wage. And if the employees don't get the store cleaned up in their allotted time slot, well then they better not object to working the overtime for free.

    So, really, props to EA for admitting they were wrong. Publicity stunt or no, they've done something not every company is willing to do and should be lauded for that.

  21. What's he getting at, anyway? by Srass · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Quoth the memo:

    We have resisted this in the past, not because we don't want to pay overtime, but because we believe that the wage and hour laws have not kept pace with the kind of work done at technology companies, the kind of employees those companies attract and the kind of compensation packages their employees prefer. We consider our artists to be "creative" people and our engineers to be "skilled" professionals who relish flexibility but others use the outdated wage and hour laws to argue in favor of a workforce that is paid hourly like more traditional industries and conforming to set schedules.


    Balderdash. What's wrong with paying someone more for more work? There's nothing in the hourly wage model that requires set schedules. The only argument I can read into this is, "well, it's just not done," or "hourly pay is just old-fashioned."

    It sounds to me like not wanting to pay overtime is exactly why they've resisted classifying people as "eligible" for overtime.

    Well, I think work is work, whether it's on an assembly line or writing software, and it takes time that a lot of people would use for something else, if they didn't need to earn a living. That's why they call it work, and not fun.

    Time's the most valuable commodity we can give somebody else, because once it's given, it's gone for good. I don't think it's asking too much to be compensated proportionately for it.

    Surely I'm missing something here. What is it?
    1. Re:What's he getting at, anyway? by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      If I had my way, salary would not be an option at all except for administration and management. ALL other workers would be hourly, and eligible for overtime over 40hrs in a week. And you could not be fired / punished for refusing to work more then 60hrs in a week.

      Even if i make 90k (which i don't, btw), that doesn't mean someone should be able to force me away from my family and sleep without paying more.

    2. Re:What's he getting at, anyway? by Zhe+Mappel · · Score: 5, Insightful
      You're missing nothing. The memo is a masterpiece of doublespeak.

      EA is suggesting that because creative people traditionally work "flexible" (i.e., long/obsessive) schedules, EA doesn't need to pay them more for their time. That's crap, of course. Anyone who is self-employed has experienced long hours; but the rewards of self-employment aren't present when you sign your soul away to make NHL 2006 in an EA sweatshop.

      There's a second audience for this memo, too: lawmakers. EA is begging the GOP to give it legislation that will protect its massive profits from the fair and just demands of its workforce. I bet they get it. This will be a useful lesson for the right wing kids--and for right wing adults--who are going to discover first-hand what they've voted for: their own economic exploitation.

    3. Re:What's he getting at, anyway? by danzona · · Score: 1

      Surely I'm missing something here. What is it?

      I think the central focus is on the level of work done.

      If the employee's job is to fill out TPS reports all day, I can probably come up with a pretty good estimate about how many the employee will complete each week. I can use this information, along with the value of a filled out TPS report to the company to come up with a wage. If I increase required number of TPS reports, the employee has to work more hours. But the increased number of reports results in more value for the company, so the employee is justified in receiving additional pay in the form of overtime.

      Contrast this with commissioning a painting. If I find an artist who will do the painting for a price I am willing to pay, do I care if the painter completed it by working for 10 hours or 100 hours? The work was priced as a completed piece, not by the number of hours the painter took to complete it.

      Which of these categories are game developers in? I've always felt that the industry treats them as if they were in the second category, which is why I've always lauged at people who take jobs with game developers.

      So what is happening now? Has the game development industry gotten to the point where designing games has become so formalized that these people believe that the work they do is no different from filling out TPS reports? If so, then they feel that they should get more money for doing more work. Does management still see them as artists being paid by the completed piece? If so then there is going to be conflict.

    4. Re:What's he getting at, anyway? by ctr2sprt · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The best lies are the ones with a kernel of truth. Wage laws are outdated: they were designed mainly to combat early industrial problems where there was actual physical work involved.

      The issue here - and I want to emphasize again that I am not endorsing EA's position, just trying to explain the aforementioned kernel of truth - is that overtime rules don't really apply well to our current economy. They are built with very fixed limits: for example, 80 or 90 hours in a two-week period. If an employee goes past that limit, his employer has to pay him OT... even if both parties are happy with alternate forms of compensation. This may seem odd, but the goal, back when the rules were made, was to discourage OT entirely.

      But nowadays more and more employers are realizing the value of flex time. Not just daily flex time ("Come in whenever you want, as long as you work 8 hours") but weekly and even monthly flex time. Don't like working Fridays? Work 10-hour days instead. Like 4-day weekends? Put in 60 hours a week and you'll get two of 'em a month. That's a sort of flexibility which most labor laws don't allow. (Well, they clearly do allow it if you're tricky, but they aren't supposed to. So the fear is that legislatures will enforce the letter of the law and close up loopholes rather than reforming the law, which is what they should do.)

      EA mentioned artists for a reason. Artists are notoriously, or perhaps stereotypically, unstructured. They are the poster children for flex time. If a fit of inspiration hits you and you work 120 hours in two weeks, well, you should be able to do that - and then your employer can give you two weeks off to get over the inevitable burnout.

      I want to say it a third time because this sounds like I'm supporting what EA does: I am not. An important component of long-term flex time like I've been describing is compensation for the periods where you work unusually long hours. EA does not appear to be offering that compensation. That's a big problem. But, well... Just because EA is saying "Labor laws are broken" doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong. It just means they're poor advocates.

    5. Re:What's he getting at, anyway? by hey! · · Score: 1

      What I think is fascinating is that, buried in the quote, is an admission that they deliberately broke the law because they thought the law was stupid.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    6. Re:What's he getting at, anyway? by cubicledrone · · Score: 1

      We have resisted this in the past, not because we don't want to pay overtime, but because we believe that the wage and hour laws have not kept pace with the kind of work done at technology companies,

      It's someone else's fault.

      --
      Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
    7. Re:What's he getting at, anyway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Surely I'm missing something here. What is it?

      What he's saying is that he's not against compensating employees for working overtime; he's just against compensating them by using the hourly wage model, which is not a model chosen by the free market, but a government-imposed system.

      Suppose, for instance, that I am an employer and you are an employee. I say, "I need you to work 60 hours this week, or the company will miss its deadline and we will lose a lot of money." You say, "I'm fine with that, but I must be compensated. I believe I deserve a wage of N times the number of hours I work over 40." In response, I say, "Ah, but your equation does not take into account how well the company is doing. If the company does poorly, your compensation will be too much, and if the company does well, your compensation will be too little. How about, instead, I offer you restricted stock or stock options?"

      Now, whether or not you like my offer is irrelevant. The government has distorted the market with wage and hour laws, so two consenting adults can not always choose the optimal case for everyone involved. The government forces the employer and employee to choose a sub-optimal arrangement under the guise of "protecting employees".

      How do you fix the system? You could keep increasing the flexibility of hourly and wage laws, but when you have reached maximum flexibility, you will just be back at the place you started at: the free market.

    8. Re:What's he getting at, anyway? by fizban · · Score: 1

      bravo, bravo, mod parent up.

      --

      +1 Insightful, -1 Troll. What can I say, I'm an Insightful Troll.

    9. Re:What's he getting at, anyway? by jackbird · · Score: 1
      First of all, the TPS report analogy is exactly backwards. Why would you pay 1.5 times as much for the 9th hour of report-writing as for the 8th? Those extra TPS reports are not more valuable to the company. Unless the timeliness of those TPS reports are what create the value. Providing overtime is paying extra because the employee is doing more per day, and sacrificing quality of life in the process.

      Now, about your painter - if she's been in the business for any length of time, she's pricing the painting based on how long it'll take her to do, and she's probably right. If you add the requirement that a painting commissioned on Friday be completed Monday morning, though, your painter will charge you a rush fee, typically a 100%-300% markup over the asking price. Same with photographers, illustrators, copywriters, musicians, and freelance creative professionals of every stripe.

      Creative professionals build overtime into their pricing models. I think that second category is laughing right back.

      The poor slobs at EA are being treated like a third category - nonunion exploited labor.

    10. Re:What's he getting at, anyway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This will be a useful lesson for the right wing kids--and for right wing adults--who are going to discover first-hand what they've voted for...

      You'd think that if these people were capable of learning lessons, they wouldn't have voted the way they did.

    11. Re:What's he getting at, anyway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What else is new? Other big companies break laws every day because they think the law is stupid. Someone calls them on it? They suddenly begin legilateing unless they are MS. Then they just ignore the legal system.

    12. Re:What's he getting at, anyway? by danzona · · Score: 2, Insightful

      First of all, the TPS report analogy is exactly backwards. Why would you pay 1.5 times as much for the 9th hour of report-writing as for the 8th

      Because there are certain aspects of the employer's expenses - office space, health care benefits, unemployment insurance, paid holidys, etc - that are factored into the overall salary before the employee receives it. Working more hours will not earn more health care or a better office, so the overtime wage can reflect only the increase in value to the company.

      Here is a trivially simple example:
      Let's say that it costs the company $30,000 / year in benefits to to employ someone.
      Let's say that an employee can produce 60,000 TPS reports / year.
      Let's say that each TPS Report is worth $1 to the company.
      In this example, the employer would be willing to pay someone $30,000 a year, or about $14.50 / hour.
      Let's use 10 paid holidays and 2 weeks vacation. This works out to about 31 TPS reports per hour.
      Imagine that the employer asks the employee to come into the office on Saturday and fill out 248 (31 * 8) TPS Reports. This would result in a gain for the company of $248. The employee would receive $174 (14.50 * 8 * 1.5).
      This example shows why employers will often prefer to have their employees work overtime rather than hire extra work. The employer is able to pay 150% of the employee's usualy wage and come out ahead.

      Now, about your painter - if she's been in the business for any length of time, she's pricing the painting based on how long it'll take her to do

      That is not correct. In the absence of price controls on the work of painters, the artist will be able to charge what the market will bear. The artist will then decide whether or not to compete in that market. If the artist places a low premium on the time they spend working relative to their competitors, then they will be willing to put in more hours for the same pay.

    13. Re:What's he getting at, anyway? by jdludlow · · Score: 1
      There's a second audience for this memo, too: lawmakers. EA is begging the GOP to give it legislation that will protect its massive profits from the fair and just demands of its workforce. I bet they get it. This will be a useful lesson for the right wing kids--and for right wing adults--who are going to discover first-hand what they've voted for: their own economic exploitation.

      You seem to be operating under the assumption that someone has a gun to the employees' heads forcing them to work at EA, which is absurd. If a company is that bad to work for, it's not going to find the best talent. They'll be working elsewhere.

      If the employees are being exploited, it's their own fault for staying there.

    14. Re:What's he getting at, anyway? by pwtrash · · Score: 1
      Good point.

      While I agree that this is classic doublespeak, I also think that the most egregious error is that the memo doesn't address the issue that most concerned the EA spouse and which most alarmed me as a member of the IT community: The intentional permanent crunch status. In the memo, this VP - much like every other knowledgable software professional, makes implicit assumptions that crunch mode qualifies for exceptions. For example,

      ...and lessen the number of late in the process changes, firedrills, and crunches. We will be rolling these changes out over the next year.

      In addition, the memo describes time saving approaches, implicitly suggesting that the overtime reqs are caused by technical issues. However, the truly horrifying part about the EA Spouse letter was not that crunch times happen, but that "crunch time" had come to characterize the entire development lifecycle and was part of the normal schedule. This is not a tech problem; this means that sales, product management, and engineering management are assuming a full-time crunch mode. (Heaven forbid something unexpected actually come up, but I guess when all you're doing is writing sequal #15, the risks of the unknown are somewhat diminished.)

      So, the real problem is that EA has normalized its requirements and sizing process to expect an 80 hour week. All the technology improvements and "crunch time" improvements in the world will not make life better for the employees, since under this assumption, time savings gained through technology will be accounted for and "spent" to add more features. Fixing this problem requires a reset & an explicit commitment to change from the e-staff, or else the successful PM/PM tandems will be those who successfully extract sweatshop-type of attendance. Since this memo refused to include even an oblique reference to attempting to address this core problem, it just doesn't seem realistic to believe any true change will occur.

      One more thing - I wonder just how many employees are thrilled at working for the biggest entertainment behemoth the industry has ever known?

    15. Re:What's he getting at, anyway? by ctr2sprt · · Score: 1

      When sympathetic groups do that, it's called "civil disobedience."

    16. Re:What's he getting at, anyway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are wrong. Try getting 2000 business cards printed for tomorrow. The premium will jump up and bite you, just like the artist's premium.

      BTW, when does the game company employee get to set the rate for each project? Modify the rate or tack on surcharges when the PM 'adds features'? Decide when they will work and how many hours?

      Hire a contractor to build you a house in a year. Change the layout and add a level and a garage. Change the materials from contractor grade to premium, including marble and wood carvings. Tell him you need it in three months now instead of 12. See what happens...

      If the game developer was contractor, they would be getting PAID. I worked for a company as a contractor and put in 60+ hrs/week when the project changed 6 months into development. I got paid for every hour. I worked side-by-side with salaried employees that got paid straight salary. They did not change the project but suffered. I could not change my rate, but still benefitted. What option do the employees of EA have?

    17. Re:What's he getting at, anyway? by morton2002 · · Score: 1

      If the employees are being exploited, it's their own fault for staying there.

      Wow, that's narrow minded. If a woman is beaten by her husband, it's her fault for not leaving him? If we're unhappy with the direction our country is headed, we'd better pack up or shut up?

      Think about it some, please.
      -Robert

    18. Re:What's he getting at, anyway? by snol · · Score: 2, Insightful

      when sympathetic groups do that, it's for some greater good, not for screwing people over.

    19. Re:What's he getting at, anyway? by Nintendork · · Score: 1

      How the hell did you manage to turn this into a "Down with republicans" rant? What's next, blaming the republicans for ineffective h3rb4l v|4gr4? Pointed statements and conspiracy theories like this only preach to the converted and turn off those that have other viewpoints. Stereotyping, making blanket statements, and offending the intelligence of the other side doesn't help your case. All it does is make the other side feel that much more resolved to dismiss your opinion as an immature, cynical rant. How do you feel when a religious individual harps on you? That's what I thought.

      -Lucas

    20. Re:What's he getting at, anyway? by jdludlow · · Score: 1
      If a woman is beaten by her husband, it's her fault for not leaving him?

      The first time? No. The second time? Yeah, she's stupid for still being there. At some point you have to take responsibility for own situation in life. Or you could cry and be miserable. I guess that's a valid choice for some.

    21. Re:What's he getting at, anyway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You obviously have never had a girlfriend and know nothing about women. Come back when you've taken a college course or two, experienced the real world, and lost your virginity. Cock.

    22. Re:What's he getting at, anyway? by scot4875 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Here's the short path he took to get from unfair overtime to GOP bad:

      1) EA - takes advantage of 'outdated' laws to screw their employees
      2) EA is lobbying the GOP for laws that will make it impossible for anyone to sue them for screwing their employees
      3) GOP will probably pass such laws if given the chance, because we all know how pro-worker they are.

      See? Short, easy path. Also, it wasn't so much as a "Down with republicans" rant, as it was an "I can't believe all these morons that think the GOP actually give a damn about them" rant.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    23. Re:What's he getting at, anyway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. This whole point of offering employees the option of being salaried was a BENEFIT to keep valued employees in house. (Salaries were usually higher, and also more secure, than being hourly.) Being salaried does not mean that you are paid a fix rate for a set amount of work. Being salaried means being paid for a set number of HOURS. If it were the case that it was a fixed amount of work then employees would be given a detailed work order up front when signing their employment contracts. The fact that the common *perception* has changed says something about the strength of corporate propaganda.

    24. Re:What's he getting at, anyway? by lew3004 · · Score: 1

      I was waiting for some asshole to make the link between the Republican party and EA. Thanks

      --
      I still can't get the screen shots of Castle Wolfenstein for the Apple IIe out of my head.
    25. Re:What's he getting at, anyway? by lew3004 · · Score: 1

      I guess that's why you're posting AC; you have no knowledge of either. Come back when you have 1 of the 2 AND experienced real life. Cock.

      --
      I still can't get the screen shots of Castle Wolfenstein for the Apple IIe out of my head.
    26. Re:What's he getting at, anyway? by Destructo-Bot · · Score: 1

      For those that don't know what GOP stands for off-hand:

      Grand-Old-Party = republican party

      Linky for a blurb about what GOP means on cbsnews.com

  22. slave drivers by FecesFlingingRhesus · · Score: 2

    It's about time these slave drivers started paying for the long hours that they require. We have a branch office of EA here in Orlando and they are notorious for hiring young and cheap talent that are foaming at the mouth to work on games. They then turn around and take advantage of them, by working them long hours, for low pay, no overtime etc. All because these kids are too excited to see that they are getting screwed. I talked to the local shop here once, as I used to design simulator software for the naval jet fighters (f-14 and f-18) and felt I might enjoy a switch to games. I did some really interesting stuff that the game engines where just getting around to and they where like well we pay 30 to 40K for experienced developers even the military simulation industry which is notorious for being cheap is not this cheap. Rusty I say pay them back pay if you want forgiveness.

    1. Re:slave drivers by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      All because these kids are too excited to see that they are getting screwed.

      Kind of reminds of the acting business. People will do just about anything in Hollywood to get their mug on screen. If it was not for the acting unions, there'd be a lot more abuse in Hollywood. However, I am sure there are a lot of under-the-table deals.

    2. Re:slave drivers by Schmendr1ck · · Score: 1
      I used to work as a game developer, now I'm in Orlando working on simulation tools for a DoD contractor. Every once in a while, I get a notion to apply at EA Tiburon. I really loved making games.

      Then I think about the 50% pay cut and the 30-50 additional hours per week that I would spend at my desk instead of with my wife and kids, and making games just doesn't sound that much fun anymore. Of course, I'm in my mid-30s now, so I doubt EA would even look at my resume twice.

    3. Re:slave drivers by FecesFlingingRhesus · · Score: 1

      The funny thing is that Tiburon was the more appropriate name for them. They are sharks and they do prey on developers, that just want to do something cool. It's really sad, that a good developer would have to take a pay cut, for doing essentially the same job, the only difference being whether the product is going to the military or to the x-box. Especially when you consider the average military simulation project may be in the order of a few million dollars profit to the software house; whereas it is a few hundred million dollars to the game companies. The economies of scale are way out of whack here. That's why I got out of the real-time 3D industry and have never looked back, I toiled away in the Sim industry for years, at low wages and long hours, when I finally realized, that there is a far more lucrative industry in Orlando and that is the travel industry. Many developers in Orlando don't realize that we may be the simulation capital of the world, but we are also the travel capital of the world and there are allot of good travel based IT jobs waiting. It got me through the .COM fallout and the economic collapse so it's not as fun but its way more stable and profitable.

      What contractor if you don't mind me asking?

      Lockheed
      SAIC
      NOCTSD

  23. Overtime is a good thing.. by trigeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I see this as a common problem throughout the tech industry, it just seems to be more pronounced than most at EA. The upper management creates a flawed schedule, without enough time or resources to do all of the required tasks. When it becomes apparent that the schedule will be missed, everyone goes into crunch mode, working ungodly hours to get the product out the door. The project is saved, but all of the developers have ulcers. Since the management didn't have to pay the developers for the extra hours they worked, there is not cost to the scheduling mistake, and make the same mistakes on the next project (unless they intentionally lowball the schedule, because they know they won't be the one's paying for it). If the developers received overtime, there would be a cost to the error, and it would be less likely to happen the next time.

    --
    Sometimes I doubt your committment to SparkleMotion!
    1. Re:Overtime is a good thing.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So whose fault is it that this continues? The management for setting unreasonable schedules? The employer for not compensating the employees' hard work? Or the employees for refusing to go into crunch mode the second time it happens?

      And no, I have no respect for (presumably intelligent) developers who don't see the warning lights after the first occurence, and don't start saving up like crazy so they won't be afraid of getting fired when they stand up to the management at the second occurence.

    2. Re:Overtime is a good thing.. by eison · · Score: 1

      What makes you think it is an error?
      By your own argument, schedules requiring the overttime are correct scheduling since they keep the cost down by relying on free work.

      --
      is competition good, or is duplication of effort bad?
    3. Re:Overtime is a good thing.. by trigeek · · Score: 1

      That's part of my point. Paying the developers overtime would make the company (and hopefully the managers) pay for the "mistake" of poor planning, making it less likely to happen again.
      It's my opinion that they do it on purpose, fully aware that neither they or the company will have to pay the consequence.

      --
      Sometimes I doubt your committment to SparkleMotion!
    4. Re:Overtime is a good thing.. by Shajenko42 · · Score: 1
      So whose fault is it that this continues? The management for setting unreasonable schedules? The employer for not compensating the employees' hard work? Or the employees for refusing to go into crunch mode the second time it happens?
      Well, think of it this way: in which group would an individual have the best chance of making a difference?

      We've already been shown that it is certainly not the lowest-level group of employees. The way management bargains with them isn't even bargaining at all - it's take it or leave it.

      So it makes little sense to blame the workers for not changing a situation they have no power to change.
  24. Thoughts on Memo by KillaKen187 · · Score: 1
    Three weeks ago we issued our bi-annual Talk Back Survey and more than 80 percent of you participated - much higher than the norm for a company our size. That tells me you care and are committed to making EA better.

    No... this tells me your hacked off about working conditions and want to tell management to kiss it.

    In the next 30 days we'll have the survey results and we will share them openly with you by the middle of January.

    No... in the next 30 days you need to hire some more employees so that people don't revolt against you and throw old copies of Madden football at the office. Oh and let the fat guy keep his Swingline.... for gosh sakes the Bostch jams when he is stapling his TPS reports.

