Follow Up News Report to EA Abuse to Employees

[MegaDrive20XX]

http://www.gamespot.com/news/2004/11/19/news_6113582.html

I dont know if this was posted else-where, but I remember reading the other thread a few weeks ago

[morphx]

"Not everyone sympathizes with game industry employees, who sometimes pull down six-figure salaries.

Go to (McDonald's) or a factory, then back to your air-conditioned offices with free coffee," one responder to last week's blog posting wrote. "

Comments like that drive me nuts because they're way out of context and mostly don't apply.

You often aren't required to have specalized technical training or higher education to work at a McDonalds or a factory. And you bet your ass that you'll be paid for every hour you work at those places.


Edit: Left out the important part of the quote.

[zmweasel]

"Not everyone sympathizes with game industry employees, who sometimes pull down six-figure salaries.

Go to (McDonald's) or a factory, then back to your air-conditioned offices with free coffee," one responder to last week's blog posting wrote. "

Comments like that drive me nuts because they're way out of context and mostly don't apply.

You often aren't required to have specalized technical training or higher education to work at a McDonalds or a factory. And you bet your ass that you'll be paid for every hour you work at those places.


Edit: Left out the important part of the quote.

Actually, McDonald's and most other fast-food chains are notorious for pressuring their employees into working "off the clock." McDonald's and most fast-food chains are also virurently anti-union. Check out "Fast Food Nation" sometime. Fantastic book, and extremely well-researched.

-- Z.

[morphx]

I think the point is that hourly employees are lawfully entitled to pay for every hour they work. It is understandable that big businesses often don't pay or try to find ways around it.

Most salaried employees however are expected to conform their schedule to the needs of the job. Thats the "loop hole" i think most of these game industry stories are centered around. What defines the resonable needs of your job.

[rbudrick]

"Not everyone sympathizes with game industry employees, who sometimes pull down six-figure salaries.

Go to (McDonald's) or a factory, then back to your air-conditioned offices with free coffee," one responder to last week's blog posting wrote. "

Comments like that drive me nuts because they're way out of context and mostly don't apply.

You often aren't required to have specalized technical training or higher education to work at a McDonalds or a factory. And you bet your ass that you'll be paid for every hour you work at those places.


Edit: Left out the important part of the quote.

I couldn't agree more. Well said!

Those working 50 hours or so a week really shouldn't bitch....IF they are getting overime pay. I work 45 hours a week, every week, and 5 more hourse wouldn't be a huge stretch if a 6 figure salary was involved....and I sure as shit don't make a 6 figure salary. Howerver, when you get to 60, 70, and 80-120 hours a week, that is FUCKING REDICULOUS, and just plain cruel and tyrannical. Companies should have more respect for their people, especially employess so talented and resourceful as those.

-Rob

[SoulBlazer]

Would it be so bad for the game industry to get unionized? After all, every other big industry is, and games bring in more money then movies these days.

[zmweasel]

There is much irony in that the hardcore gamers up in arms about game developers' "quality of life" spend many of their waking hours sitting on their asses in front of a TV set.

In any case, I'd love to see Naughty Dog co-founder Jason Rubin make a run at organizing a union, as he hinted at after his DICE diatribe.

-- Z.

[goatdan]

"Not everyone sympathizes with game industry employees, who sometimes pull down six-figure salaries.

Go to (McDonald's) or a factory, then back to your air-conditioned offices with free coffee," one responder to last week's blog posting wrote. "

Comments like that drive me nuts because they're way out of context and mostly don't apply.

You often aren't required to have specalized technical training or higher education to work at a McDonalds or a factory. And you bet your ass that you'll be paid for every hour you work at those places.

That's not necessarily true. I worked at one place for a while where people who were off the clock would often times be asked to continue helping and they wouldn't be paid for it... unless you were good about remembering to ask about it later.

Wal*Mart got sued over forcing their employees to work off the clock just last year. (Or earlier this year?)

On the other hand, I do agree with you. You don't have to have much in the way of specialized training to work at McDonalds or a factory, and you can get overtime. I can pretty much guarantee that no one that is working 80 hours a week at McDonalds would settle for getting paid for less than 40. And if they were, I would be disgusted by that too.

As someone that used to do a lot of programming, I totally understand the need for some "crunch" time at the end of a project, and even a week or two of 80 hours in the office is understandable -- games always have this amazing way of always having more stuff you'd like to do for them -- but if I was expected to work for 80 hours a week for a salary that I thought I'd be getting for 40 hours of work, I would be extremely unhappy.

If you're working 80 hours a week, that is about 11.5 hours a day. Add thirty minutes for driving, and you've got a 12 hour day every day. What time would that give you for a family or to enjoy whatever money it is that you get? I'd much rather make $50,000 and spend time enjoying it.

[morphx]

There is much irony in that the hardcore gamers up in arms about game developers' "quality of life" spend many of their waking hours sitting on their asses in front of a TV set.

There's a big difference in doing so voluntarily and having your paycheck held over your head.

[zmweasel]

There is much irony in that the hardcore gamers up in arms about game developers' "quality of life" spend many of their waking hours sitting on their asses in front of a TV set.

There's a big difference in doing so voluntarily and having your paycheck held over your head.

No one's forcing these people to pursue game development as a career, so their "suffering" is also purely voluntary.

-- Z.

[Ed Oscuro]

Already posted the IGDA's open letter. (http://www.digitpress.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=483430&highlight=#483430)

[morphx]

There is much irony in that the hardcore gamers up in arms about game developers' "quality of life" spend many of their waking hours sitting on their asses in front of a TV set.

There's a big difference in doing so voluntarily and having your paycheck held over your head.

No one's forcing these people to pursue game development as a career, so their "suffering" is also purely voluntary.

-- Z.

That's a true point. But if you take it a bit futher than you could say that soldiers have no right to complain about dieing or factory workers shouldn't whine about loosing a limb. Hell those coal miners just need to grow up and stop worrying about cave-ins.

There comes a point where your employer has to provide you with a managable and realistic job expectation. And a descent environment to work in. I'm sure most of the game developers thrive in a fast pace high stress environment, I think the root of the complaints is that companies are taking that and trying to eek out a little more and it's driving them over the edge.

We could argue this all day.

[Nature Boy]

Would it be so bad for the game industry to get unionized?

In my opinion, absolutely. I'm a programmer and I want to be paid what I'm worth (based on my performance), not the same as the guy in the next cube just because we've been here the same length of time. If my company wanted to form a union I'd refuse to join.

[zmweasel]

There is much irony in that the hardcore gamers up in arms about game developers' "quality of life" spend many of their waking hours sitting on their asses in front of a TV set.

There's a big difference in doing so voluntarily and having your paycheck held over your head.

No one's forcing these people to pursue game development as a career, so their "suffering" is also purely voluntary.

-- Z.

That's a true point. But if you take it a bit futher than you could say that soldiers have no right to complain about dieing or factory workers shouldn't whine about loosing a limb. Hell those coal miners just need to grow up and stop worrying about cave-ins.

There comes a point where your employer has to provide you with a managable and realistic job expectation. And a descent environment to work in. I'm sure most of the game developers thrive in a fast pace high stress environment, I think the root of the complaints is that companies are taking that and trying to eek out a little more and it's driving them over the edge.

We could argue this all day.

Surely you can understand the difference between a video game artist and a soldier or a factory worker, as can everyone else. I wouldn't "take it a bit further" because it's absurd to do so.

The people most often forced into military work or factory work or other low-wage, high-risk, physically demanding jobs are the people with no alternatives. People who choose game development as a career, by contrast, are usually rich white people with any number of opportunities. My sympathy is with the people who work their asses off because they don't have a choice, as opposed to the people who get into game development because it's fun.

Have you seen EA's offices, incidentally? "Decent environment" doesn't begin to describe them.

-- Z.

[goatdan]

There is much irony in that the hardcore gamers up in arms about game developers' "quality of life" spend many of their waking hours sitting on their asses in front of a TV set.

There's a big difference in doing so voluntarily and having your paycheck held over your head.

No one's forcing these people to pursue game development as a career, so their "suffering" is also purely voluntary.

Depends on how you take "purely voluntary." If my job states that they will fire me if I do not work for 80 hours a week for a month, then that isn't purely voluntary, as if I don't work that long, I get fired which looks bad on a resume.

While I do think that the industry in itself is an environment that forces some overtime work at certain points, I don't think that it should be constant. And I don't think that people were expecting it to be constant when they got into the industry.

I'm just curious -- do you think that what EA has been accussed of doing with it's employees is totally fair? That programmers should be expected to work 80+ hours because that is the profession that they chose?

At the same time, is there any other profession in the world that requires an 80 hour work week? I have a friend who is an EMT who works up to 72 hours a week, but his job allows and encourages him to sleep throughout a shift (which can be 24 hours long). I really don't see there being a comprable job that forces you to work 11+ hours a day every day.

Interestingly enough, I learned that if you fall asleep on the way home from work because an employeer is forcing you to work long hours and get in a car accident, your employeer can be sued for forcing you to work too long. A lot of larger companies (and I'm talking about the entertainment / food industry mostly here, not gaming) don't allow over 60 hours now because of that.

[morphx]

No more counter points for me, I think they're falling on deaf ears.

[zmweasel]

Depends on how you take "purely voluntary." If my job states that they will fire me if I do not work for 80 hours a week for a month, then that isn't purely voluntary, as if I don't work that long, I get fired which looks bad on a resume.

"Purely voluntary" as in, no one forced these people to embark upon game development as a career. If they didn't research the profession beforehand, and determine that long hours and crunch time are a fact of game-industry life, they're foolish to blame EA for the status quo. And if they did the research but got into the industry anyway, they're even more foolish.


I'm just curious -- do you think that what EA has been accussed of doing with it's employees is totally fair? That programmers should be expected to work 80+ hours because that is the profession that they chose?

The people involved in the class-action suit are artists, apparently, which is a rather different field.

-- Z.

[goatdan]

Depends on how you take "purely voluntary." If my job states that they will fire me if I do not work for 80 hours a week for a month, then that isn't purely voluntary, as if I don't work that long, I get fired which looks bad on a resume.