  25. Volunteer labour by Firiel · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It might be that programmers who work their trade out of love of problem solving are to blame for this. I know many people, myself included, have put in voluntary overtime just for the joy of completing a project, or just being naturally engaged in your work. They say if you love your job, you'll never work a day in your life. You don't even ask to be compensated in times like this. You just love what you are doing. At various times in the games industry, very creative work was being done, and it just may be that these carefree problem-solvers created an unrealistic expectation for all the others around them.

    It's like the woman at the office who's husband sends flowers to every day. All the other women in the office adore this unseen male, but be sure that all the men in the office hate this guy for making them look bad.

    Seems that everyone goes about their job (and love, for that matter) in different ways. Over-management and over-regulation do strange things to the human spirit.

    --
    The penal system can't hold all the people that do it. Fill in your own blank.
    1. Re:Volunteer labour by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      It might be that programmers who work their trade out of love of problem solving are to blame for this. I know many people, myself included, have put in voluntary overtime just for the joy of completing a project, or just being naturally engaged in your work.

      Perhaps this is why programming is really for the young. After a few decades it gets a bit old and becomes just a job. The 200th add-change-delete-report screen is not nearly as fun as the 1st. And then you have a family. Overtime does not feel so great anymore, and then management wants to toss you because you only work 45 hours instead of the 70 that the young guys put in. (Perhaps you are more productive, but bean counters don't know how to measure such.)

    2. Re:Volunteer labour by rpillala · · Score: 1

      Those games made by those people you're describing were more works of art than commercial products. I think the friction lies in that difference. EA has to run its operation like one that produces commercial goods because that's the business they're in. Great games can sell well, but it's a result of their greatness not the other way around. Occasionally you'll find a company who can straddle the two worlds of art and commerce but I guess EA isn't it. Valve seems like they are though. Or Relic.

      --
      When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
    3. Re:Volunteer labour by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and it just may be that these carefree problem-solvers created an unrealistic expectation for all the others around them.

      Nope. I've worked in companies where such people existed, yet the EA-style atmosphere didn't. EA-style work atmosphere is not the fault of the volunteer labor, it's the fault of the management, period. They management is there to make use of each resource to its best potential. A good management will recognize that some are ready and willing to work hard and long, while others can only work so much, yet each person brings their own contribution and should be guided to do so to their best of their ability, not their peer's ability.

      It's like the woman at the office who's husband sends flowers to every day.

      Yeah yeah, we all know that the husband's just sleeping around like a sailor out on shore-leave. :)

    4. Re:Volunteer labour by fupeg · · Score: 1

      What bunch of flowery crap. Software is a product, it is not art. Let's not fool ourselves otherwise. Now that's not to say that there aren't creative innovators out there who come up with new ideas because of their passion for what they do. There are some of those. But even among innovators, the motivation is not just "love" but it is the possibility of getting really rich instead of just getting a paycheck. As for EA ... They employee over 5000 people and there is nothing "creative" about Madden 2005.

  26. smoke screen by Anubis333 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This doesn't take responsibility for anything really, and it doesn't solve the problem. Sure, they can classify a 'few' positions for overtime between now and when they owe all their employees that and back OT thanks to the class action.

    Whatever it takes to help them churn out the next ShaqFu.

  27. Re:leaked? whatever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    How about something better and more honest than:

    the work is getting harder, the tasks are more complex and the hours needed to accomplish them have become a burden

    It's total garbage and doesn't show the first sign of understanding of what the problem really is and how working more unreasonable hours doesn't fix it.

  28. typical management by gluteus · · Score: 1, Insightful


    Notice how this guy responds to the charges of whipping his employees by talking about process and efficiency? Clearly,
    the only thing these employees should do is sue the bastards into the ground.


    Heh. There are more appropriate measures, but they all lead to lengthy jail time.

  29. Well Duh! by Marto871 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    [i]"As much as I don't like what's been said about our company and our industry, I recognize that at the heart of the matter is a core truth."[/i] Well Duh!

  30. Yeah and.. by JavaLord · · Score: 1

    We will be all whining when they move their development to India. I hope you enjoy Madden Cricket 2007. That said, I would gladly work 70 hours a week to be in the credits of a video game.

    1. Re:Yeah and.. by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1


      That said, I would gladly work 70 hours a week to be in the credits of a video game.


      Get in touch with EA's HR department. You're just the kind of suck... err... motivated artist they like to exploi... umm, that is... add to their highly valued team. But before you get any funny ideas, remember that "value" in this case doesn't imply "worth paying."
    2. Re:Yeah and.. by Politburo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That said, I would gladly work 70 hours a week to be in the credits of a video game.

      It's people like you who are causing these problems. So many people fought extremely hard for 35-40 hour work weeks, and you're ready to throw it all away so your name is in a list of credits that 3 people will ever read.

    3. Re:Yeah and.. by Lysol · · Score: 1

      Fuck it, let 'em. Remember, the management and execs are the problems in this equation, not the workers. They (mgmt) will still keep their high salaries, regardless, so it's not even a issue about moving work overseas. It's an issue about how greedy American comapnies have become and how the society just accepts it.

      We don't have to accept this shit and something can and should be done about it.

    4. Re:Yeah and.. by slapout · · Score: 1

      Well then. Quit your job. Write a game. Remember to put your name in the credits. Then upload your game and enjoy!

      --
      Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
    5. Re:Yeah and.. by konekoniku · · Score: 1

      And it's his choice to do so - that's how competitive markets work. Just as different consumers have different judgements on how much a good is worth to them, different workers have different judgments on how much compensation they demand for a given task. You, sir, are advocating a labor monopoly - and as with most monopolies, this will only end up hurting society in the end.

    6. Re:Yeah and.. by BinaryOpty · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That said, I would gladly work 70 hours a week to be in the credits of a video game.

      Exactly what EA abuses to get its employees: they hire a whole bunch of bright eyes college graduates willing to do anything to get their name in some sort of gane, then they abuse their willingness to work and burn them out. Then when they quit, EA goes back to the farm and grabs the next bunch of grads and the cycle starts again. You can't just give up your rights just for your name to appear in a game: that's the problem. The overtime thing's just something that's fallen out of the working into the ground problem because at least they realize that if they're going to be raped of their stomach lining, they'd better at least be getting paid more for it. That's close to being a step in the right direction, but in my opinion it's a red herring.

      What the industry should be doing is making realistic goals for their programming team. Everyone hates release date push backs, and the reason they exist is because of these conditions. If they started making realistic goals, then the teams would be more likely to reach them and possibly surpass them than they would be to get to the old, further out goal where they have to cruch down in the month before and then end up missing it anyway. Time management and project management are much, much more important topics than the stupid overtime topic.

    7. Re:Yeah and.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good luck buying a house with "But my name is in the credits of Mario Bros. 12!"

    8. Re:Yeah and.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you ever watch the credits when you beat a video game?

    9. Re:Yeah and.. by Politburo · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it is his choice. I'm just informing him that he's a fucking idiot if he chooses such a path. I mean that fully. If you willingly choose to accept low compensation for your work, you are a fucking idiot (you are not willing if you cannot find other jobs). I did not advocate a labor monopoly or imply that he does not have a choice. What I did say was that his choice hurts all of us and goes against decades of progress. We finally get some power against the corporations and what do we do with it? Accept 40k/yr for 80 hour work weeks. Fucking brilliant.

    10. Re:Yeah and.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot to throw in the word 'commoditize' to illsutrate your brilliant grasp of supply-side economics. Stop fighting straw men (labour monopoly, competitive markets phaw), and realise that real markets aren't that simple and regulation is not all that simplistic.

    11. Re:Yeah and.. by JavaLord · · Score: 1

      Exactly what EA abuses to get its employees: they hire a whole bunch of bright eyes college graduates

      Who says I'm a college grad? I finsihed school years ago, I've been programming professionally for 5 years now.

      willing to do anything to get their name in some sort of gane, then they abuse their willingness to work and burn them out.

      Is it any different than a struggling actor or director getting paid little to nothing for their first film? It's true, I'd give up a lot professionally to be able to say I worked on a game released by EA or another game company that was respectable. Is there anything wrong with that? People make sacrifices in many industries to get an 'in'

      Then when they quit, EA goes back to the farm and grabs the next bunch of grads and the cycle starts again. You can't just give up your rights just for your name to appear in a game: that's the problem.

      You aren't giving up your "rights". That is way too overly dramatic. You may be taking a hard job, with long hours and no overtime pay but that is hardly giving up your rights. I would guess the average EA programmer isn't some 10$ an hour code monkey. They probably pull a salary somwhat close to application developers.

    12. Re:Yeah and.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      I would guess the average EA programmer isn't some 10$ an hour code monkey.


      FYI: If you're working 80 hour weeks for a salary of $60K/year, you're making $14/hr. Excluding factors such as taxes and vacation pay.

      Is that how much your time is worth?

      *shrug*

    13. Re:Yeah and.. by BinaryOpty · · Score: 1

      They don't get paid by the hour. They get paid by salary. Average entry into programming for a game company is around $50k a year. With 40 hour work weeks that's a nice $24 an hour, but double the hours and you get half that: $12. Plus that doesn't include taxes, social security, medicare, and anything else that gets taken out of your paycheck. That'd lower you down to around a $10/hour code monkey. And some people are even working 100+ hour work weeks at EA! That's what's atrocious, and which is why I said project management's more important: then people wouldn't have to overwork and therefore their salary would spread over a smaller amount of hours and they would be much happier.

      Also, by the way, the metaphor you used about the struggling actor, while the exact same thing, gets the exact same response from me: by lowering yourself to some level you degrade your rights as a human being just to "make it" into your profession. That's not any way to make a living, in my opinion. I'd rather not have to suck the cocks of five people so I could get an interview with some other guy when I could just look elsewhere for another job where I wouldn't have to do that.

  31. He seems at a loss for how to fix the problem by earthforce_1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    First of all, an absolute cap at 80 hours a week under any conditions would make sense, since you are only fooling yourself if you think you are productive working even longer hours, and allow an 80 hour work week for 1 week maximum, cap it at 60 the rest of the time. If they can't meet their deliverables under these conditions, then it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that they need more staff, or have an unreasonable delivery schedule.

    --
    My rights don't need management.
    1. Re:He seems at a loss for how to fix the problem by No.+24601 · · Score: 1
      for 1 week maximum
      for 1 week in a month, year, 2 years?

      I agree with this though. I think it's dangerouus to the compnay to have workers toiling more than 60 hours/week.

  32. EA will have to earn trust again by MooseByte · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "They're damned if they do, damned if they don't."

    More like "they're damned until they ACTUALLY do - often". EA has been tilted so heavily toward the "damned if they don't" side of being upfront and fair, it's going to take a lot of "do's" to earn folks' trust again.

    And this would be a great way to start.

  33. So tempting... by petrus4 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    On reading this I'm sorely tempted to write to Rusty and outline to him in very precise and specific terms exactly why I think the company he works for gives capitalism a bad name. I wouldn't actually do it for the purposes of being purely vindictive, either. I don't necessarily want EA destroyed, because I really value the work of some of the assimilated companies. (Maxis, Origin)

    What I *do* want however is for them to get a clue in a very big way, particularly as far as MMORPGs are concerned. UO is still headed for the gurgler and gaining speed, and The Sims Online has become an online sex pests' paradise, when the game was not originally intended for anything even remotely like that.

    Electronic Arts needs radical reform...at the core ideological level. That article on here a few weeks back by the college professor showed me that...when he talked about EA's execs thinking of the company as being simply a vendor of boxes. If they don't get that reform, then they *will* sink. It won't happen overnight perhaps, but it will gradually happen. They need to start innovating again, and they need to prevent the soulless bean-counters from being in charge. There is more to games...and life itself...than *just* money...and if you don't realise that, eventually you'll get to a point where you're not making money either.

    1. Re:So tempting... by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1


      I don't necessarily want EA destroyed, because I really value the work of some of the assimilated companies. (Maxis, Origin)

      What I *do* want however is for them to get a clue in a very big way, particularly as far as MMORPGs are concerned. UO is still headed for the gurgler and gaining speed, and The Sims Online has become an online sex pests' paradise, when the game was not originally intended for anything even remotely like that.


      What makes you thing that anything of these aquired companies continues to exist in any meaningful way? What you've described are shells of former glory. With an EA logo slapped on it.
    2. Re:So tempting... by snuf23 · · Score: 1

      Seems to me EA just about killed Origin and the Ultima franchise. Look at what happened with the last releases. Buggy and shoved out the door do to deadline pressure from management.
      I always respected Richard Garriott (Lord British) as a kid because of the obvious care that went into the development.
      I recall playing $50 in 1983 dollars to pickup Ultima 3. The packaging was beautiful complete with 3 manuals and the cloth map. The game was excellent and felt like it was made by people who enjoyed their craft.
      How far (we see farther?) EA has come from its origins as a company that presented developers as rock stars complete with album style game packaging. That actually had PICTURES of the developers on the boxes.

      --
      Sometimes my arms bend back.
    3. Re:So tempting... by lew3004 · · Score: 1

      Just curious...do pictures of the developers entice you to buy their products? Hmmm

      --
      I still can't get the screen shots of Castle Wolfenstein for the Apple IIe out of my head.
    4. Re:So tempting... by snuf23 · · Score: 1

      No - I meant that EA's attitude toward developers has changed. From making them prominent to making them invisible. I will say that knowing who the developers are helps in that you can look for games by good developers. You know - the Sid Meiers of the world.

      --
      Sometimes my arms bend back.
  34. Some? by St.+Arbirix · · Score: 1

    I thought no-overtime non-comp work was illegal for entertainment companies.

    If they're working over their salaried time then they are required by law to recieve overtime or comp.

    --
    Direct away from face when opening.
    1. Re:Some? by badasscat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I thought no-overtime non-comp work was illegal for entertainment companies.

      If they're working over their salaried time then they are required by law to recieve overtime or comp.


      That's what the employees believe, but labor laws are not so simple. EA has classified these employees as exempt from overtime status, which they're legally allowed to do under certain circumstances (for example, if an employee works on a contract or salary basis in a computer-related field, and is often asked to "use his or her own discretion and judgement" in the course of his/her work). Basically, exempt status in most states is intended to apply to management or learned professionals, not lower-level employees, but the wording is usually nebulous enough that most employers think they can apply it to most employees. Unfortunately for the company, though, the penalties for misapplying exempt status can be pretty severe. (The employees can be awarded both back pay and penalties, meaning a company like EA could potentially be out hundreds of millions of dollars.)

      In the EA case, the employees in question have compared their jobs with identical jobs in other entertainment industries and found that in those other industries and within the same state (Callifornia) those same positions are not treated as exempt. These are in effect the "blue-collar" jobs at EA; the assembly-line type stuff. EA treats them as exempt under the computer-related occupation exemption, but according to that exemption you need to be "primarily engaged in intellectual or creative work that requires the exercise of discretion and independent judgment." (Emphasis added.) So this is actually a tough exemption to apply. You could really argue that it cannot be applied to almost anybody at a company like EA, because it's pretty likely that the look and feel of a game (and its related marketing) comes from just one or two product managers per product (who themselves brainstorm ideas with other departmental managers), with the rest of the product team simply following instructions. Even if you use your own discretion at your job some of the time, though (for example, a manager tells you to draw a character a certain way but leaves the particulars up to you), you would still not be exempt, because you are not primarily engaged in using your own discretion. You are still working with instructions provided by someone else.

      I think this memo probably hurts EA's legal case. A position is either exempt or it isn't; there's no "well, we didn't think it was exempt, but now we do"... the fact is it's not up to them, it's up to the law, and if they're now deciding that the law says these positions are not exempt, then they owe all of those employees back pay and they owe the state penalties. I would imagine this memo will come up in court if no settlement is reached prior to that time.

  35. This wouldn't happen if we had a union by anomaly · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Don't get me wrong - companies *do* abuse people when the company has sufficient power. Unions do provide protection to those workers, but it's not a panacea.

    In the software development realm, some programmers are 100x more productive than others. Many times there are more than 2x productivity differences between workers.

    When you move to unionized protection for the workforce, you are essentially mandating compensation for producers to be normalized. Even though you might be 5x more productive than your cube neighbor, your compensation will not reflect that value difference.

    When you're talking about manual production activities - assembly line manufacturing, product delivery (bread suppliers) etc - it makes perfect sense because each breaed delivery person has a maximum capacity that he can accomplish, and the variance in production can easily be normalized and compensation level can more easily be established.

    In this industry, do you really want to have collective bargaining where the people who are the most productive derive the least benefit from exercising their talents? If you can accomplish more in 2 hours than your coworkers, should you need to put in a full workday to be compensated the same as they are?

    I'm not convinced that the traditional model of collective bargaining is a great solution to this problem.

    Respectfully,
    Anomaly

    --
    But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
    1. Re:This wouldn't happen if we had a union by NardofDoom · · Score: 1
      Then lets find a new model, but there are definitely parts of the old model that are useful.

      My brother-in-law is a union carpenter. He described how he did nothing but cut wood for three years until he had the experience to move on to another job. With a tech union we could determine qualifications, not let Microsoft or Novell or Red Hat use tests designed to maximize their profits to determine who has what experience.

      --
      You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
    2. Re:This wouldn't happen if we had a union by SnapShot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You have a point, but lets be honest.

      Look around your cube farm and point to the best developer in your group. You know, the one that actually does 5 to 100 times more work than anyone else.

      Now, go over to him and tell him your salary and ask him if he makes 5 to 100 times more than you do.

      When he say, "no", feel free to laugh at him. Now explain to him that under a union he still wouldn't be making 5 to 100 times more than you, and therefore he should be glad that there isn't a union.

      Now, go back to posting on slashdot.

      --
      Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
    3. Re:This wouldn't happen if we had a union by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 1

      If merit & productivity can be used to dictate salary, then I want those standards applied to management & executives as well. There are a fair number of idiots who are earning large amounts of money which they don't deserve, and it's only by their subordinates' damage control which prevents these idiots from destroying any organization they touch.

      In fact, the employees should be the ones casting judgement on the operational competency of the executives, since the employees have a better idea than anyone at how well the big brass is running the company.

    4. Re:This wouldn't happen if we had a union by lpp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This argument only holds if productivity is how you are measured. In most cases, software developers who do as you suggest, accomplishing more in 2 hours than the next guy, do one of two things. They either work fewer hours, which penalizes them at review time for being "the guy who's never around" and also penalizes them if they are docked for not being there for a full 8 hours per day... OR ... they work just as many hours as the next guy, get more done, and get a few pats on the back, a little recognition, and possibly a slight increase in salary at review time, but not much else.

      As a result, except for personal pride and professionalism, which ought to be enough, there really is no benefit to being that more productive person in most cases. And when crunch time happens, it happens to the whole team. And if a union can guarantee you get paid for those extra hours, then perhaps it can be of use in this industry.

    5. Re:This wouldn't happen if we had a union by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 1

      Yeah but then the Union techies would be seen as those slow to adopt the latest and greatest new technologies and no one would be forced to hire union techs in the first place.

      --
      Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
    6. Re:This wouldn't happen if we had a union by Luke · · Score: 1

      Why are you making this assumption:

      When you move to unionized protection for the workforce, you are essentially mandating compensation for producers to be normalized.

      There's no rule or law that says a collective barganing agreement has to establish wages like this. Programmers could have a CBA that only specifies working conditions and overtime pay, and leave salary at the discretion of management.

    7. Re:This wouldn't happen if we had a union by malkavian · · Score: 1

      I take it you mean they pump out 100x more lines of code than another person.
      Were you taking into account that the 'low producer' may well be doing far more complex work than the 'high producer'?

    8. Re:This wouldn't happen if we had a union by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you move to unionized protection for the workforce, you are essentially mandating compensation for producers to be normalized. Even though you might be 5x more productive than your cube neighbor, your compensation will not reflect that value difference.

      People always make this assumption about unions but it isn't always true. Baseball has a union. Right? Guess what? Pedro Martinez makes one hell of a lot more than Brian Daubach. Unions negotiate rules that make sense for the industry they're in.

    9. Re:This wouldn't happen if we had a union by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a result, except for personal pride and professionalism, which ought to be enough, there really is no benefit to being that more productive person in most cases.

      Exactly correct. Now every time you read a comment about lazy American workers, remember this; because American corporations have taught the workers they won't be rewarded more for more/better work.

      Younger programmers still believe the American myth that hard work brings rewards, so they work hard. Older programmers know the rewards will go overwhelmingly to the executives, who then fire the programmers and outsource to make even more money.

    10. Re:This wouldn't happen if we had a union by Idarubicin · · Score: 1
      When you move to unionized protection for the workforce, you are essentially mandating compensation for producers to be normalized. Even though you might be 5x more productive than your cube neighbor, your compensation will not reflect that value difference.

      Why isn't it possible to include performance incentives in a collective agreement?

      And when did the guy who was five times more productive actually get paid five times more anyway?

      The parent is correct in that a traditional assembly-line "you will be paid X dollars per hour after Y years of company service" agreement wouldn't work, but that doesn't preclude a more detailed compensation structure. I doubt it would be significantly more unfair than the current system, which rewards good negotiators more than good programmers. And it would address the issue of abusive eighty-hour work weeks.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    11. Re:This wouldn't happen if we had a union by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hate to break it to you, but if you are 5x as productive as everyone else, you still won't get compensated, even without a union. Compensation in games industry is usually upgraded by being attatched to a successful project - i.e., a person coming from Blizzard can comand a higher salary because of the success of Blizzard products.

      But you will NEVER be compensated to the tune of 2x another's salary even if you are that productive.