"Purely voluntary" as in, no one forced these people to embark upon game development as a career. If they didn't research the profession beforehand, and determine that long hours and crunch time are a fact of game-industry life, they're foolish to blame EA for the status quo. And if they did the research but got into the industry anyway, they're even more foolish.

Game development -- and technology in general -- has developed at such a breakneck speed that I don't think it is fair to tell people that four or five years ago started a career and that by looking at it, it looked as if *everyone* in the gaming industry was constantly working 80 hours a week.



I'm just curious -- do you think that what EA has been accussed of doing with it's employees is totally fair? That programmers should be expected to work 80+ hours because that is the profession that they chose?

The people involved in the class-action suit are artists, apparently, which is a rather different field.

Milwaukee has a pretty big art scene, and I know a few people that are artists, including relatives of mine. From what I see that they do, they set their own pace for their work. They aren't told that if they don't put in at least 80 hours a week, they will be fired.

Is there any other profession in the world that requires an 80 hour work week? I have a friend who is an EMT who works up to 72 hours a week, but his job allows and encourages him to sleep throughout a shift (which can be 24 hours long). I really don't see there being a comprable job that forces you to work 11+ hours a day every day.

[zmweasel]

Game development -- and technology in general -- has developed at such a breakneck speed that I don't think it is fair to tell people that four or five years ago started a career and that by looking at it, it looked as if *everyone* in the gaming industry was constantly working 80 hours a week.

Game development, to hear the old-timers tell it, has always had extra-long work-weeks. It's not as if the game industry suddenly went from 40-hour normalcy to 80-hour insanity.


Milwaukee has a pretty big art scene, and I know a few people that are artists, including relatives of mine. From what I see that they do, they set their own pace for their work. They aren't told that if they don't put in at least 80 hours a week, they will be fired.

Your friends and relatives were wise to remain self-employed and choose the luxury of setting their own pace for their creative endeavors, as opposed to taking an hourly or salaried job in which they were required to meet their employers' expectations.

-- Z.

[le geek]

Unions exist by taking money out of employees pockets most oftern in the form of payroll deduction. Companies do not pay for them. And Union Presidents oftern may as much as CEOs...

I'm not saying all unions are unnecessary, but I wouldn't want to be in one...

[goatdan]

Game development -- and technology in general -- has developed at such a breakneck speed that I don't think it is fair to tell people that four or five years ago started a career and that by looking at it, it looked as if *everyone* in the gaming industry was constantly working 80 hours a week.

Game development, to hear the old-timers tell it, has always had extra-long work-weeks. It's not as if the game industry suddenly went from 40-hour normalcy to 80-hour insanity.

So 80 hours isn't insanity?

Is there any other profession in the world that requires an 80 hour work week? I have a friend who is an EMT who works up to 72 hours a week, but his job allows and encourages him to sleep throughout a shift (which can be 24 hours long). I really don't see there being a comprable job that forces you to work 11+ hours a day every day.



Milwaukee has a pretty big art scene, and I know a few people that are artists, including relatives of mine. From what I see that they do, they set their own pace for their work. They aren't told that if they don't put in at least 80 hours a week, they will be fired.

Your friends and relatives were wise to remain self-employed and choose the luxury of setting their own pace for their creative endeavors, as opposed to taking an hourly or salaried job in which they were required to meet their employers' expectations.

I don't know of any art "employers" that demand that people work 80 hours a week, but maybe that is just me. Seriously, could you name one? I would love to know...

[zmweasel]

So 80 hours isn't insanity?

80-hour work weeks are indeed insane, but when you sign up for a career of game development, you sign up for 80-hour work weeks. This has never been a dirty little secret. Books about getting a career in the game industry have devoted entire chapters to the topic. This current wave of Internet outrage seems to be fueled more by anti-EA sentiment than anything else.

If you don't want to work 80-hour weeks--and if you're fortunate enough not to be one of the millions of Americans forced to work 80-hour weeks just to make ends meet--there are thousands of other professions from which to choose. When you select a "career" in the creative arts, you should be grateful for ANY employment.

-- Z.

[midgey]

The people most often forced into military work or factory work or other low-wage, high-risk, physically demanding jobs are the people with no alternatives. My sympathy is with the people who work their asses off because they don't have a choice

I think you're forgetting the fact that most people with "no alternative" are in this situation because of choices they made. And I don't buy the whole "they were born into poverty and can't rise above it" excuse. I've known plenty of people who have done it, so if one has the mindset, then they can rise above. My Linear Systems and Signals Analysis professor was born in Nepal to a homeless family, and now he's probably the smartest person I've ever met.

I've had far too many friends/family complain about their job situation, when I witnessed the efforts (if you can call it that) they've put into education. I'm not saying all of the people in the military and factories are this way, but all the ones that I know are.

[zmweasel]

I think you're forgetting the fact that most people with "no alternative" are in this situation because of choices they made. And I don't buy the whole "they were born into poverty and can't rise above it" excuse. I've known plenty of people who have done it, so if one has the mindset, then they can rise above. My Linear Systems and Signals Analysis professor was born in Nepal to a homeless family, and now he's probably the smartest person I've ever met.

Congrats for your Nepalese prof. I'm sure he worked his ass off to achieve what he has. Probably logged a lot of 80-hour work weeks. And as you say, he's an unusually intelligent individual.

But it remains a plain fact that many Americans and immigrants are unable to rise out of poverty, despite their best efforts, for any number of societal and financial reasons. For every anecdote you can relate about a lazy bum who has a crappy job because he won't pursue higher education, I can relate one about a smart, driven individual who has a crappy job because of the color of his skin.

The video game artists filing this class-action lawsuit against EA chose to be artists, and chose to work for a video game company, despite knowing the commitment it required. (If they DIDN'T know, they're willfully ignorant, and I have even less sympathy for them than before.)

Now the artists are regretting their choices, but instead of taking responsibility for their decisions, they're blaming their employer for falsely classifying them as exempt from overtime. Perhaps they should have raised such concerns when they were initially hired, or received their first paychecks, instead of waiting until the job wasn't fun for them anymore.

-- Z.

[goatdan]

Zach,

I have the utmost respect for someone that has to work 80 hours a week to make ends meet. I know people that are in positions that are much like you say -- a smart, driven individual who has a crappy job -- not necessarily because of the color of their skin but because of the background they come from and the experiences that they have had. I have a friend who worked two jobs full time to support his wife and child while still actively seeking out other employment. I completely understand how stupid of a situation it is when you are stuck doing something like that.

At the same time, the way that you are saying that the EA people should have all known that their committments would be 80+ hours a week, every week and they shouldn't complain seems odd. Yes, there are times where you hear that people worked 80+ hours a week, and much of it does come from old timers, but a lot of them were starting their own software companies and in business for themselves. Not in a huge company like EA.

The game industry isn't in the same place that it was in even ten years ago, when it took a few people to make a game (and even an entire company), and if it sold halfway decent they could make money. We're now in an industry that it takes millions of dollars to make a game, and if that game is a success, it can generate millions of dollars of revenue.

Why don't companies that are bigger decide to hire more people for a project? It would keep everyone happier, it wouldn't cost too much more money than before (four employees at $50,000 / year wages is $300,000 per year after company taxes are factored in) and would probably make the environment better.

If the company decides that they should remain as small as possible, why would they set such strict release dates? Some people complain about iD Software and their "when it's done" approach, but it means that a company of 25 can create an entire game around their schedule and stay sane.

If you had read the complaints, one of them was from someone that had worked at Maxis for years before going to work at EA. He had said that he never had to put in such hours at Maxis except in milestone weeks. I don't think this is just an EA thing -- I have nothing against them at all, and I actually enjoy many of their games -- but I also don't think it is appropriate for any company to do. I don't think that only EA does it, and I'm positive that other development studios have done the same thing in the past and more will in the future. But it isn't a trend that I think in any way benefits the industry. I think that games that have longer and more realistic development cycles benefit from that -- Half Life 2 or Doom 3, anyone?

I've asked this three times before and you haven't answered because I guess perhaps there isn't an answer to it, and I don't suppose that you will this time so this will be my last post in the thread, but:

Is there any other profession in the world that requires an 80 hour work week? I have a friend who is an EMT who works up to 72 hours a week, but his job allows and encourages him to sleep throughout a shift (which can be 24 hours long). I really don't see there being a comprable job that forces you to work 11+ hours a day every day.

[FantasiaWHT]

Going back to an earlier point, a salaried manager at a McDonald's most certainly wouldn't get overtime, and likely would put in 50-60 hours.

Resident Doctors can put in 70-80 hours a week easily, sometimes in shifts long as 32 hours.

As a salaried teacher I put in 50-55 hours per week at the school plus easily another 10-15 at home.

Along more recent points...

@zmweasel- No, that's not a "plain fact" What makes it not a fact is your statement about "despite their best efforts" That's your belief. My belief is that if you aren't succeeding, you aren't putting your best effort in. You're giving up if you believe otherwise. Resigning yourself to the status quo of your life and refusing to take responsibility for your own life.

@unions- I taught in a private school SPECIFICALLY so I wouldn't have to join a union. If I ever teach in a public school, I will be one of the tiny fraction of teachers who refuse to join. I detest them utterly. They absolutely sicken me- they'll drive an ENTIRE INDUSTRY (American textiles, anyone?) out of business if they can because they can't see the big picture. They put the pay of their members ahead of their actual jobs (teaching for example- give teachers raises and you have to fire teachers to pay for it). They make it EXTREMELY difficult to fire anybody for any cause. They throw their political clout around more than any other group. They try to force all their members to vote Democrat. They waste time and money.

There was a time when union's were necessary, but with all the state and federal labor laws, they serve no WORTHY purpose. Could some laws use reworking? Sure, but you don't need unions to do that.

[zmweasel]

At the same time, the way that you are saying that the EA people should have all known that their committments would be 80+ hours a week, every week and they shouldn't complain seems odd. Yes, there are times where you hear that people worked 80+ hours a week, and much of it does come from old timers, but a lot of them were starting their own software companies and in business for themselves. Not in a huge company like EA.