    12. Re:This wouldn't happen if we had a union by sharkey · · Score: 1
      This argument only holds if productivity is how you are measured. In most cases, software developers who do as you suggest, accomplishing more in 2 hours than the next guy, do one of two things. They either work fewer hours, which penalizes them at review time for being "the guy who's never around" and also penalizes them if they are docked for not being there for a full 8 hours per day

      Exactly the way it goes where I work. Any metric that smacks of objectivity is disregarded. The most important thing is still being at your desk for the 4:45pm bedcheck the President does after telling everyone they can leave at noon on New Year's Eve.

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    13. Re:This wouldn't happen if we had a union by DarkSarin · · Score: 1

      Actually, there are plenty of industries where individual production has a high variance, and yet have effective unions that do NOT enforce a flat rate.

      Variance in production can be matched by variance in compensation by introducing a peice-rate (with a minimum pay) into the equation. Instead of x/hour, try x/hour with x/unit of production.

      The problem is that peice-rate is fairly simple when working with uniform goods (wood-workers are a good example of this when they are doing fairly similar peices of work), but when complex, and highly variable goods or services are being produced, piece-rate is much more complicated to quantify (e.g., how much code is a unit?). That said, these problems are NOT insurmountable. It would be difficult, but not impossible.

      The upshot of this concept is simple: the guy in cube 8 is an expert--the best in the company. In a typical day he writes 5x the code as the next best programmer, with only .5x the bugs. He's good. What will he get paid? Perhaps this would work: (bug-free code x $y) + {(hours x $u) || (base_salary)}. This could be applied to a certain period (such as daily or weekly), and the programmer would get the incentive cash based on code that passes QA.

      There are assumptions that are lacking, such as the complexity of the code or project, but some of that would be handled by base salary, and tagging projects as being at a certain difficulty level.

      A union, if set up correctly to benefit programmers according to ability, could easily handle this type of scenario. Remember, just because one union has done something, wouldn't mean that the next union would have to do the same thing.

      Collective bargaining is perfect for this, however. The idea is that unless the company listens up, the persons in the union won't do any work. This would work for programmers as well. Remember, if they are VERY public about their intentions to form a union, the company will have a heck of a time firing them (you CANNOT legally fire someone for trying to initialize a union) without retribution.

      Once a union has formed, firing anyone who strikes also is problematic, since many union activities are protected.

      All that said, I am NOT a huge fan of unions. I suspect that if one company gets folks who are forming unions (such as EA), then other companies will shape up and treat folks right to avoid the complications of unions, and eventually the industry standard would be raised to a much higher level (or rather better) of worker treatment.

      Just a few thoughts.

      --
      "We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
    14. Re:This wouldn't happen if we had a union by cduffy · · Score: 1

      I take it you mean they pump out 100x more lines of code than another person.

      Not necessarily. A very good programmer can find elegant, simple solutions to a problem that a bad programmer would try to solve via brute-force. Compound this with the very good programmer doing it right the first time and needing vastly less debugging/QA time, and you've got a massive difference in overall productivity.

      I've worked with a fellow who could look at a white paper and churn out a graphics driver inside a few hours -- such that the driver would actually work the first time in about 80% of cases. I heard a year later that he was taking contracts doing kernel work for major corporations (he was the MIPS and SH Linux kernel maintainer, so getting such contracts wouldn't have been a problem for him) and finishing multi-month contracts in mere hours. I've also worked with a fellow who used hundreds of thousands of lines of code (almost all machine-generated) and six months of his time to do what could have taken a moderately competant programmer (me) just two weeks and about 3-6 klocs. And I've worked with plenty of folks between. (And then you've got the folks whose designs reinvent the wheel and involve months of extra development for functionality they could have just reused).

      I've also seen projects where one person has implemented in about a year better functionality than a 10-person team over a 5-year period, simply on account of that one person having vastly better design sense.

      The productivity (not LOCs, but actual project-completion-time productivity) difference between very very good coders and average coders is certainly huge enough to justify the "100x" generalization -- if not entirely correct, it's certainly on the right order of magnitude.

    15. Re:This wouldn't happen if we had a union by G.+W.+Bush+Junior · · Score: 1
      Well said!

      What's always puzzled me is this:
      Whenever americans discuss minimum wages, people argue that you higher minimum wages means less jobs. And jobs are good, so it doesn't matter that you can't actually live off a minimum wage.
      Whenever unions come up, noone sees a problem with people working overtime (is overtime one of these so called "family values" you are so fond of?), even though unions would force the companies to hire more people.

      but whatever... I actually decided to give up trying to understand american politics last month.

      --
      "I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." -George H.W. Bush
    16. Re:This wouldn't happen if we had a union by cduffy · · Score: 1

      And when did the guy who was five times more productive actually get paid five times more anyway?

      When he was paid by number of finished pieces.

    17. Re:This wouldn't happen if we had a union by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've summed up precisely why technology workers are so easily exploited.

      Everyone sees himself as some kind of uniquely capable star who can get more for himself on his own dealing than he can in solidarity with his peers.

      Maybe you really are a star, but chances are you're not.

      It's like the people who buy into libertarianism: maybe you'll be some Randian wet-dream, some clever, cutthroat free agent, swashbuckling his way through society to a position of authority and abundance all on your own ... moxy ... or something. It's a lie. You have a better chance of winning the lottery.

      Just get a union, already. Make it an independent union, of your peers by your peers. Organize democratically, organically and nonheirarchically. Don't mimic in your union the way that your employer organizes. And, then, do cross workplace boundaries: unionize the Indians, too. Then, you will get more.

    18. Re:This wouldn't happen if we had a union by bacchusrx · · Score: 1

      When you move to unionized protection for the workforce, you are essentially mandating compensation for producers to be normalized.

      If you don't want to mandate "normalized compensation" for you and your co-workers, then don't. You get to decide what the union will bargain for, because the union is just you and your co-workers.

      --
      Life after capitalism? The participatory economics project
    19. Re:This wouldn't happen if we had a union by Idarubicin · · Score: 1
      And when did the guy who was five times more productive actually get paid five times more anyway?
      When he was paid by number of finished pieces.

      To clarify, I meant in the context of software development. Yes, if one is paid for piecework in the widget factory, it is possible to directly associate payment and productivity.

      This is much more difficult to do with software. Payment by line of code is absurd, and usually encourages inefficient code. Payment on a per-project basis is possible, but very difficult to implement unless the specificiations are nearly perfectly written in advance. Under those circumstances I also wouldn't consider your coder to really be an employee; he's more of an independent contractor.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    20. Re:This wouldn't happen if we had a union by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In this industry, do you really want to have collective bargaining where the people who are the most productive derive the least benefit from exercising their talents?

      Except you also have to consider that a lot of times, the people who work hard busting their ass to get the job done aren't the ones getting the raises and promotions because they are too busy working while the slackers are more busy going to lunch with the boss and greasing the wheels for their next promotion.

    21. Re:This wouldn't happen if we had a union by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Or the 'over productive' folks do 2 hours of work, and mess around for the other 6 doing things they like, while still keeping the appearance of productivity (because, hey, they're getting their work done).

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    22. Re:This wouldn't happen if we had a union by cduffy · · Score: 1

      Okay, then.

      When he's a contractor paid when he completes his project milestones.

    23. Re:This wouldn't happen if we had a union by dillon_rinker · · Score: 1

      The flaw in your analogy is that the people working union assembly line jobs generally aren't the most productive people. The most productive bread delivery driver (to take your example) quits and forms a bread delivery company.

      If you can produce more in 2 hours than your comorkers can in a whole day, then perhaps you should do a full day's work for a few months (maybe even nights and weekends) until you are indispensable. Then ask to be promoted to Senior Architect or some other "management" position where you can be payed commensurate with your value instead of with the number of hours you put in. THAT is how the old-line unionized businesses used to work.

      Your is very seductive, though, because each geek secretly believes that HE is the most productive member of the development staff and therefore has the most to lose to a collective bargaining agreement. I find that the real flaw in the argument is that we should permit 99% of the developers to be mistreated under the current arrangement because 1% of them would be mistreated under the new arrangement. This gets very quickly to arguments for or against elitism; I'm an elitist at heart (the best in any field of endavour are largely responsible for the progress in that field) but I also believe that EVERYONE should be taken care of, not just the elite.

      OK, I'm getting a bit abstract and philosophical, and that means it's time to turn this back over to the horde for comments.

    24. Re:This wouldn't happen if we had a union by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 1
      "In this industry, do you really want to have collective bargaining where the people who are the most productive derive the least benefit from exercising their talents? If you can accomplish more in 2 hours than your coworkers, should you need to put in a full workday to be compensated the same as they are?"


      Ever hear of baseball? Min Salary is 250,000 a year and yet the best of the best players earn anywhere from 50million dollars over 3 years. Hell even more than that!

      The best programmers and artists always have value.

      If a fucking ball player can get min 250,000 a year... argh

      We really dont care about people in this country unless they make us money or can get us laid. Its just proven time and time again in this country despite the growing religious right and their bullshit... its just all bullshit. We dont care about each other enough to give a dam about ourselves.

      So live in it. The rich will still exploit us, because they are the rich and you envy the money and power they have. Unfortunately most of us just want a good life with a quality life experience... not a 120 hour work week and a mcdonalds dinner.

    25. Re:This wouldn't happen if we had a union by Lothsahn · · Score: 1

      Sure, unions force companies to hire more people and raise wages... in the short run. In the long run, the artificially raised wages causes outsourcing (domestic or international), and some companies to go bankrupt (which hurts both the owners of the company and the employees). Remember, macro-economics dictates that the way to improve the quality of life for society in general is to raise the overall production of goods. Forcing companies out of business or overseas runs directly contrary to this.

      Now, don't get me wrong. Unions are definately needed in some companies, but they're not a solution to low wages, underemployment, and overtime. Some people still work overtime in unions, unions don't create jobs in the long run, and unions only raise wages for those that remain employed. Remember, the leader of most unions are just as selfish as owners of many companies... they want to get the best union deal for themselves... not for you. Finally, unions protect everyone, hard working people and people that hardly contribute anything.

      Personally, I work hard, I'm a personable individual, and I have skills that I can market, mostly those I learned on my own time. I'm employed at a wonderful software development company who cares about its employees, and treats us fairly. I work 40-50 hrs/week, which I believe is reasonable. I've been employed in both good and bad work environments, and you just leave the bad ones. There's enough good environments to pick from that I don't believe we need to unionize the software industry, yet. Let the free market regulate itself.

      --
      -=Lothsahn=-
    26. Re:This wouldn't happen if we had a union by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      When you move to unionized protection for the workforce, you are essentially mandating compensation for producers to be normalized. Even though you might be 5x more productive than your cube neighbor, your compensation will not reflect that value difference.
      This is not true, in fact it is a classic debate fallacy (correleation is not causuality). Despite the fact that many unions demand wage uniformity in their contracts does not force all unions to demand the same.

      A programmer's union could demain other things, such as a 40 hour work week, quality keyboards, mice and monitors, no goddamn flourescent lights in the offices and no substandard software packages, in particular the Microsoft Crapware suite of bugs and virus vulnerabilities, get foisted on the engineers by ignorant managers.
    27. Re:This wouldn't happen if we had a union by Patersmith · · Score: 1


      That's why you have different classifications of the same job as well as salary ranges within each classification. PIPSC covers many of the IT workers in the Canadian federal government. My ex-girlfriend is a civilian tech worker for the Department of Defense.

    28. Re:This wouldn't happen if we had a union by afidel · · Score: 1

      Higher state mandated minimum wages act as a silent, invisible tax on everyone because the goverment is indirectly taking money out of your pocket that the free market would not, add to that the fact that it makes it harder for employers to justify adding additional labor capacity and you end up with higher prices for goods and more unemployed people eating from the public trough. Higher minimum wages can also hurt those at the bottom because rather than being in the work force and potentially improving their skills they will be unemployed with little chance for improving their lot, especially since blank spaces on the resume often set off red flashing lights in the eyes of HR people. Btw this is coming from a bleeding hear liberal who finally saw some sense in some Republican policies when they passed wellfare reform and wellfare stopped being a social prison/way of life.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    29. Re:This wouldn't happen if we had a union by G.+W.+Bush+Junior · · Score: 1
      I think you misunderstood me... what I said was:
      If you think low minimum wages are good because they create jobs, why don't you think organizing labor to avoid people working overtime at the cost of family AND employment?

      I wasn't making a case for higher minimum wages, but a case for less overtime.

      --
      "I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." -George H.W. Bush
    30. Re:This wouldn't happen if we had a union by winwar · · Score: 1

      "When you move to unionized protection for the workforce, you are essentially mandating compensation for producers to be normalized."

      I'm curious, but when someone mentions the word "union" why does logic suddenly seem to disappear? I am not picking on you alone but why does compensation have to be the same for everyone in a union? As a matter of fact, could you point me to one real life example where ALL members of a union are compensated EXACTLY the same?

      A union is a bargaining unit run by its members, as such it doesn't have to dictate compensation. Heck, union members could even be fired for not meeting certain levels of production, so no more crappy coders....

      "If you can accomplish more in 2 hours than your coworkers, should you need to put in a full workday to be compensated the same as they are?"

      So, how is this REALLY different from now. Are the best programmers recognized? Are they paid five times as much? If your pay is the same, can you only show up two hours a day and not be fired? Or are most companies clueless? So what was your point again?

      "I'm not convinced that the traditional model of collective bargaining is a great solution to this problem."

      So why does it have to be traditional?

    31. Re:This wouldn't happen if we had a union by PSandusky · · Score: 1

      Once a union has formed, firing anyone who strikes also is problematic, since many union activities are protected.

      That would depend very much on just how that "firing" is done. Locally, I've seen two companies (Sani-Dairy and Bethlehem Steel) that employed large sections of the population fire the same for striking. No one ever sued and won, as far as I know.

      Why?

      Both companies decided that they would close their Johnstown plants after the conclusions of the strikes. The strikes were long and the companies didn't seem all that willing to negotiate, but when they finally settled the contracts, the companies had work to do that they felt could be done away from Johnstown.

      So it's entirely possible to bypass that particular protection, so long as the "official" reason is "moving factories" or "outsourcing" or...

      --
      "What's the use in being grown up if you can't be childish sometimes?" --Fourth Doctor, "Robot"
  36. Symptom of a larger disease... by Kyrka · · Score: 2, Interesting
    This is just a side effect. If ALL software companies would put more emphasis on quality (including secure) code from the beginning, the costs of supporting this stuff would go down. When I say quality, I am referring to something you might get from a CS degree, not what DeVRY is hoanding out. Hence, the company perhaps wouldn't have swollen to its current size perhaps... or if they _HAD_ spent more time (and salary) on their staff, the public would likely have paid more for the "better" software. Assuming it is, at all, better is the gamble.

    So, we can expect in the short term an increase in the cost of EA products maybe. What's this mean for their stock price? I dare not speculate, but those in the know can figure it out. What will the stock holders think of it? Will _THEY_ embrase the shift? Time will tell, but this could be a turning point for some, and perhaps set a trend for others.

  37. It's in the game! by smiley2billion · · Score: 2, Funny

    Since these EA stories started to break I just can't shake the image in my head of John Madden chained to a recording studio being made to work long hours into the night recording "Boom!" over and over again to get it just right.

  38. Re:leaked? whatever. by notbob · · Score: 0

    i bet you write tax software....

    come on admit it ;)

  39. Internal e-mails are usually written to be public by PIPBoy3000 · · Score: 1

    I work for a fairly large organization of 10,000+ people. I think the assumption at this point is that any internal e-mail by upper management will make its way to the local paper if the topic is interesting enough. So I wouldn't consider it a leak.

    Also keep in mind that the goals of the HR department and other management may be different. Often HR is looking out for employes, while other management may have other goals.

  40. A memo != A change by broKenfoLd · · Score: 1

    I could easily spend ten minutes writing up a memo to circulate claiming that my personal work standards are being raised, that I am going to volunteer more hours at the job, and that I will never be late. While the memo might make my boss get some warm and fuzzy feelings, the memo itself doesen't do anything. I am not going to work more hours, nor am I going to raise my work standards, and I can all but guarantee I'll occasionally be late. It's just a memo, as for the changes...wait for it, wait for it...

  41. Employee rights are DYING by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    The republican government wants to set the clock back to the 1920's. H1B's, overtime exemptions, offshoring, etc. is eating into white collar careers and nobody on slashdot seems to give a flying fuck. If we don't organize politically, big companies and their deep-pocket lobbyists will sell our souls to the lowest bidder.

    And don't give me that crap about working harder and getting 200 certificates instead of just 100. We are in the cross-hairs of corporation desire for cheaper, more docile labor. Globalism is making brains into a cheap commodity and turning white collar work into the same species as blue collar. We are not different from them anymore, except they learned how to obtain at least some political power. We are still willing carpets.

    WAKE UP Techies! Unite or Parish!

    1. Re:Employee rights are DYING by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But does Netcraft confirm it? I'll wait for Netcraft to confirm it first.

    2. Re:Employee rights are DYING by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But does Netcraft confirm it? I'll wait for Netcraft to confirm it first.

      It'll happen about the time W confesses to exaggerating WMD evidence.

    3. Re:Employee rights are DYING by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think I'd rather Parish (yes, that's how you spelled it) than unite with you.

    4. Re:Employee rights are DYING by jmulvey · · Score: 1

      Whoa there soldier. I dispute your assertion that this is a scheme of the "Republican" government.

      Just last week Sen. Kennedy (D-MA) tried to inserting H-1B increases into the giant Omnibus Appropriations Bill. But Kennedy's threat was to the people who really wanted the increase.
      And his threat was that he would stop the increase from happening unless the leaders put back in the provision lowering industrywide wage
      standards!

      Now I live in Massachusetts, pay my taxes, and vote. I wrote my Senator, Ted Kennedy (D-MA), 6 months ago to complain of his unabashed, uncompromising support of the H1B visa program (he wants unlimited H1B). He never replied. I wrote him again. He never replied. I can only gather that his concern for his constituents pales in the face of the influence of the high-tech companies in Massachusetts.

      Let's also not forget that it was the senior democratic windbag from Massachusetts (Kennedy), and Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) that introduced the (cynically-named), "High Tech Immigration and United States Worker Protection Act"

      This isn't a Democratic Party vs. Republican Party issue. This is a Corporate Party (with Democratic & Republican factions) vs. The Great American Middle Class issue.

    5. Re:Employee rights are DYING by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 1
      I for one...

      completely agree. I've railed about this before, and I just get modded down by the neo-libertarian and neocon capitalist zealots among us. It's pretty sad, really, so I don't bother with direct dialogue with them, as they always seem happy to mod me down at their convenience.

      Dozens of women and children were gunned down in Colorado so we could have a 40 hour work week. And now these people, the great grand-children of that generation of labour martyrs, CHEERFULLY surrender their lives to the corporate masters and surrender every waking hour to The Company. It's a level of cluelessness that I find appalling and and all the more depressing for its pervasiveness in contemporary american society.

      What might actually be happening (albeit very slowly - too slowly, IMHO) is that the white collar workers in USA are finally cottoning on to the fact that they ARE ALL MEMBERS OF THE WORKING CLASS. If you're flipping burgers or writing code or doing brain surgery, you're a worker and you're part of a system that pays you to compensate for an exchange of your waking hours, and to perform up to specifications not set by you (of course, in the case of brain surgery, this is probably a good thing). The point is: we are all employees - we are all workers - we are all wage slaves.

      This is a dramatic improvement over the chattel slavery and serfdom that wage slavery replaced, but it is still slavery. It is imperitive that the IT and programming workers unite with their fellow workers in all the other walks of working life and Take Control Of Their Lives Away From The Capitalists who are exploiting them, and are themselves slaves to the same system (just enormously well compensated for their time).

      You can laugh and say "Oh, how quaint - what antiquated notions..." but the fact is: Some form of Socialism is the future of freedom on this overcrowded industrial planet. Help it come into being or stand in the way and be crushed by an angry global working class.

      RS

      --
      Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
    6. Re:Employee rights are DYING by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1

      From another view, the neoliberals (in the economic sense) were right: globalization is actually increasing the wealth in the periphery somewhat, standards of living and work conditions and productivity are improving in Asia, and American workers are competing with them and their far lower cost of living. Ultimately, there are only so many hours in the day, and only so much 'productivity' to be squeezed out of the more-expensive American worker.

      The long-term view would be to go into "maintenance mode" in the first world while increasing the costs of labor in the developing world (which also means increasing their value as markets - and increasing the resource strain on their environments). But that's not what happens - the US is still defined as "the market," capital goes where labor is cheapest, and instead of improving working conditions elsewhere, the strategy is to make them worse in the first world. Bad news all around.

    7. Re:Employee rights are DYING by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      I dispute your assertion that this is a scheme of the "Republican" government...Just last week Sen. Kennedy (D-MA) tried to inserting H-1B increases into the giant Omnibus Appropriations Bill.

      I think the problem is partially that politicians don't understand the H-1B issue. There is no simple math to figure out if there really is a labor shortage. The nature of tech churn is such that there are always spot shortages. Thus, one can always find instances of spot shortages to justify shortage claims. But these spot shortages are what allows one to transfer from shrinking spots to growing spots. H1B's remove this bridge.

      Rather than try to explain the issue to politicians, we have to simply bribe them the way that pro-biz lobbyists do: campaign donations. Let's face it, we live in a Bribocracy, and must fight fire with fire. The NRA is the best known model. We must copy their model and apply it.

    8. Re:Employee rights are DYING by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Dozens of women and children were gunned down in Colorado so we could have a 40 hour work week. And now these people, the great grand-children of that generation of labour martyrs, CHEERFULLY surrender their lives to the corporate masters and surrender every waking hour to The Company. It's a level of cluelessness that I find appalling and and all the more depressing for its pervasiveness in contemporary american society.

      I think things go in cycles. It takes extreme problems before people start paying attention to certain issues. People still believe the lies of alleged Free Trade. The ad-driven desire for bigger SUVs and more WalCrap has blinded people. When the evidence mounts beyond a threashold, or some 30's style global depression happens, then things will change again.....the hard way.

  42. More business speak translations... by PoderOmega · · Score: 4, Funny
    I think we really need a business speak translator. He's my stab at it:
    Most important: we recognize that this doesn't get fixed with one email or in one month. It's an on-going process of communication and change. And while I realize that the issue today is how we work - I think we should all remember that there are also a lot of great benefits to working at EA that are not offered at other companies. With some smart thinking and specific actions we will fix these issues and become stronger as a company.
    Translation: Hopefully this memo has given you enough false hope we can string you along for the next year in the same conditions before I have to write another memo promising changes. EA does have the same benefits of other companies out there but since you don't have time to look (because you are working 80 hours a week for us) you will never know, so just assume you are lucky. We aren't fixing anything, if you want to work for a stronger company, stop complaining.
  43. smokescreen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like someone else said, this looks like a total smokescreen. It doesn't take responsibility for _anything_ much less acknowledge the real problems at EA.

  44. Similar Situation by N8F8 · · Score: 1

    I used to work for Newport News Shipbuilding a few years ago and they had a problem where some people working in an Engineering division were being paid salary and were overtime exempt and others were hourly workers. The salaried workers complained to management about the inequality so the CEO came up with a solution. He fired all the salaried workers and hired them back at a much lower hourly rate when they begged. Ain't corporate America great?

    --
    "God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
  45. Re:If EA was really concerned about its employees by macrom · · Score: 1

    The sad thing is that paying overtime won't cut into EA's profits, it will cut into customers' wallets. The next game will be $59.99 new instead of $49.99, and this trend might push across the board. I hope and pray that you are right, that EA will take the hit internally, but I think they will try to push the extra cost onto consumers instead. At that point it is up to us to tell EA, via our purchasing power, that we won't shell out that much for every game they create.

  46. More of the same by Lysol · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Gee, how many times have we (the trench workers) seen stuff like this before. After reading the memo and the ea_spouse posting, there was an all too fimilar 'ping' in my gut.

    The EA management team should be paraded around the town square a whipped with wet noodles (or harsher) , pelted with whatever gum can be pried off the sidewalk, and humiliated in what ever manner seen fit. It is completely true that the ones that make the big salaries don't give much of a care about those minions below pumped for the bulk of the grunt work.

    True, we (the worker geeks) used to be the cool ones a few years back. But that was then and now, it's back to the same 'ol same 'ol where the execs once again have the spotlight, the workers know their place, and the economy favors mostly those on top.

    Frankly, I'm not much of an game player and will make it a point to specifically not buy EA games anymore - for myself or anyone else.
    The leaked memo needs to go much further and pretty much include everyone in overtime rules. The fact that some will be looked at leads to a bunch of magic hand waving while the practices continue. EA's made a boat load of cash and should share the wealth with those who are probably most responsible for it.

    But alas, the top execs and management need to maintain their pecking order and paychecks so their lifestyles can continue. Such is the way of things.

    My advice to EA employees: stage a mass demonstration or walk out - organize! It's no fair that you get crap from all the hard work while others reap the real benefits.

    I really hope the class action yields some cash for those who deserve and more bad press for EA and in fact, the rest of the software industry where this happens more than not. This type of work is not sustainable and we Americans need to stand up for better jobs and better working conditions (gee, that sounds historically fimiliar). Otherwise, companies will take everything they can, including your life.

    1. Re:More of the same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I once thought of getting one of those new EA jobs mentioned earlier and making friends who had similar views.
      Can anyone say Spinoff Company?
      A company that does not value its employees will lose it's best talent and implode under it's own beauracracy.

  47. Conspiracy theory ahoy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is that "Net," typo one of those captchas to narrow down which division might leak such a thing?

  48. Re:leaked? whatever. by The-Bus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A family member of mine works an "entry level" position as an Investment Banker for the big-name firm in Manhattan. Considering she works 90+ hours per week, she's not really being paid a whole lot, but she's gaining a hell of a lot of experience. Over Thanksgiving, I asked her how she liked working so much. She said that it was stressful, but exciting. Being someone who also works a fair amount (no but-you're-posting-on-/. cracks please) it didn't bother me. A lot of family members said she was being exploited etc. Her response?

    "If I complained and didn't work as much, they have 20,000 applicants to fill about 50 positions available."

    That's just the reality of the marketplace today. Even if our economy was doing really well, this would still be the case. It's capitalism. If you want less hours and less stress, there's a lot of options for you out there. I support EA in allowing them to work people as much as they want, as long as they are upfront about it. And since I'm not an employee at EA, I cannot say how truth- or untruthful they have been.

    What I don't condone are actions of places like Wal-Mart that ask you to stay an extra hour or so "off the clock" to help out clean some aisles.

    I don't support mistreating workers, but that doesn't mean I'm opposed to companies having positions where you work 80-hr week jobs.

    --

    Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.

  49. Re:leaked? whatever. by cubicledrone · · Score: 1

    And what if EA is truly sincere about changing? How much different from this "PR stunt" would their response be?

    The changes would have happened first, instead of being "announced." Their employees shouldn't have been treated like shit in the first place.

    --
    Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
  50. From the desk of Rusty Rueff. by Infinityis · · Score: 1

    To all employees of EA:

    We apologize for your poor treatment and lack of overtime pay. You guys deserve better. In fact, you deserve more than anything we can give you, so we've decided to lay off every employee and move the operation overseas. Thanks for your continued committment, and don't forget to buy our up-and-coming game: Command & Conquer: Managers.

    Thanks, and have a nice day!
    -Rusty Rueff

    1. Re:From the desk of Rusty Rueff. by cubicledrone · · Score: 1

      To all managers of EA:

      We apologize for the fact you have to spend money to make money. Unfortunately we don't have the votes to amend the Constitution so you can get something for nothing. We're sorry to hear you've decided to move overseas. As a going-away present, here's a nice 500% tariff on everything you put your logo on, including your business cards. Have a great trip!

      -Congress

      --
      Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
    2. Re:From the desk of Rusty Rueff. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To The Congress of the United States:

      Hi. Sorry to hear about your loss. We understand that you're angry, and that the 500% tariff on $EA_DESTINATION_COUNTRY was a result of that, but we have all these free trade agreements that say that you wouldn't do stuff like that anymore ('Cause, you know, we're all global and stuff now). Seems our other member states don't like it, and are gonna implement similar tariffs on your goods and services, too. Really hope this doesn't impact that economic upturn you were working on.

      Best Regards,
      The WTO.

    3. Re:From the desk of Rusty Rueff. by cubicledrone · · Score: 1

      To the WTO:

      Knock yourself out.

      -Congress

      --
      Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
    4. Re:From the desk of Rusty Rueff. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rusty:

      Well, I hear the weather in India is going to be very hot due to Nuclear Explosions with a part of radioactive fallout courtesy of the restarting of the Pakistan-India conflict with hazardous fallout covering all possible locations of relocation. BTW, attached to this notice are satellite photographs with matching addresses of all the executive employees' residences (sent to all ex EA employees who are probably knocking your door down this moment) including yours. Enjoy the remaining time you have, Running Man.

      Regards,
      Well Connected Employee who worked for EA.

    5. Re:From the desk of Rusty Rueff. by sethstorm · · Score: 1

      To all Executives and Other Willing Participants:

      We're sorry we couldnt come in to EA, everyone just decided to quit and form a startup.

      -All of the EA staff

      --
      Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  51. How about not working your employees to death? by Rycross · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Does anyone else feel like this is still a cop-out? If I were in the position of these developers, I would be dissapointed. I'd much rather prefer working 40-60 hours a week rather than working 80 and receiving overtime. Even if they get paid overtime, their lives and families are still going to suffer because of the insane hours EA makes them work. Extra money really isn't much good if you don't have free time to enjoy it.

  52. Re:leaked? whatever. by HikeFanatic · · Score: 0

    That letter literally stunk of double talk. It will be the same conditions as usual. This is nothing more than typical PR.

    We had a something like this when I worked at Wolfram Research. The head HR droid was whining to the local paper about being unable to hire "qualified developers", and the story ended up in one ofthe prominent sections.

    The next day a programmer who interviewed there wrote a very enlightening editorial that did a nasty slam dunk on Wolfram. I forget what it said word for word, but the final sentence was along the lines of "...in terms of salary, Wolfram isn't paying their programmers enough. I interviewed there and they tied for lowest. I went elsewhere."

    Needless to say that editorial was prominently displayed throughout the company. Very amusing.

  53. Re:Internal e-mails are usually written to be publ by dsb3 · · Score: 1

    Often HR is looking out for employes, while other management may have other goals.

    No, the purpose of the HR department is to minimize the chances of the company being sued. Any benefit to the employees is mostly a side effect of that primary goal.

    --

    Slashdot? Oh, I just read it for the articles.
  54. what a convenient memo to "leak" by fat-latvian · · Score: 1

    It's interesting that the first memo I've seen leaked from the company is one that tries to portray EA as a loving, caring company. This is obviously they're way of responding to all the recent criticism.

    In the end, actions speak louder than words, and EA's treatment of its employees in unconscionable.

  55. Yeah, but they don't say *how* by Weaselmancer · · Score: 1

    I agree with you, 100%.

    the company plans to make more employees elgible for overtime.

    Probably by giving pink slips to anyone who complains, thereby allowing them to find jobs somewhere else where overtime is a possibility.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
  56. Re: EA cares? Who does? by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

    I don't think they care as much about the programmers as the gamers. A lot of game buyers read Slashdot. A lot of people with influence to change which games are bought by friends read Slashdot. If Slashdot says "boycott EA", EA has problems.

    On another note, anyone want to give testimonial about a game company that treats its employees with respect?

    How about Bioware? I love their games, so I hope they treat their programmers well. Besides, I'm canadian too.

    --
    - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
  57. Insider view... by Chuck+Bucket · · Score: 1

    Here's a livejournal entry about working at EA, and it's pretty revealing.

    Also, I worked in Austin for Origin Games, until EA slowly strangled the company to death, so I'm no fan of EA either (although their Hockey on Sega was the bomb in the day)

    CB

  58. If EA developers were smart... by Pedrito · · Score: 1

    They'd go work at some company doing some menial programming tasks (like pumping out basic business apps), making decent dollars, but work they can easily do in their sleep. Spend 30 hours of the work week working on games for open source or for profit, get the paying work done in the other 10 hours, and still have plenty of other hours to continue working on your games or doing real life stuff.

  59. the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think you're missing his point at least.

    I think in essence he is saying his people aren't "clock punchers". Laborers punch a clock and he doesn't consider his people laborers. I would be insulted if someone whose job function is little more than to be a pair of hands. And I grew up in a factory town (Flint, Michigan).

    So I see his point there. Even though it has clearly been passed through a few lawyers to CYA.

    However, in the end, I think perhaps his position is wrong, and slashdot is right. These people are essentially laborers. And since the company is already using them as such, I think they should be paid as hourly workers too.

    I'm sure glad I don't have to punch in and out when I go to lunch or have to run an errand on work time.

    1. Re:the point by Darren+Winsper · · Score: 1

      But EA employees are not hired to do a task, they're hired to work X hours per week. If I had a contract that said "you will deliver a product to these specs for £X," that's all well and good. However, that is clearly not the case here.

  60. Calling in the Bob's by tjasond · · Score: 1

    "We've started a Development Process Improvement Project to get smarter and improve efficiency".

    Sounds like Lumberg is phoning in the "Consultants."
    The next memo will undoubtedly be littered with "Ask yourself, Is this good for the company?"

    1. Re:Calling in the Bob's by cubicledrone · · Score: 1

      Followed by "Michael Bolton... I love his music."

      --
      Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
  61. Eloquent by cubicledrone · · Score: 1

    Buzzwords, manager-speak and bullshit.

    Nothing will change.

    --
    Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
  62. Re:leaked? whatever. by eno2001 · · Score: 1

    Working 80 hours a week is detrimental to your health. The real problem is that people put the value of money over their own life. That's the failure that capitalism has succumbed to. Without some good controls over how people are treated within the system, capitalism can do some really horrible things to people. Sure, turning tricks can make a lot of money for women and gay street hustlers, but would you want your sister, mother or daughter doing that? It's the same thing.

    --
    -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
  63. Re: EA cares? Who does? by hibiki_r · · Score: 1
    A lot of people with influence to change which games are bought by friends read Slashdot. If Slashdot says "boycott EA", EA has problems.

    Just like Blizzard was on the brink of bankrupcy after many in slashdot called for a boycott. Most EA games seem designed not to appeal to the average Slashdot reader. The hundreds of thousands of joes that buy madden 20XX will buy next year's game anyway.

  64. Re:Playboy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're in the USA, there's an easier way to make lots of money. Marry a successful guy, then after he buys and house and nice car, etc. get divorced. More often than not, you'll get at least half his shit, even if the only work you did was lie on your back and let him stick his dick in your pussy! (after making him take you out and treat you nice) Can you believe that? What a deal!

  65. "Leak?"... Hardly... by monkeyfarm · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This was intentionally leaked. No exec. writes an internal memo that long with that tone. This is an unofficial press release.

    --
    What I don't know I just fake...
    1. Re:"Leak?"... Hardly... by TheHawke · · Score: 1

      The memo has too many spinwords and hyped-up promises to be upper-crust.. It reeks of a PHB in the PR department or a minion in HR.

      *growls* Anyone want to flood their faxes with a copy of the memo with a big red stamp that's labeled BULL?

      --
      First rule of holes; When in one, stop digging.
  66. Depends on the organization by PIPBoy3000 · · Score: 1

    I work for a mission-based healthcare organization, so perhaps I'm not as cynical as some. The folks in HR in my organization work on things like getting employee benefits (we have some great ones), employee discounts at local businesses, and advocating for employees when they have complaints against their manager.

    I built a job application for our Intranet and one of the things people quickly noticed was a difference between how much people were paid in one region compared to another. Some folks in management got pretty excited when the issue was raised, but I think that employees and HR worked things out to equalize salaries for similar positions. It's nice to be able to point to that "mission thing" as opposed to always focusing on the bottom line.

  67. Don't call off the dogs by AvantLegion · · Score: 1
    EA employees have been raped enough by this company to see right through the memo's BS.

    This memo doesn't do anything to change the LAWSUIT that is prompting these reactionary measures.

    Don't call off the dogs. Keep the lawsuit pressing. The heat has yet to be totally turned up, and cracks in the armor are already showing.

  68. Apple news only here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok, how about we talk about how good closed source business models are and how we should promote those companies here.

    I'll do a two page report on the Xbox and everyone else can get a crack at that new walkman that Apple came out with. I hear its really the bees knees and worth every penny.

    Then we can go in details about the perversions of American Apparel founder Dov Charney and feel good about plunking 30$ for a plain AA t-shirt.

  69. I've seen the solution to this problem by gillbates · · Score: 5, Interesting

    at a former employer. Company policy required managers to be present any time their employees were working overtime. As you can guess, we had to get management permission to work overtime, which was granted only when it was really needed. An interesting side effect is that our managers became very good at estimating the time needed for a project, and we were almost never late - with or without overtime.

    --
    The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
  70. Re:leaked? whatever. by Otter · · Score: 1

    I'd take a different view of that sort of thing if it were the norm for a large percentage of workers for their entire careers. But we're talking about (with both game developers and Wall Street trainees) people going into an ultra-competitive situation, knowing full well what it's going to involve and that it's something they're going to do for a few years before moving to a less insane track.

  71. Re:leaked? whatever. by IdleTime · · Score: 1
    "If I complained and didn't work as much, they have 20,000 applicants to fill about 50 positions available."

    That is exacty why regulations on how long an employer can demand that you work. Her comment is a typical example how corporations uses fear to keep employees overworked and underpaid. If anyone had told me that i had to work 7 days a week, 80-100 hour workweeks, I would have broken out in hysterical laughter, turned around and walked out along with a comment in the line of "Fuck you and this shitty company!"

    Other civilized countries have regulations in place that protect the workers from beeing exploited like this. USA - land of the free... LOL Land of the salary slave, is a better moniker.
    --
    If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
  72. Choice is best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The best is to give employees a choice: get a salary pay with no overtime but with stock options and bonuses, OR get an hourly pay with straight overtime but no bonuses. Then they negotiate how many hours an employee wants to work per month, and go from there. The key is to not make any political differences between those on salary and those on hourly, those who work 160 hours a month and those who work 320 (of course, a critical task may be given to the employee who's willing to put in more time to ensure it's done on schedule).

    This way, each employee chooses the form of compensation they're most comfortable with and everybody's happy. The problem is that today, especially in USA, employment laws and the ligitation atmosphere make this choice non-trivial. The employee has to be careful with health benefits, sick-leave, etc., etc.

  73. It's about time-Love Bytes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "It's about time they changed their tune and started paying developers what they're worth."

    What's the going rate for Love?

  74. Making EA pay with help everyone else by vaylen · · Score: 1
    No matter where you work in the video game industry, if EA is forced to pay overtime then the effects will sweep across the video game landscape. Other developers copy what EA does. If they see EA getting away with it, they will try it too.

    BTW, this memo looked as if it were written by Ike Turner asking Tina Turner to stay and that "he'll change, baby".

    --

    1. Re:Making EA pay with help everyone else by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FYI for your sig: It's Gandhi, not Ghandi.

  75. Re:leaked? whatever. by Panaflex · · Score: 1

    That's precisely what is dragging computer science from a Profession to a Job. It's happening across the board in many professions, in the name of competition.

    I'm not opposed to competition - but what is the cost to our society? What kind of productivity can be achieved with longer hours in the long term?

    I think employee turnover in the workplace is driving the cost of the work higher, and the quality is lower. The cost in terms of healthcare and family stability are getting higher. We are constantly chastising those that are qualified but unwilling to sacrifice as "loosers."

    Raising our health costs and burning out our workforces 20 years prematurely will lead to Socialism - exactly the opposite of the intended goal of a more competitive, capitalist workforce.

    This is just my speculation.

    Pan

    --
    I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
  76. Your Hired!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Programmers who want no more compensation than to have their name in the credits are exactly what we are looking for!

    EA-HR Department

  77. Re:leaked? whatever. by RealAlaskan · · Score: 1
    ... they have 20,000 applicants to fill about 50 positions available."

    I'm glad she's happy. I guess she thinks she's lucky to be there, and I might agree with her. To me, though, being a lucky idiot doesn't make up for being an idiot. I'd be a real idiot to put up with a 90 hour week.

    If you want less hours and less stress, there's a lot of options for you out there.

    Some of them pay more per hour actually worked, too.

  78. That thars un-Amarican! by Lysol · · Score: 1

    You're startin to sound like those commie-lovin old Europeean types. Whatch yer step boyah..

    All jokes aside, some people here really think like this. What's a super power to do...?

    Frankly, I've thought about this - being in the tech industry - quite a bit and the only conclusion I've come up with is:

    Innovate

    The biz guys do have one thing right, labor - equal or better than we can provide here - is cheap overseas. Business is all about making money and part of making money is keeping costs in check.

    However, the real problem we have nowadays is that management and execs make wayyyy too much money. It's completely out of balance. Sure, a CEO is great and smart, but I'm sorry, I don't see any need for that guy to make 10x the amount of a programmer with a CS degree. Or, in fact, any programmer who brings some serious contribution to the organization.

    A good documentary to see is The Corporation. Has some good history as to what corps are and why things are they way they are.

  79. Rusty is a heartless Republican by Fwoggus · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    who is somewhat to the right of Mr. Burns. This is just more spin and boulderdash.

    --
    The _best_ 3D pr0n -> http://www.hookup3d.com
  80. More employees eligible for overtime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Two employees is 'more'!"

  81. Insightful! by chriso11 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That is perhaps the best way to describe this situation, and many others.

    It is easy to decry the apparent greed of lawyers, but at the end of the day, sometimes the only thing that you can use is the courts. A lot of times justice isn't served, but often enough that there is hope.

    Mod parent up!

    --
    No, I don't trust in god. He'll have to pay up front, like everybody else.
    1. Re:Insightful! by Kohath · · Score: 1

      It is easy to decry the apparent greed of lawyers, but at the end of the day, sometimes the only thing that you can use is the courts.

      And sometimes you can't get what you want at all and you just have to be a grown-up about it and move on.

      A lot of times justice isn't served, but often enough that there is hope.

      Lawyers and courts create injustice for everyone while pretending to be interested in justice for a few. Justice is no more than a marketing slogan for them.

      Just because someone wins a lottery once in a while doesn't make the tickets a good investment strategy.

    2. Re:Insightful! by chriso11 · · Score: 1

      So you think that these people should just move on? I wish I could have your detachment.

      --
      No, I don't trust in god. He'll have to pay up front, like everybody else.
    3. Re:Insightful! by Kohath · · Score: 1

      It's been 20 years. Do you think it's too soon to move on?

      Maybe they should push their problem onto their decendants so they can still feel bad about it in 150 years (like slavery) or 500 years (Columbus Day)?

    4. Re:Insightful! by teromajusa · · Score: 1

      Well maybe they would if they could see, but many were blinded by the poison gas. Maybe they wouldn't pass on the problem if their children weren't born with birth defects. The water they drink is still contaminated because UC never even cleaned up the mess. Would 20 years be long enough for you to foget about your parents, brothers, sisters, children being killed by such neglicence?