I'm not saying these artists shouldn't complain. I'm saying they shouldn't have taken the jobs to begin with if they were uncomfortable with the realities of game development. To take the job and THEN complain about the requirements of the job is foolish.

And what's with waiting to protest the overtime-exempt classification? Surely those artists knew of their classification right away, and if they didn't, surely they would've noticed it after receiving their first paychecks. Sounds like a lame tactic their lawyer-weasels came up with. And it's only the lawyer-weasels who benefit from most class-action suits.


Why don't companies that are bigger decide to hire more people for a project? It would keep everyone happier, it wouldn't cost too much more money than before (four employees at $50,000 / year wages is $300,000 per year after company taxes are factored in) and would probably make the environment better.

Games are making more money than ever before, but a relative handful of games make the bulk of game-industry profits. Not many publishers, and precious few developers, are working on those triple-A games, and so they don't have the luxury of throwing more money at their projects. They're trying to reduce costs and lessen financial risk. That means squeezing the most out of their smaller staffs. If it comes down to working 80-hour weeks or not working at all, I suspect most developers would choose the former.


If the company decides that they should remain as small as possible, why would they set such strict release dates? Some people complain about iD Software and their "when it's done" approach, but it means that a company of 25 can create an entire game around their schedule and stay sane.

Id is one of those precious few developers that produces triple-A games. They can afford to go several years between projects, and to keep several dozen employees on the payroll during those "down" times. Most developers can't. Id is also able to whore out its FPS tech.


If you had read the complaints, one of them was from someone that had worked at Maxis for years before going to work at EA. He had said that he never had to put in such hours at Maxis except in milestone weeks.

There's no question he had it better at Maxis than at EA. But no one forced him to go from Maxis to EA, or to stay at EA. He received a six-figure sum just to relocate, which is hardly a standard game-industry perk. With that kind of pull, he surely could've found a gig at another company, and a work schedule more to his liking.


I think that games that have longer and more realistic development cycles benefit from that -- Half Life 2 or Doom 3, anyone?

Some games don't benefit from extra-long development cycles at all--Galleon and Daikatana, anyone?


I've asked this three times before and you haven't answered because I guess perhaps there isn't an answer to it, and I don't suppose that you will this time so this will be my last post in the thread, but:

I haven't answered because it's a question that doesn't make any sense. Comparing a salaried artist (as these EA employees were, and are disputing) to an EMT is like the earlier comparison in this thread of an artist to a coal miner.

Again, I'd love to see Jason Rubin or someone else step up and attempt to unionize the game industry, if only because it would plainly reveal how the various publishers and developers feel about the issue. They've been talking about quality-of-life concerns at Game Developers Conference since forever ago; now it's time for action.

-- Z.

[Ed Oscuro]

Hm. Trying to blame these workers might have a cathartic effect but it doesn't get anything done. I can blame every elderly German for the Holocaust and try to assert that they are responsible, but what's that going to accomplish? What, they didn't get themselves killed for opposing the mindless war machine? This is a systemic problem, as noted before, and the only party really in a position to effect change is the company itself - not workers. We all know that workers really don't have any protection against retaliatory firings; no sense going about asking for your employer to do just that.

The idea that a software engineer in the game industry can go find work "somewhere else" also is a bit funny...where would they go? As EA "Spouse" noted, there aren't very good prospects in working at other places. I'm sure that these folks aren't the only ones who've been worried about providing a security blanket, so we can definitely cut them some slack. Poor choice of a major? Not four years ago. Now I certainly wouldn't advocate trying to get into the industry (be it programming or reviewing), but back then things looked pretty bright indeed.

Why EA would ever want to effect regular 80 hour work weeks is positively beyond me; if you're accustomed to sleeping for 8 hours (unlikely if you're working that much...) that leaves 32 hours "free" and some will no doubt be sucked up by the commute. With or without other duties to attend to, that basically puts an upper limit of 4-6 hours per day of time on things outside of work...that's insane.

The more work = more work done doesn't make sense, either. Have these people never heard of the law of diminishing returns?

[zmweasel]

Hm. Trying to blame these workers might have a cathartic effect but it doesn't get anything done. I can blame every elderly German for the Holocaust and try to assert that they are responsible, but what's that going to accomplish? What, they didn't get themselves killed for opposing the mindless war machine? This is a systemic problem, as noted before, and the only party really in a position to effect change is the company itself - not workers. We all know that workers really don't have any protection against retaliatory firings; no sense going about asking for your employer to do just that.

Aw, Ed, why'd you go and kill the thread with Godwin's Law? :)

For what it's worth, EA stated it won't be retaliating against the employees who choose to participate in the lawsuit. At least, not overtly.

-- Z.

[Ed Oscuro]

Hee hee.

And NO, I do not buy the corollary that states I will automatically lose the argument.

Really though, I think it's worth throwing an extreme example out there, because it shows that all across the board people do things which seem insipid and self-serving because that feeling of security is important.

[lendelin]

I'm completely with goatdan about this issue, zmweasels and FantasiaWhts statements smell too much like classic liberalism for my taste. :)

@FantasiaWHT: you describe a depravation of unionism, not strong labor unions which keep a watchful eye on employers and are a necessary organization to balance the leverage of employers. Slackers shouldn't be protected, nor should better work and more work penalized. It is a myth that labor unions necessarily go in this direction.

Organizations in a democracy are THE necessity to be heard and making pressure to achieve political goals. As an individual without organizing and making your voice publicly heard, you're completely overlooked and meaningless in a democracy (in particular if you are up against strong employers). Employers have their organizations, why shouldn't employees? You say labor laws are already in place, there is no necessity for labor unions. Who will push for these laws politically if not labor unions (in the past and present)?? Historically, federal labor laws were never in every country voluntarily introduced.

@zmweasel: I'm all for individual responsibility for the work you chose, and I'm all for the basic differences between creative fields and factory work.

But there is a big problem: employers are not always straightforward with you when you get hired, or they change theiir policy while you are employed. If you are already employed, THEN they have leverage (restricted flexibility to change your job for various private reasons, age, family, residence, other obligations, etc ) If I remember correctly, according to the reports by the EA employers (and taken their word at face value!!), it wasn't spelled out that 80 hours a work was the requirement, in one specific job interview one guy was in general asked what he thinks about "working more hours." I ask: why can an employer be strightforward and say: in all likelihood you have to work 80 hours a week for months, maybe even for an entire year, do you accept such a workload at this salary?

Instead, EA made the "exception" for one month the rule for two, three, five, and more months. That is wrong, it is misleading. If an employer can afford to do that, it will. An employer will push the nvelope for various intra-organizational reasons (section heads who wanna climb the career ladder, etc.), and the main reason is profit. I say: instead of pushing the envelope step by step and making the "exception" a well calculated means of cost reduction, hire more people! EA can afford it, the profit margins are high, and they are not a small developer (which needs certainly more flexibility than a big employer like EA).

The Q if stricter labor laws in general lead to outsourcing (I think in the older thread addressed by zmweasel) or economic slowdown is unresolved. I doubt it heavily for a branche like game development, however.

Outsourcing:

1. game development isn't making cars, sneakers or t-shirts. Today a country won't get rich anymore by producing jobs in the manufacturing branche, but by creating jobs in the service sector (producing "air," not goods; basically, exchange of information, skills, various services, "knowledge" jobs from writing and teaching to networking and programming) This is exactly the kind of modern jobs and skills you won't find in developing countries. You find cheap manual labor in these countries, not highly skilled programmers.

2. For various jobs in game development an employer will look and find guys in other countries which will catch up (Eastern Europe, Turkey), but these jobs will only marginally affect the job situation, because

3. videogame dvelopment has to stay in the country and better, in one house. Cultural differences when it comes to "taste" (important for the appeal of games for one market) cannot be easily overcome, moreover, heavy intense team work with a ncessary constant exchange and corrections like making a game is best done under one roof.

4. in the old thread some referred to the movie industry when it comes to outsourcing (like Canada, and New Zealand for Lord of the Rings). First, movies are shot there becasue of cheap MANUAL labor (building a set), or becasue all of the necessary eqipment is there (TV shows in Canada); however, Dreamworks and other high-end firms specilaized in digitized special effects are still in California, and these are EXACTLY the kind of jobs required making games.

and Lord of the Rings wasn't shot in New Zealand in order to avoid strong Main Labor regulations; it was shot there becasue of the landscape, generous working conditions given by the government; moreover, New Zealand is the extreme opposite of labor regulations compared to the US. They have very strict labor laws, it is a corporatist country in which labor unions face no competition and are regarded as representative of all the workers. New Zealand introduced their Main Labor regulation (the Arbitration Act) already in the mid 1890s (don't make me look up the exact date:) ) only beaten by the earliest industrializer Great Brittain (which introduced it in the mid 1870s).

New Zealnad is therefore an example where strict labor regulations did not prohibit job creation.

Economic slowdown: big Q, no definitive answer in general. For a modern and expanding industry like game development with new kinds and modern jobs hardly imaginable,(!!) very likely for the secondary sector.

Mancur Olsen wrote one of the best books about it ( "The Rise and Decline of Nations" from the early 80s, worthwhile to read if you can stand the heavy economic terminology); basically he says that the desired stability in early economic stages for empoyees and employers (!, they like predictability, too) by main labor regulations, strong labor unions and other interest groups transforms over time into inflexible rigidity (push for more regulations, court decisions) which creates a big obstacle for economic growth; basically, labor unions keep artificially jobs alive which should be faster terminated by economic shifts (good example are agriculture and manufacturing)

For a relatively new industry like the game industry with high-end technoilogical jobs and expanding at a relatively fast speed, this rule hardly applies.

In all likelihood, stricter regulations for EA would force them to create MORE jobs, to employ MORE in-house people at reasonable, clear out spelled salaries and working hours. It would mean a net gain of jobs under more reasonable conditions. More jobs will be created than lost.

[pixelsnpolygons]

Thanks a lot for the follow-up.

[Promophile]

For every anecdote you can relate about a lazy bum who has a crappy job because he won't pursue higher education, I can relate one about a smart, driven individual who has a crappy job because of the color of his skin.