    5. Re:Insightful! by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Are you saying that lawyers can bring back the dead now?

      I know lawyers can get rich pretending to care about people. Are you practicing to become a lawyer?

    6. Re:Insightful! by teromajusa · · Score: 1

      Your assumption that since you don't care about other people nobody else does, is incorrect. And my comment was not regarding your silly posturing about lawyers, but that nonsense about how the people of Bhopal should just get over it.

    7. Re:Insightful! by Kohath · · Score: 1

      that nonsense about how the people of Bhopal should just get over it.

      No one said they should. They might want to try to make the best of things though. Because what's the alternative? Not trying to make the best of things? What if one of them could "get over it" and make a good life for himself? Would you tell him not to?

      I didn't bring it up either. Someone else brought it up for some reason. I just think trying to make the best of things is better than living in the past because something bad happened to you in the past.

      I do care about people. I want them to be better off. I don't want them to stay mired in their victimhood until the court judgement arrives and the lawyers get paid.

    8. Re:Insightful! by chriso11 · · Score: 1

      So, if the people of Bhopal had a chance to get a small little measure of justice by using the courts and lawyers, would that constitute not getting over it?

      Your viewpoints are certainly balanced, but I think that you fail to see how much better off everyone is when companies have to stop and make sure that their products aren't dangerous (as one example).
      I will of course admit that there are absurdities in the legal system, but what human institution doesn't have them?

      --
      No, I don't trust in god. He'll have to pay up front, like everybody else.
    9. Re:Insightful! by m.h.2 · · Score: 1

      "I think that you fail to see how much better off everyone is when companies have to stop and make sure that their products aren't dangerous..."

      With all due respect, companies who have to pay settlements due to class action suits rarely "stop and make sure their products aren't dangerous." AAMOF, as part of the settlements, companies paying them out are often paying their way out of admission that their products are, in fact, unsafe.

      Through the evolution of our "great justice system," we've ended up with a vicious cycle: Companies that (directly or indirectly) injured their customers created the need for restitution. Unfortunately, that opened the door for frivolous suits, indemnity insurance, tort law attorneys, etc. These things are now sadly considered a cost of doing business. Imagine if 1/2 the corporate dollars spent on lawyers and insurance companies were spent on R&D...

    10. Re:Insightful! by PSandusky · · Score: 1

      No one said they should. They might want to try to make the best of things though. Because what's the alternative? Not trying to make the best of things? What if one of them could "get over it" and make a good life for himself? Would you tell him not to?

      Given the nature and number of the injuries involved, would you mind doing a considerably better job of explaining how a survivor of the Bhopal incident would go about "making the best of things though[sic]?" Just how would this person "get over it?"

      I just think trying to make the best of things is better than living in the past because something bad happened to you in the past.

      If we were talking about something like a home invasion or an armed robbery, sure. We're not. We're talking about a toxic release that killed thousands and injured far more. The injuries weren't exactly paper cuts -- don't trivialize them into something people can just "get over."

      Have you given much thought to the possibility that the population affected by the Bhopal emission may have been in a bad way to begin with, after which something this major happened? Were they well off at the outset? I mean, if all they really had to worry about was this toxic cloud...

      I do care about people. I want them to be better off. I don't want them to stay mired in their victimhood until the court judgement arrives and the lawyers get paid.

      So these people's resources are pretty much in the crapper because UC didn't want to build a plant of that particular type on American soil at the time (though I understand there is currently one running in West Virginia), but they should still "get over it," "make the best of things," and keep themselves from being "mired in their victimhood" because, well, the American justice system sucks?

      Your reasoning applies to more localized (perhaps individualized) cases, but trying to wedge something extreme like Bhopal into it makes the whole thing read like some truly arrogant asshatry. Sorry, but it does. Your "caring about people" would do far more good if you took the time to understand their situations and history before dispensing your pearls of wisdom.

      --
      "What's the use in being grown up if you can't be childish sometimes?" --Fourth Doctor, "Robot"
  82. Regulations. by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1

    The first regulations against child labor did not come to pass in 19th century England just because of pressure from below: it was a group of ethically-motivated factory owners themselves that ultimately pushed it through.

    Why?

    Because they wanted to end the practice themselves, but knew that they could not do so unilaterally and remain competitive. Unless the entire industry was required to abide by certain standards of behavior, those who did not would enjoy too great a competitive advantage - their costs would be lower, their goods would be cheaper to produce, their output greater, etc.

    We see this in an industry where EA is acquiring most of its competitors - its unethical practices work, enabling it to keep costs low, forcing down the price for games of that level of complexity.

    There have been too many holes cut in labor regulations in this industry, partially because of skillful scare-mongering by industry lobbyists and partially because of the passivity and timidity of the workers involved. Unionization may help, but I think that regulation is even more important: enforce existing labor laws without the loopholes, and a lot of these problems would go away.

  83. EA believes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    ...we believe that the wage and hour laws have not kept pace with the kind of work done at technology companies...

    Middle Class, this is how your corporate masters view you. UNIONIZE!!!

  84. Overtime Is Not a Panacea by CrankyFool · · Score: 1

    Paying people overtime is not the panacea to all their woes.

    True story: I once worked for a company whose name I won't mention. I won't even mention the particular business they were in, because clearly there are people here smart enough to find me, look at my resume, and extrapolate :)

    They had a bunch of people who were classified as hourly and eligible for overtime, including the bottom-tier IT developers. They also required everyone to work 50 hours a week (ten hours a day). A naive person at this point my say "hey, cool, overtime pay!"

    Except that if you _know_ you're going to be paying someone for ten hours of overtime a week, you can work back from what you want to pay them per year and offer them a new hourly wage.

    In other words, if your average receptionist gets paid $10/hr, his yearly salary would be $20,800. But if you know you want to pay your receptionist $20,800 AND force them to work ten hours of overtime per week, you plug it into your favourite worksheet and find out all you need to do is offer them $7.27/hr -- and then, lo and behold, you end up STILL paying them $20,800/yr, AND forcing them to work overtime.

    It's easy to extrapolate this to a game developer -- pulling numbers out of my ass here for a moment, assuming your game developer gets paid $80K/yr and you want to not pay them more AND make them work 80 hours a week AND give them overtime, you figure out how many hours this ends up translating to (40 + 40*1.5 = 100) in a week, multiply this by the number of weeks (52), giving you 5200 hours in a year, and simply offer the programmer $15.38/hr. The beautiful thing, of course, is that if you _do_ manage to cut down on overtime (as you undoubtedly will once you start paying for it), then you'll end up saving even more -- and the programmer ends up with less than $80K/yr in her pocket.

    So what's the lesson here? Well, my opinion -- and it'll end up being somewhat off-topic for this particular discussion -- is that it's awefully hard to regulate ethics. In the end, you've got to put in a real mess of laws to compensate for the fact that some entities are just going to try to screw everyone they're in business with. In general, with smart enough people (and EA has a bunch of smart people, including in management), whatever laws you'll put in, there'll be a bunch of ways to go around them -- it's the old "technical solution for a social problem" issue. The real answer is to find a company that will treat you fairly and with whom you don't have to have an adversarial relationship. I know that, given this economy and given especially this sector (game development), this is easier said than done. As someone whose partners have had to endure "I'm sorry, I've got a server catastrophe -- you won't see me for three days," I sympathize with those developers and their spouses.

    1. Re:Overtime Is Not a Panacea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's better that the company be honest about the wage paid. If they have to figure out the yearly salary and hours worked, and then offer that wage, that is the market at work -- everyone knows exactly what is going on.

      A huge part of the contention is that EA soft pedals their hours -- "we work long hours but it's fun" type shit, without being specific about what the "long hours" are, even though they know -- and then use false shame, lying, intimidation, threats, etc to keep the employees in a situation that wasn't advertised to them as long as possible.

      If you earn 80k a year and work 80 hours a week, and are paid time and a half for everything over 40 hours, you are being paid $16/hr. If the average is 60 hours a week it's $22/hr. Now, if EA advertised "programm games for $16/hr, 80 hour weeks often required" or for $22/hr with 60 hour average weeks, this would be much less of an issue.

      Oil companies pay higher rates for tough jobs on oil platforms in the gulf, where you might be 3 weeks off shore and 2 weeks onshore. You don't hear as many complaints because the jobs are advertised for what they are, and the people getting into them (and their spouses) know what they are into and plan for it.

      The US has some very harsh jobs. The problem at EA isn't the job; it's the lying.

  85. "leaked" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can this action be even called "leaking"? It's more like "publishing".

  86. Back to the future. by Bozdune · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't support mistreating workers, but that doesn't mean I'm opposed to companies having positions where you work 80-hr week jobs.

    Therefore you support mistreating workers. You can't have it both ways.

    My grandfather worked in the textile mills in Lawrence, MA, circa 1905. You worked every day for 12 hours including Saturday, and you worked hard, and if you were sick and didn't show up or you didn't work as hard as you were supposed to, then they fired you, and there were a zillion immigrants standing outside shivering waiting to take your job.

    You got paid by how much cloth you wove. If your loom broke, you sat there idle, thinking about how you were going to put food on the table that evening if the loom fixer didn't come by in time.

    The foreman would actually walk up and down the line of weavers and put his hand on their backs to see who was sweating and who wasn't, and God forbid you weren't a sweaty bastard like the rest of the slaves, because you were gone instantly.

    I have a problem with this. So should you. There is nothing conceptually different between the Lawrence mills and the environment people are describing at EA. Just wait for EA to open its "Bangalore technology center," if it hasn't done so already and I missed it.

    That's why there are labor laws. That's why unions were formed. If you let businesses make people work like slaves, pretty soon everyone will be working like slaves, and then we'll all be slaves.

    So it has to be stopped, and this HR asshole can whine all he wants about EA "discovering" that it is understaffing its projects and overworking its employees (after developing how many games, now? Come on. What a crock of shit). Anyone who didn't know whose side HR is on should read this guy's memo carefully. He promises nothing. He pretends surprise. He cajoles. He soothes. He's worried about the process. He's got great ideas for the future. The labor laws on the books are obsolete, and just don't apply to EA or other high tech jobs. Because high tech "creative" people are special. They need to work 80 hours a week. California should recognize this. It's a good thing, not a bad thing.

    Yeah right. The guy makes me puke, as does every other HR asshole I've ever worked with, both in senior management and as a programming grunt.

    1. Re:Back to the future. by braeburn · · Score: 1

      Your analogy is flawed.

      These are not unskilled workers looking to take whatever work they can to feed their family. I assume to get a programming job at EA you at least have to have a college degree in Computer Science or something similar. These kids are not huddled outside the building in the rain hoping the foreman will come out and pick a few of them up so they can buy their kids some soup to eat.

      I don't agree with EA's position, but I have seen the "coal miner" argument used in this debate too much. The situations are not analogous.

    2. Re:Back to the future. by networkBoy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Understanding HR:

      HR operates on a set of three principals not unlike those of Asimov's 3 Laws of Robotics.

      1) HR must protect the company / corporate entity at all costs.
      2) HR must protect the executives & managers of a company (in order of seniority) unless that conflicts with law 1.
      3) HR must protect the companies employees unless that conflicts with law 1 or 2.

      Hope this helps some of you out there, as I learned this from personal experience.
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    3. Re:Back to the future. by Ovidius · · Score: 2, Informative

      It doesn't matter how skilled you are as a laborer if there are a great many more laborers who are willing and able to do your job. Unskilled laborers are always in that situation, but if you are a game developer or investment banker, you still face the same buyers market as people with the skills to be hired are pouring out colleges much faster than they are being absorbed by the jobs market. So to that extent, the analogy to coal mining or textiles holds.

      It's not like you could feed your family just by giving up on skilled labor and going to work in the "coal mines" of unskilled labor (fast food, I guess)! Then you'd be competing in an even larger pool of applicants.

      Just because it's a cliche doesn't make it invalid. Coal miners are symbolic of a specific upheaval in labor-capital relations that was a part of industrial revolution. We're living through a new revolution now, one that's faster and global. So far, workers are losing, and if problems like this don't get solved, you should expect another upheaval that makes the wildcat cole miner strikes look like a tea party.

    4. Re:Back to the future. by badmammajamma · · Score: 1

      Well said. :)

      --
      Any man who afflicts the human race with ideas must be prepared to see them misunderstood. -- H. L. Mencken
    5. Re:Back to the future. by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      It does matter how skilled you are because the benefit you bring to the company isn't quantitative. If your skills are a commodity, that's your problem. Don't fuck it up for me with your unions.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    6. Re:Back to the future. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really hope you enjoy your life from about age 40 and onward. We'll see how shit-hot you are then, toughguy.

    7. Re:Back to the future. by mikaelhg · · Score: 1

      I'm constantly amazed about how people in the US seem to think that stating obvious facts like this is somehow radical. Of course, I've lived most of my life in a country where unions are the norm, and people seem to be getting on quite nicely. Then again, we haven't had massive anti-worker propaganda targeted against our unions for decades - they tried this here as well, but were laughed off the stage, probably because we don't have a ridiculous Horatio Alger myth here.

    8. Re:Back to the future. by whiny · · Score: 1

      So it has to be stopped, and this HR asshole can whine all he wants about EA "discovering" that it is understaffing its projects and overworking its employees (after developing how many games, now? Come on. What a crock of shit). Anyone who didn't know whose side HR is on should read this guy's memo carefully. Etc.

      So well put. If I had 100 mod points I'd give you all of them. I don't know how these doublespeaking HR types look themselves in the mirror, ever.

    9. Re:Back to the future. by Triskele · · Score: 1
      It's not just the US - all I can say is likely you. Thanks in part to the arrival of US corporations but far more to the inspiration of British managers by their US counterparts we suffered a terrible blow to unions in the UK in the 80s from which we have still not recovered.

      What I really don't get is this common argument that 'creative' and other skilled workers don't need the defense of unions yet one of the most unionised industries in the US is film and TV - you can't do anything in Hollywood without being part of a union (ok the posh name for the stars is a guild, but same thing).

      --

      --
      USA: home of the world's largest terrorist training camp.

    10. Re:Back to the future. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, rule #3 is "HR must be a shill for a soon to be bankrupt mutual funds company in Massachusetts - the hell with employees"

    11. Re:Back to the future. by wintermute1000 · · Score: 1

      Thank you. I just ran out of mod points, but I really appreciated this post, and I wanted to let you know. It drives me mad that there's always the /. cowboy mentality voice of "We don't need unions". We need worldwide fucking unions that take care of workers because companies never, ever will and individual workers are too afraid and too insignificant to do it all alone.

      We're in a bad way as a society when workers cease to recognize the necessity of collective action.

    12. Re:Back to the future. by Travoltus · · Score: 1

      Show me one job where the skillset isn't a commodity.

      --
      --- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
    13. Re:Back to the future. by lew3004 · · Score: 1

      Well said

      --
      I still can't get the screen shots of Castle Wolfenstein for the Apple IIe out of my head.
    14. Re:Back to the future. by k8to · · Score: 1

      I'd say HR protects HR at level 0, but otherwise it jives with my experiences.

      --
      -josh
    15. Re:Back to the future. by Lost+Race · · Score: 1
      My grandfather worked in the textile mills in Lawrence, MA, circa 1905. You worked every day for 12 hours including Saturday, and you worked hard, and if you were sick and didn't show up or you didn't work as hard as you were supposed to, then they fired you, and there were a zillion immigrants standing outside shivering waiting to take your job.
      Aye, all this while we were living in a shoe box in middle of t'road and eating a handfuls of cold gravel for breakfast.

      Try telling that to kids nowadays tho', they won't believe you!

  87. My own spin on selected content of the memo... by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 1
    "We are looking at reclassifying some jobs to overtime eligible in the new Fiscal Year," Reuff informs staff in the memo. "We have resisted this in the past, not because we don't want to pay overtime, but because we believe that the wage and hour laws have not kept pace with the kind of work done at technology companies, the kind of employees those companies attract and the kind of compensation packages their employees prefer." "We consider our artists to be creative people and our engineers to be skilled professionals who relish flexibility but others use the outdated wage and hour laws to argue in favor of a workforce that is paid hourly like more traditional industries and conforming to set schedules," he continues. "But we can't wait for the legislative process to catch up so we're forced to look at making some changes to exempt and non-exempt classifications."
    My own translation: Because the the law did not said we have to, we did not feel compelled to do. In the interest of minimizing legal liabilities, we will, only because our hands were forced by lawyers and bad press.
    --
    ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
  88. Yes, it is as a matter of fact. by TiggertheMad · · Score: 1

    SCO called, they want their space back

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
  89. It's going to happen. by NetNinja · · Score: 1

    The end result will be taking the gamming industry and moving it to India.

    So evenutally the entire tech industry will be based in India.

    Didn't Henry Ford increase his employees wages so that they could buy his cars?

    In this case, it doesn't matter where products are manufactured as long as the share holders get a better than 10% return on thier invesment.

    So when does this merry go-round eventually come to a crashing halt?

  90. Key paragraph diassembled. by hey! · · Score: 5, Interesting

    We are looking at reclassifying some jobs to overtime eligible in the new Fiscal Year. We have resisted this in the past, not because we don't want to pay overtime, but because we believe that the wage and hour laws have not kept pace with the kind of work done at technology companies, the kind of employees those companies attract and the kind of compensation packages their employees prefer. We consider our artists to be "creative" people and our engineers to be "skilled" professionals who relish flexibility but others use the outdated wage and hour laws to argue in favor of a workforce that is paid hourly like more traditional industries and conforming to set schedules. But we can't wait for the legislative process to catch up so we're forced to look at making some changes to exempt and non-exempt classifications beginning in April.


    We are looking at reclassifying some jobs to overtime eligible in the new Fiscal Year.

    We have no concrete plans to do anything at this time, but we do plan to talk among ourselves about it, and we're making sure you know we're planning on talking about it so that your hopes are raised without any actual promises of anybody getting overtime pay.

    We have resisted this in the past, not because we don't want to pay overtime,

    Government regulators held a gun to our head and told us we couldn't even though we really, really wanted to.

    but because we believe that the wage and hour laws have not kept pace with the kind of work done at technology companies

    OK, even you won't buy something that stupid. The truth is we knowingly broke the law because we thought it should not apply to us.

    the kind of employees those companies attract and the kind of compensation packages their employees prefer

    We hire young naive idealists and milk them for all they are worth. When they wise up, well, there's a sucker born every minute.

    We consider our artists to be "creative" people and our engineers to be "skilled" professionals who relish flexibility

    Clarification: by "flexibility" we don't mean that you will get to choose when to work -- it means that we know you value management's flexibility to choose for you.

    but others use the outdated wage and hour laws to argue in favor of a workforce that is paid hourly like more traditional industries and conforming to set schedules.

    We haven't figured out how to control project schedules. Learning how to do this is harder than getting the laws changed so we can put the onus for delivering poorly planned projects on you

    ...

    OK, I'm not a huge fan of unions, but they're looking better every minute.
    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:Key paragraph diassembled. by Mr.123 · · Score: 1
      We are looking at reclassifying some jobs to overtime eligible in the new Fiscal Year.

      What our company did was 'reclassify' these employees to be paid by the hour. They are also taken out of the bonus pool. So what ends up happening is even if paid by the hour you have to work just as many hours as a salaried employee that is part of the bonus pool to make equal amount of money. Same shit, same hours, different name.

    2. Re:Key paragraph diassembled. by MrBigInThePants · · Score: 1

      You forgot:

      but others use the outdated wage and hour laws to argue in favor of a workforce that is paid hourly like more traditional industries and conforming to set schedules.

      During our excessively long crunch times, you will be working so many hours you will have no free time. This will make your work hours as flexible as a rod of diamond.
      You will have the luxury of deciding whether you want your 12 hour shift to start at 8am, or 9am.

  91. Why not a Union? by spicydragonz · · Score: 1

    It seems that EA is producing an entertainment type product. Perhaps an entertainment union will help organize the employees. I for one am boycotting EA games until I hear that they treat their employees better. I saw that URBZ game and almost puked to think how poorly EA treated their employees.

  92. Marx's Labor Theory of Value by adjwilli · · Score: 3, Interesting

    For those who don't know - and for those that do, here's a refresher: Marx's Labor Theory of Value, though much critiqued in recent times, purports the value of product is a product of the various types of labor and resources that go into producing it. Typically, if one wants to lower the value of that product to make it more competitive, labor must be "squeezed". For more information, and a bit more lengthy description, click here. In relation to the issues of EA, as if EA were the only tech company with practices like these, it is obvious that programmers are the labor being squeezed. What makes the case interesting however is that as the economy becomes more competitive sections of labor that formerly considered themselves insulated from the squeeze are now feeling it. In many industries, the value of products reflects more the marketing costs than the actual production costs. I'm not sure about the specifics of EA games, but I'm willing to wager that they spend more money on marketing (NFL endorsements, advertising, packaging, etc.) than paying their developers and production staff. In the 1990's, we were warned about this happening. As more kids were guided into technology jobs - being told it's the way of the future - some bright individuals saw that eventually the high demand would bottom out. We still need programmers today, that's for sure, but just not at the incredible rate we did in say 1995. We have too many programmers for them to be a valuable labor commodity any more. Sorry, that's the truth. Next in line though to lose the value of their labor is likely to be the marketing guys. Not the football players or NFL execs, but the guys who decide which football players and what color to use on the damn box. Business schools are booming with students looking to fill these positions. Students enrolling in CS classes fortunately has leveled off, but students enrolling in business classes continues to climb. After all, you can't make much money doing CS, philosophy, psychology, or very many other disciplines. With marketing guys and business guys starting to be squeezed as well, unless something can be done to unite all labor, we will continue to see wealth concentrated in fewer and fewer individuals. In the US, the middle class is shrinking. Not because they are being paid less outright, but because there are fewer positions that pay what they should and the pay rates do not always reflect inflation and the pressing tax burden. Whether we like it or not, unless the labor movement can be revived, the average man will continue to see less value for his toil. EA is just one small example. In the immortal words of Malcolm X and many before him: "It's the chicken coming home to roost." Perhaps if the fortunate and privileged helped labor back in the past, their could it could have been a chickening coming home to roast instead.

  93. I'm not holding my beath by battlemarch · · Score: 4, Insightful
    *cough* bullshit *cough*
    We are looking at reclassifying some jobs to overtime eligible in the new Fiscal Year. We have resisted this in the past, not because we don't want to pay overtime, but because we believe that the wage and hour laws have not kept pace with the kind of work done at technology companies, the kind of employees those companies attract and the kind of compensation packages their employees prefer. We consider our artists to be "creative" people and our engineers to be "skilled" professionals who relish flexibility but others use the outdated wage and hour laws to argue in favor of a workforce that is paid hourly like more traditional industries and conforming to set schedules. But we can't wait for the legislative process to catch up so we're forced to look at making some changes to exempt and non-exempt classifications beginning in April.
    I strongly suggest that they pick up a copy of The Employer's Legal Handbook, Fifth Edition. Actually, I suggest that some of the employees do that also.

    The problem isn't if employees are exempt or not but about EA abusing them; it appears to be about EA not compensating their employees fairly and demanding insane work weeks.

    Bill
    --
    Oh, come, come, come. Without a monster or two, it's hardly a quest... merely a gaggle of friends wandering about. - Owl
    1. Re:I'm not holding my beath by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Remember that the only thing separating programmers from total exploitation at this point are the California rules governing overtime. The Bush Administration's regulatory changes that went into effect at Labor this August effectively removed any federal claim to overtime on the part of programmers. (And short order cooks, and teachers, and ... well, you get the idea.)

      I think we might see an exodus of EA from California to Dixie before too long.

      Cheers,
      -tWB

  94. Agreed! by EXTomar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The problem isn't overtime. The problem is not getting paid for it. If workers were constantly getting paid 1.5x for each hour over 40 a week the higher ups in EA would be fixing their scheduling and manpower shortages in a hurry. As it stands they are under no obligation to pay any more for 35 hours a week than 95 hours a week so why not squeeze as many hours as they can?

    The reward for working hard should be compsensation not more work. If the higher ups aren't willing to be liberial with "comp time" or project bonuses then expect some unhappy workers. Killing morale does not help the company at all.

    1. Re:Agreed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the purpose of overtime is not to reward the workers, it's to punish the employer for making their workers work more than 40 hours a week

  95. Cynical hat on by TiggertheMad · · Score: 2, Interesting

    EA Games is sure a bunch of nice, and mis-understood people. The president is a great guy, and it has only now come to his attention that there are massive and (possible illegal?) employee exploitation practices going on at his company. But since he is such a great person and he knows about the problem now, he will get to the bottom of things, and remove the evil middle managers that implimented such policies.

    While his statements aren't this silly, I really doubt that he was unaware of the problem. This seems like a spin move to disrupt employee solidarity and the possible class action lawsuit that is being organized. It's exactly what I would do to try to drive a pre-emptive wedge in their ranks and avoid a costly lawsuit.

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
  96. Re: EA cares? Who does? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hah...like a boycot meant anything. I would think it's more that thier last money maker was Diablo 2 expansion pack which at least to me was a pretty piss poor expansion pack for a barely revamped game that I call more of an expansion pack at full game price with some pretty movies inbetween missions. But now they have WOW. Time will tell if it bombs too since they haven't had an original idea in years (hell they barely made it out alive with Starcraft over the Alien's and Preditor similarity).

  97. How about capping it at 40 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    with maybe a few weeks a year of up to 60 hours with paid overtime?

    If we supposedly live in the most prosperous nation on earth why do we insist on treating ourselves like animals?

    1. Re:How about capping it at 40 by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      We're not treating ourselves this way, we're treating others this way. Nobody is sking their fellow employees to work extra, management is. It's a fine distinction, but significant. Those who make money by skimming a bit off the top of someone else's work are forcing the issue. The more layers of skimming there are, the more impersonal the request becomes. I'll bet you have to go at least 5 levels down in a company like EA to get to someone who's primary task involves production of code on a daily basis. The four levels above are skimmers. Their functions may be necessary to make the team cohesive, but they're still skimmers, and the more hours the lower levels work, the more skimming can be done.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    2. Re:How about capping it at 40 by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      Haven't you ever stayed around at the office, with nothing much to do, but not leaving because nobody else is leaving yet? In a sense, your coworkers are asking you to work longer hours, by the implied guilt -- we're all suffering here so why aren't you? It's yet another trick in the management portfolio -- let the workers keep each other in line. Yet another reason unions were invented ... so that energy can be channeled into having workers work with each other, rather than against.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    3. Re:How about capping it at 40 by Overzeetop · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hmmm...No. I don't suscribe to all that "stay late to look good" crap. If my job is done, or at least on schedule, I'm out of the office.

      Now, if I'm underutilized in a small group, I will always ask if I can help out, and will gladly pitch in to get things done. But don't expect to see me reading /. and hitting alt-tab back to an application everytime someone walks by at 9pm just 'cause someone else is on a deadline.

      (I should be speaking in past tense, as I work for myself now. When I'm busy, I work late. When I'm not, I go home and play with my kid.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  98. Did anyone else catch this? by LBt1st · · Score: 1

    "But we can't wait for the legislative process to catch up so we're forced to look at making some changes to exempt and non-exempt classifications beginning in April."

    WTF? Sounds like more EA promises. "It'll be okay guys, we just have to make it till April!"... Then April comes along finally but there's a delay or some other made up BS.

    -Kevin Reems

    1. Re:Did anyone else catch this? by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Sounds more like they want it to coincide with the next fiscal year.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    2. Re:Did anyone else catch this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it's illegal, they should stop now. They have just proved that they knew about the practices and decided to continue them for a period.

      If it is simply bad policy, then what's the fiscal year got to do with it ? Either they can run a company on good employment practices and make their numbers, or they can't. Why wait till next period to find out ?

      The fact is, if it's a good idea in April, it's a good idea now. The fact that they push it off till April is just proof that they don't intend to do it.

      Unless they plan to hire a bunch of people between now and then.

    3. Re:Did anyone else catch this? by bladesjester · · Score: 1

      Waiting until the next fiscal year is a nice cover. Yes, it would make some of the paperwork involved in making the changes a bit easier.

      Chances are, however, that they are hoping that by April things will have blown over and they can go back to buisness as usual. People tend to have very short memories for things which do not impact them directly (and for a lot of things that do).

      --
      Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
  99. Re: EA cares? Who does? by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 1

    You overestimate our importance. The vast majority of game buyers don't read Slashdot and probably couldn't even spell the URL.

    A Slashdot boycott of EA would last until their next release, then everyone would just lap it up like always.

  100. Mod parent up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mod parent up. Of course, though, we are animals. But we don't treat ourselves as well as dolphins - and nowhere near as well as bonobos. Upshot is that the long-hour, being seen paradigm is a cancer on society.

  101. You missed one option.... by endoboy · · Score: 1

    accomplish more in 2 hours than the next guy does all day, and then spend the rest of the day posting to /.

    poof--instant normalization of productivity

  102. Re: EA cares? Who does? by SpecBear · · Score: 2, Funny

    I've got a better idea then: Slashdot's Daily Electronic Arts Appreciation Feature. Every day, Slashdot posts a link to some announcement, screenshot, or demo on the EA web site to show our appreciation for all the blood, sweat, and tears EA employees put into their work. When their employees cease producing an extraordinary amount of blood swat and tears, we'll stop Appreciating them.

  103. I'm the guy that is 5x more productive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And either I have to sit around all day to make my mndatory 8 hours or I have to be punished and have to work harder than everyone else.

    I'd love it if I could just do by 2 hours a day (equivalent to 8 for most) and bloody well go home.

  104. It's mobility, not value by hey! · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm not too sure about your analysis. You may be right in that we have too many programmers now, although by the labor theory of value that means that the EA products aren't worth as much as they were. The labor theory of values is more prescriptive than descriptive in any case. A different perspective is needed to look at these situations.

    I'd say this: the reason that unfair labor practices are possible is that capital is inherently more mobile than labor. It's the disparity in mobility that creates issues. Furthermore I can day trade my capital from one end of the globe to another if I wish with very little disruption, but moving my labor to the next state once a year is hugely disruptive.

    Discounting social impact, labor is devalued when it is moved around. If I invest my money in company A, change my mind and invest in company B a month later, and then a month later invest in company C, nobody looks askance at my capital. My buck is as green as anyone else's. If I move my labor around, things are quite different, and I probably want to hide this on my resume.

    Another example is environmental impact. I can operate a gold mine, take my profits out, contaminate everything in sight with arsenic and then move my capital out before the shit hits the fan. If the net prsent value of the increased income generation I get exceeds the cost of liquidating my company, it's economically rational to do so.

    Yet another example is the difference between big capital and small capital. A half million dollar business (say an auto body shop) tends to be tied to a particular location. It can't pick up and move across the world. A billion dollar business can. Walmart had a strategy that exploited this throughout the 90s. Move the big box into town, kill the mom and pops, close the store and force everybody to drive to a megabox in the next county.

    States also exploit this differential when they give tax incentives to big employers. Small businesses don't get them, in effect tax burden is shifted to the guys who can't move away.

    Capital needs mobility to operate efficiently. However, efficient movement of capital is not the only value in society, which is why some reasonable level of regulation is needed for labor and environmental practices.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  105. Re:So where's the apology? The backpay? by CrosseyedPainless · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Say, genius, how can you verify what someone says they're going to do?

  106. Re:HR looking out for Employees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh come on! HR departments manage the resource of humans. That's not to say that they are there to piss off the plebes, but HR's loyalty is to the company not the employee.

  107. I work down the street from an EA building... by dan_sdot · · Score: 1

    I work down the street from an EA building and I can't believe those lucky jerks. They have a mini soccer field and a basketball field next to their little building (which is always being used). I can see a gym inside the building. I often see them dressed up as knights doing sword battles.
    The only thing I have not yet seen is any work getting done. These guys have no right to complain. If they don't like it that much, I am willing to trade jobs with them.

    1. Re:I work down the street from an EA building... by TheHawke · · Score: 1

      Those fields are used for mockups and to practice moves that they have to program into the games.

      Instead of Rest and Relaxation, it's Work and Work some more.

      --
      First rule of holes; When in one, stop digging.
    2. Re:I work down the street from an EA building... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that it's not the studio that does sports titles...

      And what's with the guys fighting with the swords and shields on Wednesdays?

    3. Re:I work down the street from an EA building... by spectecjr · · Score: 1

      And what's with the guys fighting with the swords and shields on Wednesdays?

      It's probably an SCA group borrowing the field - nothing to do with EA.

      --
      Coming soon - pyrogyra
    4. Re:I work down the street from an EA building... by dan_sdot · · Score: 1
      Those fields are used for mockups and to practice moves that they have to program into the games.
      No way. These are uncoordinated nerds doing contests with a bunch of people standing around cheering. Their movements with the swords and stuff look totally unnatural. Its just another "tournament." They have tournaments like this alot, sometime soccer, sometimes basketball, etc...
    5. Re:I work down the street from an EA building... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're doing it during their lunch hour (and ONLY then), jackass. How do I know? I work there. And they're not "dressed up" as knights -- they're dressed in sweats and work out clothes. It's a form of martial art that uses medieval broadswords and the like to fight with. Sure it looks lame as hell, but it's fun and a great workout.

      As for the gym and soccer field -- what good does it to do have them if you can't use them? We're not "allowed" to use them during crunch time. They're just extra perks they show you during the hiring process to reel you in, but that you rarely get the chance to use.

    6. Re:I work down the street from an EA building... by dan_sdot · · Score: 1

      Don't get me wrong, I think that it's great that you guys do these things and have these things.
      I'm not hosing you for having these things.
      I just think that its not fair to talk about EA like it treats its employees like crap. You guys have alot of fun things provided that most other jobs DON'T offer.
      The fact is sometimes for high paying or highly desired jobs (I would love to be a game programmer, and I know there are alot of people like me out there) you have to work a little harder.

  108. gov't doesn't prevent EA from being nice by mgkimsal2 · · Score: 1

    I"m not sure that much has been 'distorted'. If you're to believe the reports from the workers at EA, even something as basic as comp time has been eliminated.

    Forget the stock options and hourly wage stuff. If I have to work 70 hours a week for 3 months straight, could I not get a few extra weeks paid time off when the crunch is done? Again, per EA accounts, they get shifted from one extended crunch project to the next with no time off in between. You don't *need* labor laws and hourly wage calculations to know that the right thing to do would be to let people rest up, if only so they perform better on the next spurt of 3 months/70hours a week.

    1. Re:gov't doesn't prevent EA from being nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My company doesn't pay me any overtime. So I come in at 8:00 and leave at 5:00. If they tried to force me to work overtime without any compensation, they might succeed in the short-run, but I'd just change jobs in the long-run.

      So, if all the allegations against EA are true, the question isn't, "What's wrong with EA?", the question is, "What's wrong with their employees?" This isn't a matter of right and wrong, it's a matter of supply and demand. If the government really doesn't play a role here, then I say "good"...let's keep it that way.

  109. translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I'm really sorry you idiots are pissing and moaning. You made me look bad to the world. Now I have to quiet you guys down, so that I can sell of all my shares and leave this god forsaken place.

    You get to make games, isn't that enough. You should be glad to work 100hr/week. You know how many starving children in Africa and India would take your job in a heart beat? Well not my heart, since it's a chunk of coal. You better get back to work or I'll fire all you whining cry babies.

    I think the employees should team up and leave. This way, they can start their own damn company.

    1. Re:translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least with government contractors, one can guarantee the product will never be done by non-US employees.

  110. A good way to bring the heat on for EA by THCLothar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Maybe it might be beneficial for some of us and/or all of us to give investor relations at EA a call. Maybe ask them how this negative press is going to effect their sales and the current stock prices. and wouldn't you know they have a website. http://investor.ea.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=88189&p=iro l-contact enjoy, Lothar

    --
    snatch the pebble from my hand grasshopper........
  111. Good PR for the Dev side of things, but... by Alkaiser · · Score: 1

    The most telling part of that memo from a gamer's standpoint:

    "The Studios will be moving to a consistent application of the Renderware Platform. We bought Criterion because we believe there is no better technology platform (25% of all games in our industry are being built on RW). Having a standardized technology approach will save us from having to re-invent the wheel over and over. It will save time and effort we used to spend navigating technology issues."

    Oh BOY! Now EA games will be EVEN MORE SIMILAR than ever before!!! The message to the devs is "Hey, look, you get to spend less time on every game, because we're going to make a templater for everything."

    The message to gamers: "We're making everything, similar and cheaper, and there will be little to no innovation. We will continue to charge you full price, however, becuase what you are actually buying is the quality of EA's brand name."

    This holiday season, I'm calling for a boycott of EA products. If someone on your list wants a basketball game for their console, buy them ESPN 2K5. It's HALF the price of NBA Live 2005, and it's BETTER. Same goes for the NFL, NCAA and titles. If you want things to change, you gotta hit people in the pocketbook.

    If EA's answer to keeping developers happier is making the games EVEN WORSE so they can spit them out at the same pace, I'm making this boycott permanent.

    --
    Netjak.com independent reviews of domestic & import video ga
    1. Re:Good PR for the Dev side of things, but... by Kombat · · Score: 1

      The message to gamers: "We're making everything, similar and cheaper, and there will be little to no innovation. We will continue to charge you full price,"

      Uh.... how is this any different from what's been happening over the past decade? What's to innovative about Halo 2 that wasn't already created in Halo 1, Quake 1, 2, 3, Doom, Duke Nukem, Battlefield 1942, Counterstrike, or any other FPS? Oh but that's right, there's that whole field of innovative sports games that all look the same (except the hockey net is replaced with an upright goal post, and the "ice" changes to a football field. Of course, we can't forget the wild innovation in Warcraft, Warcraft 2, Warcraft 3, Diablo, Diablo 2, and Starcraft (again, which all look the same).

      When's the last time a really new, refreshing model for a game came onto the scene? All gaming companies are already producing cookie-cutter, templated FPS games and sports variants. Innovation in game design ended long ago. Competition is fierce. There's no room for innovation if you want to be profitable. Last I heard there were only 2 gaming companies in the whole industry who were actually turning a profit (EA and Blizzard). Everyone else, if they have any prayer of making money, will just stick to the tried-and-true FPS template that's guaranteed to at least break even.

      --
      Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
    2. Re:Good PR for the Dev side of things, but... by Alkaiser · · Score: 1

      Because the industry is doing it on one level, and then EA is annoucing they're taking cookie cutter to new extreme heights.

      It's not different in anything except for terms of scale. I'm pretty sure more than 2 companies are turning a profit. How is Sony NOT making money at this point?

      I'm all for original games and game content. I still feel Katamari Damacy is probably the best game I've played all year. So it makes me kind of ticked when a big company comes out and basically says, "Look! EXTREME Parity! Enjoy!"

      --
      Netjak.com independent reviews of domestic & import video ga
    3. Re:Good PR for the Dev side of things, but... by ahmusch · · Score: 1
      Oh but that's right, there's that whole field of innovative sports games that all look the same (except the hockey net is replaced with an upright goal post, and the "ice" changes to a football field.


      Yeah, I got so pissed off yesterday when playing Madden that I got called for a two-line pass that my Xbox also gave me a technical foul.

      Thankfully, I managed to pull out the victory in extra innings. It was the World Cup Finals, after all.
    4. Re:Good PR for the Dev side of things, but... by cduffy · · Score: 1
      When the time is available, I've been playing:
      • Adventure games and RPGs from the 90s and late 80s
      • Modern interactive fiction
      Both of these do much better at plot, story and humor than what's coming out today.
    5. Re:Good PR for the Dev side of things, but... by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Last I heard there were only 2 gaming companies in the whole industry who were actually turning a profit (EA and Blizzard).

      What about Sony's game division, nintendo, and the myriad independents?

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
  112. Haha yeah right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Conveniently "leaked memo" my ass.
    This is so obviously written with the intent to be distributed on sites such as slashdot.

    The game is you write this, "leak" it out to many popular tech/biz news sites who pick it up, then the general idea is your image seems to show "you care about your employees" after all.

    I will put money on the fact that 5 years from now EA's hiring/firing/burn out policies for employees with their college recruitiment EA faires and all that remain identical to how they were a month ago. This is simply a save face PR technique and I am expecting more of this convenient leaks or similiar items to show up in the next few months.

    This is a classic textbook strategy straight from Political Strategies of Domestic Relations, and when your as big as EA, you use the same political strategies as goverments.

    1. Re:Haha yeah right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, they are just worried about the Christmas shopping season.

      Remember folks, don't buy anything made by EA until it is in the $10 bargin bin.

  113. don't hate the player, hate the game company. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if it's true that we are responsible for our quality of life, there never would have been a labor movement -- because people chose to die in coal mines, children chose to work adult hours instead of attending school, people chose to be exploited. while enjoying your weekend, remember that someone's back had to be broken for you to get it.

    and oh what fun-filled, satisfying work do you do, crank? does it require much skill? a lot of hours? at least a four-year degree? does it pay well?

  114. Thats It time for Zen. by St.Anne · · Score: 1

    Out comes my 2600. Hours of fun being the square guy in Adventure.

  115. Re:Internal e-mails are usually written to be publ by tc · · Score: 1
    Often HR is looking out for employes.

    This is completely incorrect. The purpose served by the HR department in any large corporation is to protect the company from its employees. Now, sometimes this goal is best served by preventing abuses which may lead to lawsuits, but never forget that at core, HR is there to serve the company not the employees.

  116. Here's what I think should be done by melted · · Score: 1

    40 hour work weeks (36, like in France, would be even better), and no "ifs" and "buts". Mandatory for every hi-tech company in the US. Severely punishable if not implemented.

  117. Flexibility by WombatDeath · · Score: 1

    "We consider our artists to be "creative" people and our engineers to be "skilled" professionals who relish flexibility"

    Whenever I read something like this I can't help wondering who the author thinks he's going to convince. Being forced to work 80 hours a week, for weeks or even months at a time, does not provide me with flexibility to be relished. Flexibility is being given the choice to work those extra hours, if I want to, and get compensated in time and/or money at a later date.

    Or perhaps he was just making an irrelevant observation and missed a bit off the end:

    "We consider our artists to be "creative" people and our engineers to be "skilled" professionals who relish flexibility. However, we're not going to give it to them."

    Or maybe even:

    "We consider our artists to be "creative" people and our engineers to be "skilled" professionals who relish the flexibility granted to their managers to make them work double time for no extra pay".

    Really, though, who's his intended audience? A particularly demented judge? Anyone who understands IT or the business universe in general knows that this is verbal diarrhoea. I doubt that his employees will be saying "What, I'm flexible? Well, fuck me; I never realised that! No problems here, then."

  118. Re:leaked? whatever. by YU+Nicks+NE+Way · · Score: 1
    Working 80 hours a week is detrimental to your health
    That's a common misconception.

    A worker who puts in 80 hours a week under duress is going to suffer terrible harm from retaining the job. That case doesn't always apply. A worker putting 80 hours a week because the work is "wonderful, but stressful" generally won't. That worker is being paid to have fun at work -- not having work extorted from him or her.

    (That doesn't mean that workaholics won't also suffer harm, but only that they don't suffer the same kind of harm. Workaholics are at greater risk of family problems and the associated health threats due to those, as well as to rapid declines after retirement. They do pay a price; it's just different.)