What year are you living in, 1959? There are more opportunities for minorites and women in this country than in any other country in the history of the world. Hell we even have affirimative action, which places minorites and women ABOVE white men in college enterance.

lemme give you an example. I'm not trying to toot my own horn, but I recieved a 30 on my ACT, which puts me in the top 4 pct of the people who took the ACT. I also recieved straight A's in high school, and was pretty active with orginizations outside of school. I have a friend, who happens to be black, and he recieved a 29 on his ACT, got straight A's as well, and was active in LESS clubs / orginizations outside of school than me. We both applied to some very nice colleges, including some of the best in the country. We basically applied to the exact same schools at the same time. In terms of numbers, he was accepted by over about 80 percent of the schools he applied to. I was accepted by only about 50 percent. What caused this huge gap? Now you could say it was because he had written superior essays, but we actually proof read each others eassys, and his wasn't any better than mine.

What I'm trying to say is that there are more opportunities for minorities in America right now than there are for anyone else, except "rich white men", who make up a very miniscule portion of the white population.

On your comment about all programmers being from "rich white families", you've fooled me. Most of them that I know came from middle class families. Theres a big difference.

[Promophile]

I'm completely with goatdan about this issue, zmweasels and FantasiaWhts statements smell too much like classic liberalism for my taste. :)

@FantasiaWHT: you describe a depravation of unionism, not strong labor unions which keep a watchful eye on employers and are a necessary organization to balance the leverage of employers. Slackers shouldn't be protected, nor should better work and more work penalized. It is a myth that labor unions necessarily go in this direction.

Organizations in a democracy are THE necessity to be heard and making pressure to achieve political goals. As an individual without organizing and making your voice publicly heard, you're completely overlooked and meaningless in a democracy (in particular if you are up against strong employers). Employers have their organizations, why shouldn't employees? You say labor laws are already in place, there is no necessity for labor unions. Who will push for these laws politically if not labor unions (in the past and present)?? Historically, federal labor laws were never in every country voluntarily introduced.

@zmweasel: I'm all for individual responsibility for the work you chose, and I'm all for the basic differences between creative fields and factory work.

But there is a big problem: employers are not always straightforward with you when you get hired, or they change theiir policy while you are employed. If you are already employed, THEN they have leverage (restricted flexibility to change your job for various private reasons, age, family, residence, other obligations, etc ) If I remember correctly, according to the reports by the EA employers (and taken their word at face value!!), it wasn't spelled out that 80 hours a work was the requirement, in one specific job interview one guy was in general asked what he thinks about "working more hours." I ask: why can an employer be strightforward and say: in all likelihood you have to work 80 hours a week for months, maybe even for an entire year, do you accept such a workload at this salary?

Instead, EA made the "exception" for one month the rule for two, three, five, and more months. That is wrong, it is misleading. If an employer can afford to do that, it will. An employer will push the nvelope for various intra-organizational reasons (section heads who wanna climb the career ladder, etc.), and the main reason is profit. I say: instead of pushing the envelope step by step and making the "exception" a well calculated means of cost reduction, hire more people! EA can afford it, the profit margins are high, and they are not a small developer (which needs certainly more flexibility than a big employer like EA).

The Q if stricter labor laws in general lead to outsourcing (I think in the older thread addressed by zmweasel) or economic slowdown is unresolved. I doubt it heavily for a branche like game development, however.

Outsourcing:

1. game development isn't making cars, sneakers or t-shirts. Today a country won't get rich anymore by producing jobs in the manufacturing branche, but by creating jobs in the service sector (producing "air," not goods; basically, exchange of information, skills, various services, "knowledge" jobs from writing and teaching to networking and programming) This is exactly the kind of modern jobs and skills you won't find in developing countries. You find cheap manual labor in these countries, not highly skilled programmers.

2. For various jobs in game development an employer will look and find guys in other countries which will catch up (Eastern Europe, Turkey), but these jobs will only marginally affect the job situation, because

3. videogame dvelopment has to stay in the country and better, in one house. Cultural differences when it comes to "taste" (important for the appeal of games for one market) cannot be easily overcome, moreover, heavy intense team work with a ncessary constant exchange and corrections like making a game is best done under one roof.

4. in the old thread some referred to the movie industry when it comes to outsourcing (like Canada, and New Zealand for Lord of the Rings). First, movies are shot there becasue of cheap MANUAL labor (building a set), or becasue all of the necessary eqipment is there (TV shows in Canada); however, Dreamworks and other high-end firms specilaized in digitized special effects are still in California, and these are EXACTLY the kind of jobs required making games.

and Lord of the Rings wasn't shot in New Zealand in order to avoid strong Main Labor regulations; it was shot there becasue of the landscape, generous working conditions given by the government; moreover, New Zealand is the extreme opposite of labor regulations compared to the US. They have very strict labor laws, it is a corporatist country in which labor unions face no competition and are regarded as representative of all the workers. New Zealand introduced their Main Labor regulation (the Arbitration Act) already in the mid 1890s (don't make me look up the exact date:) ) only beaten by the earliest industrializer Great Brittain (which introduced it in the mid 1870s).

New Zealnad is therefore an example where strict labor regulations did not prohibit job creation.