    We have overtime laws to protect both sets of workers. If an employer abuses its position to extort its workers as EA has, then it should cost the employer money. Period. There's no justification for any excuses.
  119. I swear this memo was written by my bank CEO by Torontoman · · Score: 2, Funny

    I used to work for a bank - and we'd hear 10 times per year memos that said all of this: We were doing such a great job and had to try harder because we weren't doing a great job and the bank was lagging and earnings were now up 25% to $1Billion and why we were doing so good and our bonus was cut.

    1. Re:I swear this memo was written by my bank CEO by lew3004 · · Score: 1

      SO CALL THEM ON IT

      --
      I still can't get the screen shots of Castle Wolfenstein for the Apple IIe out of my head.
  120. a recent ad at craigslist.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    ------ cut here ------- cut here -------

    I Need a Web Bot / Form Automation / Web Site Tracking Expert

    Reply to: anon-51022854@craigslist.org

    Date: 2004-12-03, 7:18AM PST

    If you are very good at this type of thing I have a job for you. I need a program that will monitor multiple web pages of the same format. When a button presents itself, I need it "pressed" immediately and I need to be alerted with a sound. This is the minimum I need. We can talk about more automation. I have had a few programmers who were VERY confident to begin with, fail at this job. I need somebody who can set this up for me quick and at a competetive rate. If this is you, email me. If you are not an expert, forget it!

    ------ cut here ------- cut here -------

    no comment is necessary

  121. This will not pass by Overzeetop · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Geez, I' ve got to get some work done, but this caught my eye and I just can't let this PR piece go uncommented:

    The last few weeks of reading blogs and the media about EA culture and work practices have not been easy. I know personally how hard it is when so much of the news seems negative.

    Yeah, cause it means that HR has to put in our full 40 hours just to answer all the emails from you and the boss about how we're not keeping a better lid on this stuff.

    We have purposefully not responded to web logs and the media because the best way to communicate is directly with you, our team members. ...through carefully crafted PR "leaks"

    As much as I dont like whats been said about our company and our industry, I recognize that at the heart of the matter is a core truth: the work is getting harder, the tasks are more complex and the hours needed to accomplish them have become a burden. We havent yet cracked the code on how to fully minimize the crunches in the development and production process.

    Okay, lets stop right here. This is a company with vast resources and development history. They can't get one guy to go back and look at the last few years and tell them how many man-hours it's going to take to develop the next game? I'm not talking down to the minute - they're clearly under-staffed by about 40-70% if the reports are true. You can't get me a WAG within 10% and hire-up? I call bullshit in the biggest way. Only the most incompetent manager would underestimate time this badly when they have a known track record. ...there are things we just need to fix. And the solutions dont apply to just our studios the people who market, sell, distribute and support the great games that our Studios create, all share a demanding workload.

    Classic avoidance of the issue by peer pressure. "Everybody else is working overtime, it's the industry standard...get used to it." It's the standard because nobody is willing stand up and put a stop to the pre-industrial-revolution working conditions.

    Three weeks ago we issued our bi-annual Talk Back Survey and more than 80 percent of you participated much higher than the norm for a company our size. That tells me you care and are committed to making EA better.

    Human nature predicts that the majority of people will only speak up when they are dissatified, and want change. If things are going well, there's no need to cause a commotion. Looking at the turn out in elections is a prime example of this phenominon.

    In the next 30 days well have the survey results and we will share them openly with you by the middle of January.

    What, no raw data? Thirty days is a long time to tally the multiple choice - how bout a sneak preview?

    Your feedback in the Talk Back Survey will help us make changes in the coming year, but were not waiting some changes are already in the works in the Studios. Here are just a few: ...blah blah blah...

    Nothing but some techincal changes here. Good, but unless you're going to admit that such a large company is randomly re-developing things so badly as to waste hoards of man-hours, I'm going to say that this is band-aid stuff that'll (maybe) take an hour off the typical workweek if you keep the product the same. In reality, it will just allow more work to be done in the existing time, and expectations of output to rise. With all the productivity software out there, we should be working 12 hour weeks, based on what was done thirty years ago.

    We are looking at reclassifying some jobs to overtime eligible in the new Fiscal Year.

    Sounds good, but this is just consideration...not the actual reclassification. They'll probably decide what they have is good.

    We have resisted this in the past, not because we dont want to pay overtime, but because we believe that the wage and hour laws have not kept pace with the kind of work done at technology

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  122. Broken promises? by El+Camino+SS · · Score: 2, Funny

    I think SOMEONE is exaggerating. America, especially when it comes to corporate responsibilty, is a paradise. A paradise where everything is cheap, easy to manufacture, and made with 100% American pride. The rest of the world is ENVIOUS of the way employees are treated here, why else do you think we keep giving all these illegals jobs here? The want a slic of the American prosperity. America is a great place to work, you get all the benefits, all the respect, and the sure knowledge that things are getting better for the working man every day around here.

    (SHUDDUP AND GET BACK TO WORK)

  123. Re:leaked? whatever. by Rycross · · Score: 1

    I'm thinking its probably an effort to placate the masses, so to speak. Make empty promises about improving the work environment to make the workers complacent.

    It's important that the employees stick to their guns and not be satisfied with empty processes.

  124. "Out of love" a misnomer by PCM2 · · Score: 1

    In many cases, it's not even that you do these things because you love your job so much. How many times have you seen a star employee bitch endlessly about his job but still work all weekend to get a project done?

    It works this way: You're working obsessively, doing long hours into the evenings and weekends. Ergo, you have very little free time. Sustaining a relationship on this kind of schedule can be difficult. You're tired all the time, you just want to go home and rest. You amuse yourself by ordering fancy gadgets from Amazon and having them shipped to the office, but this only works to a certain extent. Ultimately, the only thing that left to give you those subtle little endorphin rewards is completion of tasks.

    Its an oroborous cycle: Your life becomes so structured around work that success at work is your main goal, because it's the only option left to you to feel the sense of fulfillment that the human organism naturally wants to feel. It's not that you love your job so much. It's that you've made yourself addicted to it, like the rat in a box that stops eating when given the option of taking cocaine.

    I know whereof I speak, because I've been there. I'm a little older now and very thankful that I was able to wise up and get my head straight about the realities of the modern workplace.

    --
    Breakfast served all day!
  125. Faxes are black and white, no "red stamp", moron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  126. Productivity by Confused · · Score: 1

    The wonderful myth of productivity strikes again.

    In the software industry, I've seen only two kinds of productivity.

    One was to measuring mindnumbing repetitive tasks, all alike. Here the highest productivity was usually reached by people having perfected the art of doing it as sloppy as possible producing results just barely above inacceptable. Fortunately those tasks have been mostly been outsourced or automatised.

    All other productivity is is just empty management speak to make one feel superior to the guy in the next chair. Companies are paying their employees not for results but for the priviledge to make them jump through hoops at the discretion of management. This is for the simple reason, that management is usally totally clueless and incapable of setting useful goal leading to desirable results.

    Under these rules, the most productive employee is the one who manages to escape all the senseless, misguided or futile assignement and wastes the minimum amount of time at work killing time on /..

    1. Re:Productivity by cduffy · · Score: 1

      Oh, bullshit. There are good coders and there are bad coders -- give them the same tasks, and one will get a solution of suitable quality completed in less time than the other. That might be because one of them has better design sense, or pays more attention to detail, or whatever else -- but Coder A still gets the project finished quickly while Coder B goes over deadline and comes up with a flaky half-solution. Hence, productivity.

      Working in post-boom startups (which I've been doing since the crash), one doesn't have the whole universally massively clueless management thing -- if more than just one or two members of management are clueless, the company goes under. It's results that get product finished, and product that gets funding. Consequently, the kind of mediocrity and related bullshit you refer to doesn't survive (except on a quite small scale), because it can't.

      If your work environment sucks, go find one that doesn't -- they're out there. If they aren't, perhaps it's you and not the environment that needs adjusting.

  127. It's not news. by YouHaveSnail · · Score: 1

    It's not news that EA is concerned about its reputation and is trying to find a way to clean up its image.

    It'll be news if and when EA actually does something to correct its atrocious labor practices. It'll be news if and when EA decides to throw down the gauntlet and challenge the rest of the industry to clean up its act by instituting truly fair compensation for its employees. It'll be news if EA decides to adopt software development methodologies that promote the timely development of high quality products without requiring employees to work insane hours.

    But the idea that EA is staring slack-jawed as its reputation (and, I hope, it's profitability) vanishes down the toilet is not news. It's not even interesting.

  128. Does this mean... by ripsnorta · · Score: 1

    So. Does this mean that EA employees will no longer be forced to work seventy and eighty hour seven day weeks?

    --

    Hollywood: The place good stories go to die.

  129. Re:leaked? whatever. by Vengie · · Score: 1

    Life at goldman really isnt so bad. Sollie is much more notorious for being a sweatshop.

    My friend is an entry level at goldman and he's steady 7-6. Given salaries in the industry... I can't see how anyone would complain. The 100+ at sollie, however, can be crazy. [or so I've heard]

    --
    When in doubt, parenthesize. At the very least it will let some poor schmuck bounce on the % key in vi. (Larry Wall)
  130. Re:leaked? whatever. by snuf23 · · Score: 1

    "Ahh, I'm going to have to go ahead and ask you to come in on Sunday, too..."

    Your boss isn't by any chance named Lumbergh is he?

    --
    Sometimes my arms bend back.
  131. This is one of the best memos I've ever seen by serutan · · Score: 1

    It contains so many insightful points.

    We haven't yet cracked the code on how to fully minimize the crunches in the development and production process.
    "Cracked the code??" How about hiring more people instead of making your employees work 80-hour weeks?

    Having a standardized technology approach will save us from having to re-invent the wheel over and over.
    Or, you could hire more people instead of making your employees work 80-hour weeks.

    We've started a Development Process Improvement Project to get smarter and improve efficiency.
    Or, you could hire more people instead of ...

    The award for management doublespeak goes to this paragraph:
    We are looking at reclassifying some jobs to overtime eligible in the new Fiscal Year. We have resisted this in the past, not because we don't want to pay overtime, but because we believe that the wage and hour laws have not kept pace with the kind of work done at technology companies, the kind of employees those companies attract and the kind of compensation packages their employees prefer. We consider our artists to be "creative" people and our engineers to be "skilled" professionals who relish flexibility but others use the outdated wage and hour laws to argue in favor of a workforce that is paid hourly like more traditional industries and conforming to set schedules.

    It isn't that they don't want to pay overtime, they just think creative and skilled professionals relish the flexibility of being required to work 80 hours/week with no overtime.

    My brain asplode. I feel truly sorry for anybody who thinks they have to work for EA.

    1. Re:This is one of the best memos I've ever seen by emilng · · Score: 1


      It's not just a matter of throwing more people at the problem.

      You can throw 30 developers fresh out of college at the problem or you can have 15 developers with several AAA titles under their belt.

      I think the 15 experienced developers would do a better job.

      Unfortunately I think EA would tend to follow your direction in using more and more inexperienced developers in a team and hoping they come up with something good, just because it suits their bottom line.

    2. Re:This is one of the best memos I've ever seen by serutan · · Score: 1

      Actually I think they would hire about 8 experienced developers and demand that they work overtime.

  132. High producers by anomaly · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So that guy doesn't make 100x what our worst producers do, but here's what does happen:
    1. He makes ~2-2.5x what the low producer does

    2. He gets selected for the interesting problems (And gets to say - I don't want to work on that project.)

    3. He is highly regarded by his peers for being sharp - in many cases that's worth more than money. (At least to geeks it can be.)

    4. Management gives much greater latitude in terms of work hours - because they know that they can count on that person when the chips are down.

    Finally, it's important to note that many times our techies are led down the primrose path of believing that technical prowess is the most important measure of achievement.

    As a result I know a couple of really sharp developers in our organization who are treated scornfully by management. These people are brilliant, but their attitude and approach make them distasteful to everyone else who "doesn't get it" because they are "stupid" and management people are "idiots."

    People skills are critical to success, unless you're a genius on the order of John Carmack. People skills are directly related to compensation - far more than technical skills - this is why people think that their bosses are morons and all management types are idiots. The world measures on a different scale than geeks do. Unions won't fix that.

    Thanks for inviting me to post more on slashdot! :)

    Respectfully,
    Anomaly

    --
    But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
    1. Re:High producers by sql*kitten · · Score: 1

      People skills are critical to success, unless you're a genius on the order of John Carmack.

      But John Carmack does have the people skills too. Maybe you're thinking of John Romero?

  133. I don't mean that at all. by anomaly · · Score: 1

    When I talk in terms of production, I'm looking at 'business problems solved' not 'lines of code written.'

    The top producers tend to think differently about the nature of problems than the low producers.

    They also write more effective code, and do a better job of unit testing than the low producers. They have more creative ideas that can be easily implemented than do the low producers.

    --
    But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
  134. Re:So where's the apology? The backpay? by Mhrmnhrm · · Score: 1

    Easy... Let's say EA "leaks" another memo that says everyone involved in Product X (anything from Madden 2006 to Earth and Beyond Reborn) will be compensated according to common practice (ie salary for the first 40 hours, 1.5x 41-60 hours, 2x 61-80 hours). Product X is released, and ironically, the programmers are all cheering and happy (and say so) about either their huge paychecks, or that there wasn't any crunching involved. It's not that hard.

    --
    I suspect that one of these choices is incorrect. Correct.
  135. Re:leaked? whatever. by Iffy+Bonzoolie · · Score: 1

    "That's just the reality of the marketplace today. Even if our economy was doing really well, this would still be the case. It's capitalism."

    Therefore, pure Capitalism is unethical. I am all for a tempered Capitalism, but this ruthless demand-says-we-can-work-you-to-death culture only helps a small number individuals and is ultimately damaging to our society as a whole.

    -If

    --
    Run a pencil-and-paper RPG campaign with your far-off friends: Gametable!
  136. I Dunno If I Agree... by Black-Man · · Score: 1

    The brainiac developers I work with - who also happen to be socially challenged - are well compensated and are highly regarded by management, because like you say they are counted on during crunch time.

    That said... I've seen imposters to the brainiac developer also succeed with management even though they are also socially challenged BUT have the kiss ass part down pat.

    Then of course, are the grunts in the trenches. Highly compensated, also can be counted on to do the maintenance work, BUT are NOT highly regarded by management - other than they know they can count on them to FIX the brainiacs NUMEROUS bugs.

  137. Fairly Produced Games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just as people are turning to fair trade coffee/tea, we need employees of gaming companies that treat their employees well to let us gamers know who their companies are. I for one would like to support companies that treat their employees humanely. We can use our collective wallets to influence things.

  138. Union by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "This wouldn't happen if we had a union."

    I didn't personally go through it, but my Dad did. 25+ years with Eastern Air Lines. He was an A&P Mechanic, and later he was a supervisor so he saw *BOTH* sides of the story.

    Unions can be just as nasty and worse than the companies themselves and the politics are worse.

    As a supervisor my father had alcholics on the payroll and couldn't fire them. In fact they went to a two week de-tox company paid. A month later they were back to a six-pack a day, and showing up drunk.

    As a employee he had to argue with Management in order to get things done the right way.

    In the end, the union went on strike so a couple of hot dogs in charge of the union could think they were as powerful as the head of the company. The result most folks went without jobs the company folded and the union is now next to nothing in comparison.

    My father was smart enough to see the writing on the wall and get out (2 days before the strike!!), others lost 50% of the retirement benefits for retiring two days later.

    I don't see either Management or Unions as my friend. I have to look out for myself. The politics in IT can be brutal too, depending on the company. Its not that easy to just ditch a IT career and go into ditch digging just because your having to work 60-70 hrs a week. It's definitely not fair when Management's incompotence is at fault, but it's not always especially for those of us that acutally have responsibilities (such as wife, children, etc).

    I wish you luck with your union, but the grass isn't always greener on the other side.

  139. Yes, behold indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The tyranny owners exploiting their workers!

  140. In other news... by kureido · · Score: 1

    EA's stock closed up 4.8% today at its highest value since late July at $52.80. Seems like the investors don't believe EA will actually blow the company profits on their developers either :)

  141. Re: EA cares? Who does? by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 1

    hey, as long as we don't have to listen to Blood Sweat and Tears, I'm cool with it

  142. Not really by hey! · · Score: 2, Informative

    Civil disobedience isn't just an act of illegality that happens to be popular. It's an act of educational confrontation. You want the public to squirm as they see dogs set on peaceful protesters. You want them to be uncomfortable when their neighbors and relatives are jailed for acs of conscience.

    Secretly violating the law to line your pocket doesn't qualify. Civil disobedience is public defiance of injustice. Acts of private venality don't qualify.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  143. Headline Correction by srenker · · Score: 1

    EA Pretends to Reconsider Overtime Position As Long As the Labor Board's Watching

    --
    My new /. login is fabu10u$.
  144. Re:leaked? whatever. by koko775 · · Score: 1

    perhaps it was leaked so that if they renege on their promise, employees can jump on their ass even harder?

  145. Re:leaked? whatever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why would someone work excess hours at EA or an iBanking firm for little or no pay? The same reason many people (Although ostensibly not me with my Liberal Arts Degree) go to college: to increase future pay. Senior developers at EA make 500K in base salary (not including benefits and promos) and iBankers make much much more. This is why they readily "have 20,000 applicants to fill about 50 positions" and why Nintendo can demand a starting programmer to be paid 4MM Yen a year... because some people would like to retire at 42 as millionaires. And the great part of it is if you don't want such a lifestyle, there are plenty of other options available.

  146. Yeah, our economy is too strong already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good idea. Cut down productivity to match the French. Maybe we can turn our economy all the way into a third world slagheap.

    1. Re:Yeah, our economy is too strong already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For a country with as many nuclear reactors as them, the fact that they havent gone out of control despite the 36 hour week must mean they're doing things right. Either they know how to keep things running well enough to take slack or they know how to do shifts so that places are fully staffed with each worker handing it to the next person.

  147. Supply and demand? by Spinality · · Score: 1

    How many developers would give their eye teeth, work 80 hour weeks, and take a cut in pay in order to work at a game vendor? Would you? Everybody and his dog wants to work in this environment. Naturally the pay is low. It's like working in Hollywood. There is a long line of people who would be happy to help on a big movie project for a fraction of what they'd expect working the same hours at a bank, insurance company, or flipping burgers. Why are we surprised that you don't get a fat paycheck writing games? Obviously a rotten employer deserves everybody's contempt, but if they're rotten enough people will quit and go work somewhere else. The system is self-correcting. It's not like they're working in a mine or a steel mill for the only employer in town. This is a luxury, boutique industry, and most people working in it are tickled pink to be getting paid ANYTHING rather than doing it for free.

    JMHO

    --
    -- We all have enough strength to endure the misfortunes of other people. La Rochefoucauld
    1. Re:Supply and demand? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hate to put it like this, but you are completely full of shit.

      Why the hell would I, a developer, take a cut in pay for any reason whatsoever? Why would I work 80 hour weeks? Why abuse myself? Hell, game development is about the most boring coding around.

      Give us a call when you get out of school and actually have to start working for a living and we'll see how ready you are for abuse like EA dishes out. And if you still think 80 hour weeks of low-level code monkey boredom for low pay is a great idea, be sure to put that on your resume. Someone will probably hire you for something. In India.

    2. Re:Supply and demand? by Spinality · · Score: 1

      Yeah, thanks for the insightful comment. I never looked at it from your wise perspective. I've been an idiot through the years, working round the clock on cool projects like writing operating systems and designing languages, when I could have made more money installing accounting systems. I guess 25 years in the business hiring and firing morons like you didn't teach me anything.

      Whether or not you personally would take a pay cut to build games is irrelevant. Plenty of folks will, do, and have. So long as that's true, it will drive the salaries down, and it will let some employers abuse the situation. They're not right for doing it, but the idea that every kind of developer deserves the same pay scale with a 40-hour work week would be goofy.

      --
      -- We all have enough strength to endure the misfortunes of other people. La Rochefoucauld
  148. EA confirms memo is real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  149. I wish we'd done this... by Balthisar · · Score: 1

    I am now a member of UAW Local 1970, Unit 4. I don't want to be. But my beloved company was non-responsive to the fucking missives of a bunch of fucking malcontents (by the way, forgive the harsh language; this is an emotion topic for me), so "we" voted on 01-Sep-04 to be "represented" by the UAW. I love my company, but I truly BLAME my company for having let it happen. If it had been just a little bit more responsive -- like EA -- then maybe, just maybe, I wouldn't have to suffer the FUCKING HUMILIATION of being a member of the FUCKING UAW.

    Really, I apologize for the language -- some things raise SUCH an emotional charge that it's impossible to avoid such expressions.

    Did I not mention it before? We're NOT blue collar workers. We're engineers. At least the 40% of use who voted AGAINST the FUCKING UAW are engineers. The other 60%? Who knows.

    There's not a lot of content yet, but it's a pretty-looking site: visit www.uawsucks.org. I hope to express my RAGE at the FUCKING UAW for having inserted itself in the fine field of a working profession. Ford -- what the hell happened? Why couldn't fight off this bloody shame by being more open?

    --
    --Jim (me)
  150. re: Understanding HR by sg3000 · · Score: 1

    > HR operates on a set of three principals not unlike those of
    > Asimov's 3 Laws of Robotics.

    That's basically it. I've learned from experience, never assume that the HR person is working in your interest if 1 and 2 are involved.

    --
    Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
  151. Re:If EA was really concerned about its employees by lew3004 · · Score: 1

    Just out of sheer, morbid curiosity.....would you have any company run under strict leadership of nothing BUT the employees? If so, who would you elect other than yourself?