Economic slowdown: big Q, no definitive answer in general. For a modern and expanding industry like game development with new kinds and modern jobs hardly imaginable,(!!) very likely for the secondary sector.

Mancur Olsen wrote one of the best books about it ( "The Rise and Decline of Nations" from the early 80s, worthwhile to read if you can stand the heavy economic terminology); basically he says that the desired stability in early economic stages for empoyees and employers (!, they like predictability, too) by main labor regulations, strong labor unions and other interest groups transforms over time into inflexible rigidity (push for more regulations, court decisions) which creates a big obstacle for economic growth; basically, labor unions keep artificially jobs alive which should be faster terminated by economic shifts (good example are agriculture and manufacturing)

For a relatively new industry like the game industry with high-end technoilogical jobs and expanding at a relatively fast speed, this rule hardly applies.

In all likelihood, stricter regulations for EA would force them to create MORE jobs, to employ MORE in-house people at reasonable, clear out spelled salaries and working hours. It would mean a net gain of jobs under more reasonable conditions. More jobs will be created than lost.

Just one comment. In the part about outsourcing you said one flaw with it is that game companies want to keep "cultural flavor". Now, not even taking into effect that the largest portion of console games released come from Japan yet there seems to be no problem with cultrual differences, what keeps companies from developing a games story, plot, art, ect in the US then shipping the info to India or other cheap labor countires to have programmers there punch in the information for dollars a day? Don't assume that other countries don't contain skilled workers.

For example, here is one plan hospitals in the US are testing to see if they should impliment it. Your raido-technician (X-ray taker) takes an x-ray of your leg. They then scan it into a computer, and a doctor from China logs on his computer and views the X-ray. The reasons hospitals are looking to do this is because doctors in China get paid less than half as much as equivilent doctors in the US. This isn't some "manufacturing job", this is a job that requires years and years of highly specialized training. What keeps companies from outsourcing every possible job they can? Basically public outcry. If you go to india and look at all the buildings which house the customer service people used by credit card companies and others, you will notice that there are NO signs anywhere stating which company it is. Companies don't WANT the public to know about their outsourcing. The Republicans won't do anything about it, big business controls them.

[lendelin]

For example, here is one plan hospitals in the US are testing to see if they should impliment it. Your raido-technician (X-ray taker) takes an x-ray of your leg. They then scan it into a computer, and a doctor from China logs on his computer and views the X-ray. The reasons hospitals are looking to do this is because doctors in China get paid less than half as much as equivilent doctors in the US. This isn't some "manufacturing job", this is a job that requires years and years of highly specialized training.

Well, I don't know this project and therefore can't say anything about it. Let's assume you represented it the correct way: it is in its "testing" phase. I have heavy doubts it will work, and please don't make the exception the rule. :) As far as I know, doctors and nurses in the US certainly don't suffer from outsourcing.

As I said, certain game development jobs might be given away to skilled artists or programmers. Storytelling, character animation, etc. done by foreigners might be even desirable for American developers if they look for new angles and fresh ideas., but in very aspect the impact on jobs in the US is marginal at best.

Game development requires day to day constant interaction and flexibility. Phone conferences, emails, phone calls won't do it for a process characterized by change, new ideas, and constant testing if something works. It is difficult enough to make a new direction and new ideas plausible when you go into someones office and can talk to him face to face. Long distance working relationships for the bullwark of game development would be counterproductive.

When Silicon Knights and Retro Studios worked with Nintendo, the guys met each other in person several times, and Silicon Knights and Retro Studios developed the games in the US and in-house.

If a Chinese programmer is able to work for an American game developer, he wants to live and stay in the US. I don't know how long it will take programmers in Poland, Hungary, or Rumania to catch up so they can be regarded as a cheap alternative to American programmers. It won't happen in the next five years for sure, and I doubt it will happen in the next ten years considering the economic infrastructure in these countries and the speedy development of computer technology.


What keeps companies from outsourcing every possible job they can? Basically public outcry.

Nah, not public outcry, cost considerations. They outsourced already, and that's a very good thing for YOU in the US and for developing countries as well. If manufacturing jobs would be kept in the US the firms would be in terrible shape becasue they wouldn't be internationally competitive. Looking at multinational firms, the concept of "national" economies doesn't make sense anyway. Money, like nobility, never stopped at national borders.

Outsourcing is only a phony election campaign issue done for vote hunting, nothing else.


If you go to india and look at all the buildings which house the customer service people used by credit card companies and others, you will notice that there are NO signs anywhere stating which company it is. Companies don't WANT the public to know about their outsourcing.

Sure, becasue the electorate still thinks in national economy concepts and the concept is perceived by businessmen and politicians as sellable. It still doesn't make sense. If you buy a book from Knopf in New York you contribute to the American economy as well as to the the German economy. Knopf is owned by Random House which is owned by the German media giant Bertelsmann, which also owns Doubleday, Pantheon and Broadway. Bertelsmann makes 50% of its profits in the US, the rest in Germany, all over Europe, and in South America....

...and the last time I bought sneakers as a German patriot living in America, I went 'strictly' for good old German craftsmanship -- adidas sneakers (made in China).

Answering phones in customer service even for Microsoft is not programming, btw.

[lendelin]

messed it up :)