    --
    I still can't get the screen shots of Castle Wolfenstein for the Apple IIe out of my head.
  152. Re:Playboy by lew3004 · · Score: 1

    No wonder you're posting AC

    --
    I still can't get the screen shots of Castle Wolfenstein for the Apple IIe out of my head.
  153. One employee's response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Three weeks ago we issued our bi-annual Talk Back Survey and more than 80 percent of you participated - much higher than the norm for a company our size.
    Yeah, except that it was more like 35% at some of the recently unhappiest studios (Redwood Shores, Maxis) until management started nagging daily to participate.

    In other news, 99% of Ukraine's population turned out to vote and all voted for one guy.

    The Studios will be moving to a consistent application of the Renderware Platform... Having a standardized technology approach will save us from having to re-invent the wheel over and over.
    Yeah, except we're throwing away our current proven internal tools and engines in favor of untested ones that don't meet our needs without major retooling. No extra development and training time has been alloted for this transition, which means we get to work even harder to get us to the same quality of games we had last year.

    This pain would have been somewhat acceptable if it really got us to that promised technology platform, but it already has been decided that the current version of Renderware isn't going to support the PS3. And with the next major release of Renderware rumored to be completely rearchitected from scratch, guess what? We get to do this all over again next year when the PS3 shows up.

    Every member of the Studio will have gone through Pre-Production Training by the end of December.
    Just went to that. It was actually pretty interesting but useless because us grunts aren't going to be doing the preproduction and scheduling.
    We understand the toll taken on our teams when we change directions late in the process.
    Maybe, but the top level management doesn't pay the cost of this so I expect little change in the future.

    I've got an idea. If Rusty had actually promised to base his salary and options based on employee satisfaction, maybe he'll sound a little more sincere.

    We are putting more teeth in our preproduction discipline to ensure that we more fully define and agree (at all levels) on what the features of the game will be before we scale up teams.
    Yup, except they aren't going to be doing that to the games already in production for ship this year. The damage has already been done.
  154. RE: salaried pay and O.T. by King_TJ · · Score: 1

    You just hit on the single biggest reason I'm not sure I can ever bring myself to work for someone on salaried pay again!

    Employers (and even your own co-workers) tend to form false ideas about your work ethic based on not seeing you coming in or leaving close enough to the "standard times" (8AM to 6PM or so). When your boss is doing the 8-5 shift him/herself, how's he/she to know you actually stayed until 8 or 9PM finishing up something? Sure, you can tell him/her about it - but if you're regularly working non-traditional hours, people start getting suspicious. You might be working twice as hard as most of your peers - but it doesn't matter. They start to see your reports of working those hours as " a bunch of B.S." after a while, and get mad that you're not physically present during some of the time they're in the building.

    If I'm on a salary, and not doing work that requires my physical presence between specific hours, I *demand* to have flexibility in how I put in my time. (EG. If I get the tasks done, don't worry about how long I'm there!) It rarely works like that, though, in reality. So I feel much more comfortable either working as more of a contractor, or for hourly wages where my time is clearly documented someplace.

  155. Outdated by rinkjustice · · Score: 1

    "We consider our artists to be creative people and our engineers to be skilled professionals who relish flexibility but others use the outdated wage and hour laws to argue in favor of a workforce that is paid hourly like more traditional industries and conforming to set schedules"

    Wow, talk about petty and cheap. Flexibility is one thing, but expecting employees to live for their work with no adaquate compensation is what's far outdated.

    I thought I read in Wired some time ago that EA is now a bigger financial entity than Disney. If that's so, now I know how they did it: Cheap labour.

  156. That's why Atari said no to programer's credit by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    it was brilliant really. By discouraging people from identifying with the people who make the games and instead encouraging them to identify with the publisher (Atari, EA, etc), you make it easy to replace programmers without alienating your fanbase or risking costly employee defections. After all, John Carmack can more or less decide his working conditions, but who (besides /. gaming geeks) knows the people behind FarCry, or Painkiller, or Morrowind or Arcanum? Who would follow these people to thier next gig that wasn't a sequal?

    To be fair, there's some 'bad apples' who've made a name for themselves (John Romero, Derek Smart). But there's still remarkably little credit given to the poeple making our games (Shigiru Miyamoto and Hideo Kojima not withstanding, and the don't work for EA). What gaming programmers need is something like the Director's Guild to get people thinking about them as individuals and not just teams working for EA.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  157. As if I give a fuck about EA's belated conscience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is simply EA trying to make a bad situation look good. They are employing industry standard enterprise level forward looking marketing position PR crap.

    The simple fact is, they are sorry that the information leaked out, and they got caught. They would NEVER think about remedial action until it affected their overall position and bottom line.

    I want to see EA DIE! I long to see their stock plummet, their games sit gathering dust on store shelves, and their execs haunting the employment office. I want to see product returns from stores exceeding shipments. I want to see this cockroach crushed under the heels of pure outrage over thier excesses.

    Get the message all of you greedy bullshit ridden exploiters of the honest desires of young programmers. You run a sweat shop, pure and simple, and it's time for your business, and your business model, to join T-Rex and all the other dinosaurs in the slime pits of extinction.

  158. MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MOD PARENT UP
    So painfully true.

  159. Re:leaked? whatever. by corbettw · · Score: 1

    If you want less hours and less stress, there's a lot of options for you out there.

    Some of them pay more per hour actually worked, too.


    Dude, the woman in the anecdote is working as an investment banker with a big name firm. In about five years, she'll be making enough to buy you and me several times over. I imagine putting their employees through these long hours is how the partners filter out those with real drive, versus those just looking for a paycheck.

    In the long run, her "pay per hour" is going to be astronomical. I'd say that's worth putting up with some shitty hours at the start of your career.

    Something someone once said to me seems appropriate to pass on: if you only think in terms of dollars per hour, that's all you'll ever make. You have to look at the big picture if you want the big bucks.

    --
    God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
  160. Re: salaried pay and O.T. by bob65 · · Score: 1
    I don't understand why it can't work out like school - give a bunch of assignments/projects, set the due dates, and demand that they be handed in on time. You might need to attend meetings - that's fine, it'll be like attending class. If it's a team project - that's fine, the team organizes themselves to meet up and work on the project.

    Surely, as mature individuals who have graduated from college/university/whatever, workplaces can't *possibly* be like elementary school, where we take attendance and have to suck-up to the teachers, can it?

  161. A post about...cocks? by JavaLord · · Score: 1

    by lowering yourself to some level you degrade your rights as a human being just to "make it" into your profession. That's not any way to make a living, in my opinion.

    It's funny, that you think earning 50k a year is a "degradation of your rights as a human being".

    I'd rather not have to suck the cocks of five people so I could get an interview with some other guy when I could just look elsewhere for another job where I wouldn't have to do that.

    "Sucking Cocks" isn't the same as working long hours. I can assure you that if it involved sucking cocks I wouldn't participate. Do you equate working overtime with sucking cocks for a living? Your perception of what is an abusive work enviornment is very strange to me. Almost every profession has it's version of "paying dues'. Ever see what a doctor goes through during their residency? Are they sucking cocks? If a cop has to work a night shift for his first 2 years, is he sucking cocks? At what point does working overtime become sucking cocks to you?

  162. Learn to Understand Math and Metaphor by BinaryOpty · · Score: 1

    First part: I'd rather make $20k a year working and being treated like a human being rather than make $50k being treated like a workhorse and getting an equivalent $10 per hour wage at either job. If you can't get that in your head (that the actual wage vs wage difference is what matters, not the salary difference) then no matter what I say you're going to keep arguing with me. Is it worth it to be expected to work 80 hours a week and have the illusion of being "rich" with your $50k a year or is it better to live a fufilling life off of the general $20k you get (more or less based on your hours and getting paid 1.5 overtime) where you have time for a wife, a family, and fun?

    Second part: Wow. I like how you twisted my comment around to pull an irrelevant comparison to doctors and policement to try and make your point sound more pallateable. Your first sentence is right: my metaphorical sucking cocks doesn't equal working long hours. It equals doing something degrading to get ahead, and in the EA programming world that means working long hours. My point is that these just-out-of-college students are metaphorically sucking cock by letting themselves be worked to the bone with no complaint or even expect it to happen, the exact same way an aspiring actor might literally suck cock to get an interview or whatnot so he could potentially be a third-tier character in a movie and not complain about it or even expect to always have to do that no matter where they work in Hollywood. That's my point: that degrading yourself to get a job you potentially start a trend of accepting that degradation until you believe it's commonplace and you don't complain about it, which is a problem! It should not be commonplace whatsoever, but according to you, you'd give anything to work on a game, so would you suck cocks? Would you work 120 hour weeks? Because the 70 hours as stated in your original post, at EA, is relatively low compared to everyone else who works there, with some people getting up to 120 hours: 3 times the average full-time workweek and 48 hours less than literally working a full week with no sleep.

    And to debunk your examples: the doctor who's going through his residency, the policeman who's always working nights: they're being paid properly for their time, whereas the programmers are not.

  163. Re:leaked? whatever. by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

    That's a common misconception.

    No, its not. You need time to physically and mentally relax. It doesn't matter if you love your job, you're an average person working regular 80 weeks you will suffer for it eventually.

  164. gawd you need a good ass kicking... by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

    ...because you have some seriously screwed up priorities. Take this case for example. Woman gets crushed on a conveyor belt and dies in a factory, because management hid the off switch and a supervisor refused to shut it down. Now, do you think the husbands first thought was, "well, I could sue, but that would mean giving money to laywers. Scratch that!" Would you have thought the same, or, "I'm gonna take these fuckers for ever last cent for killing my wife."

    Any class action suit (like the one against the RIAA) results in a check for six dollars (I got one) for the injured party and millions for the lawyers.

    WHO CARES! Its that much money out of the hands of people who screwed consumers over and putting it into the hands of those who have not. Give the money to charity, Bill Gates, or some Columbian drug lord. The point of these lawsuites is also to punish the guilty party and so they don't dare do it again. It wasn't "the lawyers got millions and you got six bucks", its "the lawyers got millions, you got six bucks, you will save money off future purchases, and the record industry will be taken to the cleaners if they price fix again".

    Get rid of the lawyers, and yeah, there'll be fewer lawyers getting big settlements. Know what'll happen to the money? It'll stay right in the hands of the people who screwed you over, who will quite happily keep screwing you over to make a buck.

    The greatest trick in the world was not done by the devil, convincing people he didn't exist. The greatest trick was giving the "common man" the idea that standing up for himself by suing (frequently your only option with little to no government regulation and where corporations have all the rights of individuals and none of the responsibilities) is a bad thing because it might put money in the hands of lawyers. And twits like you have bought it hook, line and sinker.

    1. Re:gawd you need a good ass kicking... by vsprintf · · Score: 1

      The greatest trick was giving the "common man" the idea that standing up for himself by suing (frequently your only option with little to no government regulation and where corporations have all the rights of individuals and none of the responsibilities) is a bad thing because it might put money in the hands of lawyers. And twits like you have bought it hook, line and sinker.

      The greatest trick was making the clueless believe that they could stand up against corporations by hiring a lawyer. And twits like you have bought it hook, line and sinker (and wallet). Go sue Microsoft for providing defective software, and see how far you get. And what are you doing in this ancient, deadly boring argument anyway? Got two accounts? The childish name-calling seems pretty familiar.

    2. Re:gawd you need a good ass kicking... by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      The greatest trick was making the clueless believe that they could stand up against corporations by hiring a lawyer.

      Uh, right. If the corps weren't worried about people with lawyers standing up to them, then why are they so hot and bothered for "tort reform"?

      And what are you doing in this ancient, deadly boring argument anyway? Got two accounts?

      What do you mean, anchient? Go check the dates, its the 6th and the 3rd. And no.

      The childish name-calling seems pretty familiar.

      Uh huh. Maybe a good 2x4 would knock some sense into you? You're wrong, we're right, and we proved it to you. But you just wont give it up.

    3. Re:gawd you need a good ass kicking... by vsprintf · · Score: 1

      Uh, right. If the corps weren't worried about people with lawyers standing up to them, then why are they so hot and bothered for "tort reform"?

      The only people really worried about tort reform are lawyers, and that would be because . . . ? I know it's hard, but try to think it through.

      What do you mean, anchient? Go check the dates, its the 6th and the 3rd. And no.

      "Anchient"? Even after I spelled it for you, you couldn't get it right. What a hoot. A three-day-old article on Slashdot is ancient. You're responding to a three-day-old response? What do you do, read and answer only when your medication wears off?

      Uh huh. Maybe a good 2x4 would knock some sense into you? You're wrong, we're right, and we proved it to you. But you just wont give it up.

      By all means, bring a 2x4 to a gunfight. That's what you've been doing so far. I'd be happy to cap you and do a lasting service for the gene pool if you want. You (or your "we") haven't proved anything except that you're unable to understand reality. I've heard there is some new stem cell therapy that could work wonders for your condition, but I'm not a doctor, so I can't help you. Sorry.

      You probably want to add yourself to my freaks list now in order to show your displeasure. If you have problems, respond in three days (when the medication wears off), and I'll give you detailed instructions on how to do it.

    4. Re:gawd you need a good ass kicking... by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      The only people really worried about tort reform are lawyers, and that would be because . . . ? I know it's hard, but try to think it through.

      And who is proposing, and pushing for, tort reform? Its not the lawyers dumbass.

      A three-day-old article on Slashdot is ancient. You're responding to a three-day-old response?

      Somebody forget to take his Ritalin?

      "Anchient"? Even after I spelled it for you, you couldn't get it right. What a hoot.

      Okay, you can have the title of the Best Slashdot Poster, Ever, for the next time you're in the shower. You can say to yourself, "ahh, I'm such a much better speller than that dude on Slashdot, oh yeahhhh"

    5. Re:gawd you need a good ass kicking... by vsprintf · · Score: 1

      And who is proposing, and pushing for, tort reform? Its not the lawyers dumbass.

      And who is opposing tort reform because it would mean less money for the parasites? It's the lawyers, dumbass. Hey, it has been only two days. You're skipping your meds, and you know that's dangerous.

      Okay, you can have the title of the Best Slashdot Poster, Ever, for the next time you're in the shower. You can say to yourself, "ahh, I'm such a much better speller than that dude on Slashdot, oh yeahhhh"

      You sure do show a lot of interest in my rear end and what I might do in the shower. I worry about you. Actually, what I like to do is sit at my desk (fully clothed - don't get excited), read comments like yours and think, "I am so glad I don't post off-the-wall, name-calling rants like that."

    6. Re:gawd you need a good ass kicking... by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      And who is opposing tort reform because it would mean less money for the parasites? It's the lawyers, dumbass.

      And any employee or consumer with an ounce of common sense, because tort reform would leave them open to total buttfucking by companies. All the rights of individuals for companies + none of the responsiblities of an individual + no criminal charges for harming consumers or employees + extremely limited liability = BAD NEWS.

      Hey, it has been only two days. You're skipping your meds, and you know that's dangerous.

      I'm not the one with SDHAD.

      You sure do show a lot of interest in my rear end and what I might do in the shower. I worry about you.

      Did I say anything about your rear end? You aren't by any chance the great nephew of J. Edgar Hoover, are you? You know, the one who was a militant homophobe with the FBI but in private was gayer than RuPaul and all the Queer Eye for the Straight Guy boys put together?

    7. Re:gawd you need a good ass kicking... by vsprintf · · Score: 1

      And any employee or consumer with an ounce of common sense, because tort reform would leave them open to total buttfucking by companies. All the rights of individuals for companies + none of the responsiblities of an individual + no criminal charges for harming consumers or employees + extremely limited liability = BAD NEWS.

      Wow. Two slightly coherent responses in two days. This must be good for you. Yeah, corporate behavior is bad, and anyone who has read my previous comments knows I oppose that as well as insane executive compensation. Legislation, not lawyers and lawsuits, is the only possible answer. There is no widespread opposition to tort reform aside from trial lawyers. The corporations are going to beat down the people and the states (under current law, even without tort reform) by using their legions of lawyers no matter what, as the recent wrist-slappings of the RIAA and Microsoft proved. The lawyers are the class that benefits most from litigation. You might want to check your comment for further indications of your interest in rear ends.

      I'm not the one with SDHAD.

      We (your doctor's and I) can only assume you managed to misspell ADHD. As a psychology professor once told me, there has never been a case of ADD or its derivatives diagnosed outside the U.S. or Canada. Imaginary illnesses are not the problem. Yours are.

      You know, the one who was a militant homophobe with the FBI but in private was gayer than RuPaul and all the Queer Eye for the Straight Guy boys put together?

      That's a guy who does a cooking show (Bam!) and some group that does a fashion show, right? Sorry, I don't follow that stuff. I am aware of Hoover's supposed tendencies, but it's not really something that has interested me a great deal.

      Did I say anything about your rear end?

      Look at the title on all your responses. You're the one who put it there. Your comment about anal intercourse reaffirms it. You may want to discuss these latent desires with your doctor if you're honest. Well, as nice as it has been, and it really hasn't, you don't ever say anything new, and I don't want to continue being nothing but an object for your fantasies. I hope you enjoy your, er, scud sucking, but I'm straight, old, with grown children, and this just isn't going to work. I'm not a bigot, I just think you should go stalk someone else with an orientation similar to yours for a while. 'Bye.

  165. Learn to understand work ethic. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First part: I'd rather make $20k a year working and being treated like a human being rather than make $50k being treated like a workhorse and getting an equivalent $10 per hour wage at either job.

    But if your 50k a year job is going to lead to 80k or 100k in 2-5 years, but the 20k a year job is going nowhere, you don't think it is worth it?

    If you can't get that in your head (that the actual wage vs wage difference is what matters, not the salary difference) then no matter what I say you're going to keep arguing with me.

    No, I understand what you are saying as far as how much you make an hour. What I am saying is simply sometimes the sacrifices are worth it.

    Is it worth it to be expected to work 80 hours a week and have the illusion of being "rich" with your $50k a year

    Who says 50k a year is rich. Now you are twisting my comments around. I would say it is worth it to work 40 hours a week with a one month crunch time where you work 60-80 hours a week if it's going to take you where you want to go with your career. Maybe we just have different values and different work ethics.

    or is it better to live a fufilling life off of the general $20k you get (more or less based on your hours and getting paid 1.5 overtime)

    Who says you will have a more fufilling life? If you ENJOY working overtime at a job you like I'd say it's better than not working overtime at a job you don't like.

    where you have time for a wife, a family, and fun?

    Dude, nobody forces you to work for EA or in the video game industry.

    Second part: Wow. I like how you twisted my comment around to pull an irrelevant comparison to doctors and policement to try and make your point sound more pallateable.

    It wasn't twisted at all.

    Your first sentence is right: my metaphorical sucking cocks doesn't equal working long hours. It equals doing something degrading to get ahead,

    Dude, it's a shitty metaphor. Working long hours is not degrading, and even if in your twisted mind it is...it's no where as degrading as sucking cocks to get ahead. You made an extremist statement to hold up a weak arguement.

    and in the EA programming world that means working long hours. My point is that these just-out-of-college students are metaphorically sucking cock by letting themselves be worked to the bone with no complaint or even expect it to happen,

    It's not even close to the same thing. If they don't like it, there is a simple recourse. Quit.
    Just don't bitch so much that it leads to the whole industry getting outsourced, because some of us Americans do have a good work ethic.

    the exact same way an aspiring actor might literally suck cock to get an interview or whatnot so he could potentially be a third-tier character in a movie and not complain about it or even expect to always have to do that no matter where they work in Hollywood.

    Is this common practice? Once again, I'd say sucking cock is a bit more degrading than working overtime writing code. Of course, I can't speak from experence. I've only worked overtime. Maybe you have done both and you can fill me in?

    That's my point: that degrading yourself to get a job you potentially start a trend of accepting that degradation until you believe it's commonplace and you don't complain about it, which is a problem!

    You really do believe that working anything more than a 40 hour work week is degradation don't you? I think that is sad.

    It should not be commonplace whatsoever, but according to you, you'd give anything to work on a game, so would you suck cocks?

    My exact comments were that "I would give up a lot professionally to work on a game released by EA or another major vendor" and that I would "gladly work 70 hours a week" for such a job. I never said the words "give anything". Once again you are distoring reality (and people) to conform to your nar

  166. There is no rule 3. by Pathetic+Coward · · Score: 1

    HR does nothing for the benefit of a company's employees. Nothing. They are agents of management, they are your enemies, and anything you say to them orally or in writing will be given to management to be used against you. This includes requests for "workplace improvement", suggestion boxes, and exit interviews. Do not give them anything.

    1. Re:There is no rule 3. by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      I hate to tell you this but you're wrong. There is a rule three. Your arguments simply are illustrating that the managers are more important (which I already said) by HR giving them information.

      I went through a hostile workplace incident where I was the recipient of the hostility and a manager was the giver. I lost, but not without a fight that cost them a bit. I am now in a higher paying position in a better department, with far less ulceration of my stomach.

      I know there is a post-it note in my file with some "unofficial" notes on it, but knowledge is power and I know how to use it.

      It's all about understanding your 'enemy' and realizing that you are more expendable than a manager, who in-turn is more expendable than the company or a higher level manager. If you want HR's help with an external influence, say you need to relocate because you were a witness to an attempted murder by a well known hate group, no problem they will relocate you (assuming the company has a suitable position elsewhere). If you want help from HR with an internal influence (like a manager), then you must present your case not in light of how you've been harmed, but rather in light of how this is harming the company. If you made your case, you win.

      I know what I'm talking about, as I've been in both the above situations.
      Cheers,
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump