Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Programming News Entertainment Games IT Technology

Electronic Arts Facing Possible Class Action Lawsuit 1060

As a follow-up to yesterday's story about a frustrated EA employee's spouse, several readers wrote in to report that EA is now facing a possible class action lawsuit from disgruntled employees. Besides the Gamespot coverage, Kotaku has a discussion of it as well. To add to the "frustrated EA worker" momentum, a former employee named Joe Straitiff has posted about his experiences as well. From his post: "So I'm posting under my real name -- you have to stand up to this type of thing or it will continue. And every company will become EA so that can compete... Remember, you can't spell ExploitAtion without EA."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Electronic Arts Facing Possible Class Action Lawsuit

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 12, 2004 @10:18AM (#10797793)
    Isn't that like, the whole gaming industry?
    • by flibuste ( 523578 ) on Friday November 12, 2004 @10:41AM (#10798021)
      It's like that in the WHOLE industry...Those 2 blogs entries sound so familiar. To sum up:
      • No overtime paid
      • Abnoxious hours
      • Stressed-out teams
      • Incompetence in management
      • Conflicts of interest
      • HR non-sense
      • by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 12, 2004 @11:01AM (#10798217)
        I've said it once, and I'll say it again:

        The technology sector is ripe for unionization.
        • by Jim_Maryland ( 718224 ) on Friday November 12, 2004 @11:49AM (#10798789)
          The technology sector is ripe for unionization.

          Now why would I want to get my pay based on seniority rather than performance? I have several family members (father included) in construction unions and I don't see how the benefits would help in the technology sector. If anything, I'd see unionization as a sure way to move jobs out of the country even faster.
          • by arivanov ( 12034 ) on Friday November 12, 2004 @12:28PM (#10799475) Homepage
            Well... It depends what are we talking about. People keep talking about the IT industry and unions without actually realizing that the differences in the industry are vast. Unions in a high level design department in a Telco - give me a break, unions in an architecture group in a software house - once again give me a break, unions in a "Mr Wolf" pulp fiction style consultancy - you gotta be kidding. Unions in a sweatshop cubicle XP farm where people are cranking out dull code and being payed by the hour - definitely.
            Actually, it is the same in the constuction industry - how many architects, interior designers or planners are unionized? Dunno about US, but here - about 0.
            • by Jim_Maryland ( 718224 ) on Friday November 12, 2004 @12:53PM (#10799820)
              I realize that unions have benefited workers in the past and do help some industries (particularly ones where the working conditions are physically dangerous and implimenting safety protocols will cost money to the company). I disagree though about "Unions in a sweatshop cubicle XP farm where people are cranking out dull code and being payed by the hour - definitely." being one of the appropriate places to have a union though.

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

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

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

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

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

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

              • by Analogy Man ( 601298 ) on Friday November 12, 2004 @01:24PM (#10800251)
                Unions can reflect the personality of the employees they represent. I used to be a member of SPEAA (?sp?) for aerospace engineers and techs. In the actual aero organization the educational split was about 10%PhD,30%MS,40%BS,20%associates degrees. I had favorable impression of the organization and compensation was performance/market based. The Union negotiated the size of the raise pool, medical coverage, retention (yes they acknowledged the cyclic nature of the industry).

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

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

              • by feepcreature ( 623518 ) on Friday November 12, 2004 @01:57PM (#10800658) Homepage
                Your understanding of unions is "a bit biased". It's like a caricature of unions in pre-thatcher Britain. Maybe it IS like that in the US - I wouldn't know. Out here there are good unions and bad ones. Good ones work with the company, in enlightened self interest. Just like good management works with their staff, in enlightened self-interest, in fact.

                The Union's job is essentially to stop management from putting a [possibly illusory] chance of short term profit ahead of the longer term interest of the employees (and the company as a whole).

                Don't unions collectively bargain for pay rates? Doesn't that ensure that every employee at a position category will receive the same pay no matter how well/poorly they perform?
                Yes and no, respectively.

                A union may ask for any deal that is in the interests of the membership as a whole - and many unions happily work with systems that reward performance. They may demand that the systems be fair (and avoid victimisation), or that the overall increases be good, or that no employee be too badly disadvantaged. But that's quite compatible with rewarding excellence.

                Unions protect the employees by making employee termination much more difficult to the employer. While the advantages are probably pretty obvious, this puts additional burden on the employer to build a case against an employee for termination if the employee truly deserves termination?
                Good unions won't have a problem with fair termination of bad employees. On the other hand, they may assist all their members with any appeals or due process there may be. At the end of the day, a fair process is in everyone's interest (unless you're the bad employee).
                Unions typically prohibit companies from hiring non-union employees...
                In the UK that's called a "Closed Shop" and it's illegal - one of the more enlightened reforms of the Thatcher era. Unions cope just fine. A good union (especially if the employer's management is moderate to poor) will be able to attract members on its merits.
                Unions see overtime as potential for another worker rather than an opportunity for current union members to pick up additional income.
                Quite the reverse in some cases - I know of unions that guard their members' overtime a little too zealously.
                I guess if I were an underachiever, I'd probably welcome a union.
                I think you miss the value of a union - at its best it provides balance, and promotes enlightened self interest and good management. Industrial relations are not supposed to be a zero-sum game!

                Personally, I didn't used to be a member of our union - but I joined because I thought it was doing a pretty good job.

              • by Thangodin ( 177516 ) <elentar@NOSpAm.sympatico.ca> on Friday November 12, 2004 @05:36PM (#10802922) Homepage
                The solution lies somewhere in the middle: labour involvement in management. The "Union Rep" is actually a member of upper management, how communicates the state of the company accurately to the employees, and carries grievances right to the upper levels of management, and the Board of Directors. Lack of involvement breeds apathy. Eventually you have a business staffed by noobs who don't know what the fuck they are doing, or by burned out veterans who do but couldn't care less. Any company who manages the balance between employee and company needs will do better than EA. The problem is, there were almost none out there in the early days of game development. I worked for one of the oldest game companies in the world before they went down, and it was obvious that they were even more incompetent than EA. The early companies crunched and gouged their people to make their start, and kept on doing it. Others just didn't have the urge to build an empire like EA. Now EA is too big to break easily, and it uses that clout to break up better companies before they can become large enough to be a threat.

                Unfortunately, you can hear this same tune in virtually every industry now. Wal-Mart, for example, will open a store in a neighborhood and slash prices to the point that even they don't make any money on it. Once all the local retailers have gone bankrupt, they close the store, having a proviso on the original lease that the space cannot be rented out for retail purposes for a decade or two. The huge box stands empty (there is almost nothing else you can do with it), the contractor who built it loses his shirt, everyone is forced to go to the Wal-Mart across town, which now sells its goods at regular or inflated prices, because it no longer has any competition. And thousands of people are thrown out of work--or forced to work at Wal-Mart for low pay, because the job situation is so desparate. So the behaviour of a company like EA should come as no surprise--it amounts to pretty much the same thing.
          • by DM9290 ( 797337 ) on Friday November 12, 2004 @01:21PM (#10800212) Journal
            Now why would I want to get my pay based on seniority rather than performance? I have several family members (father included) in construction unions and I don't see how the benefits would help in the technology sector. If anything, I'd see unionization as a sure way to move jobs out of the country even faster.

            How do you measure "performance"?

            As for Unionization moving jobs out of the country.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

            Throwing away the right to unionize isn't going to stop outsourcing. Only a relative equalization of standards between nations. You can equalize it high, or equalize it low. Don't let the corporations choose.
        • by zymurgyboy ( 532799 ) <`moc.oohay' `ta' `yobygrumyz'> on Friday November 12, 2004 @04:13PM (#10802076)
          Fine. You can work for the rest of us who would rather continue seeing IT go the way of a new profession.

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

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

  • I hope (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 12, 2004 @10:20AM (#10797808)
    that this ties them up in litigation enough that it distracts them from their core business of buying up creative game developers and destroying anything that was good about them.
    • Re:I hope (Score:3, Interesting)

      by TopShelf ( 92521 )
      While I wouldn't expect ongoing litigation to be much of a distraction to them (that's why you hire lawyers), a negative ruling against them could be catastrophic. A court-ordered redesign of their personnel and software development practices would present a huge risk to keeping the pipeline of products flowing to the market. Even if they cleaned house and brought in new managers, it would take time to get things back up to speed.

      In the fast-paced computer gaming world, a year or two lost to restructurin
  • by Zeppelingb ( 609128 ) on Friday November 12, 2004 @10:20AM (#10797809)
    John Madden says, "You just hate to see that!"
  • Three words... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by BJZQ8 ( 644168 ) on Friday November 12, 2004 @10:21AM (#10797822) Homepage Journal
    FORM A UNION It worked for GM workers who faced similar situations back in 1937. Stick together and they can't stop you...but then again, in this world where everybody is out for themselves, you've probably screwed.
    • Re:Three words... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by cgenman ( 325138 ) on Friday November 12, 2004 @10:27AM (#10797885) Homepage
      Unions are easier to form where you have stable employment and a local employment pool. In the gaming industry it is more difficult, as A: employment lasts somewhere between 8 months and 2 years, and B: people travel all across the country for work. It's far more difficult to consider yourself a union town if you're about to pop off to Frisco for a Stint with a new company.

      That having been said, the union movement is gaining momentum, and I would gladly sign up for one.

      • by Sagarian ( 519668 ) <(ude.tim.mula) (ta) (rellims)> on Friday November 12, 2004 @11:19AM (#10798453)
        A business (the movie business), with an unstable labor pool (infinite supply of people with stars in their eyes), short project lifespans (1-2 years), ...

        yet there is a Screen Actors' Guild.
    • Re:Three words... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by demachina ( 71715 ) on Friday November 12, 2004 @10:57AM (#10798170)
      You don't have to have a union to STRIKE. That sounds like the solution to this problem but you do have to get everyone on the same page which is hard and dangerous, and you have to realize you are gambling big on a big win, or destroying your career. Of course when your future career is like this you are better off without it in the long run because it will destroy you physically and mentally. If you've never been severly burned out which is what happens inevitably from this kind workload it permanently damages you mentally and physically.

      If you were to strike you have to do it at a point in the project where you have the management by the balls. If they lose their whole staff, and they can't finish with scabs, their schedule and their investment goes in to the dumper. Even with scabs there is a pretty good chance the quality will go in the dumper just because of the time to get them up to speed and they probably wont be able to fix all the bugs in other peoples work.

      I know everyone hates unions, deservedly so because they were so thoroughly corrupted over the years. But this is a cautionary tale because this is what life was like for most workers in the early 1900's before unions came on the scene and compelled reasonable work hours and pay.

      This is also a cautionary tale of the consequences you can expect from a long duration Republican domination of the government. The Republican party is consistently pro business and anti labor and they are promoting exactly this kind of environment. The euphemism they use for it in the economic reports is high "productivity". It means milking worker for as much work as possible for the lowest wage possible.

      Free trade, outsourceing, and turning a blind eye to illegal aliens are all tools designed to pressure labor in to caving to this kind of work environment. Smartly run businesses who want talented, productive, happy workers wont do it, but most businesseses aren't smart and are looking to exploit labor to maximize their extremely inflated salaries and shareholder return. It should be noted passive shareholders don't do any work, they have money, they invest it, they make more money. In an era of plunging capital gains and dividend taxes they ease with which they make money this way and accumulate wealth is accelerating. Meanwhile workers are working more hours, for lower wages and still shouldering a huge burden in income and payroll taxes.

      American's poopoo the word and pretend like its a fairy tale but this is what's called class warfare and the elite class is winning the war, big time.
    • Re:Three words... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by FortKnox ( 169099 ) on Friday November 12, 2004 @11:35AM (#10798625) Homepage Journal
      I explained this in yesterday's article...
      A union WILL NOT WORK in this instance. Why? Cause if you and all the game programmers join a union, the gaming companies will just replace each and every person. EVERY coder has, at one time or another, wanted to code video games. For each video game programmer that is employed right now, there is a hundred programmers that would kill for the job. If you unionize, they'll simply hire people that will take the job without going into a union.

      Unions work for stuff like the blue collar automotive industry because people aren't beating down the doors wanting that kinda job. They can't replace all the workers. In the gaming industry, though, there is an extremely high desire for job and extremely low demand for jobs.

      It simply won't work. You join together to form a union, you won't work in the industry anymore.
  • by Rocketboy ( 32971 ) on Friday November 12, 2004 @10:21AM (#10797824)
    EA will not retaliate against employees for exercising legal rights, including by participating in the proposed class action.

    In other words, your jobs are going overseas. You have the right to look for another job, and we won't discriminate against you for that.

    Was it good for you, too?

    Rb
    • Even assuming your defeatest attitude is right, the workers are correct to exercise their rights. What's the point of having a job if it destroys your health and personal life? Not to mention the fact that the illegal and immoral practices the workers are just now fighting against result in (according to yesterday's article [livejournal.com] by an EA employee's spouse) 50% turnover, meaning the average worker has a 50-50 chance of leaving the company anyway. In short: the current conditions arn't tenable; ridding the US of s
  • A few thoughts (Score:5, Informative)

    by slusich ( 684826 ) * <slusich@gmRASPail.com minus berry> on Friday November 12, 2004 @10:22AM (#10797836)
    First of all, everyone always needs to keep in mind that HR is not there for the benefit of the employees. That's what every company tells you, but the truth is, HR's job is to protect the corperation. Never trust an HR employee to look out for your best interest. That being said, EA's HR department has obviously failed them by allowing things to get to this point. They should have kept pay and hours legal within the bounds of the state law. And did anyone else notice the featured game on the gamespot article? Sims2 by EA.
    • Good ol' HR (Score:5, Interesting)

      by gosand ( 234100 ) on Friday November 12, 2004 @11:40AM (#10798680)
      First of all, everyone always needs to keep in mind that HR is not there for the benefit of the employees. That's what every company tells you, but the truth is, HR's job is to protect the corperation.

      You got that right. From '93 to '98 I worked at Motorola. For some of you who don't remember, let me set the stage: the WWW was in its infancy. At the company, we had just gotten access to it, and we had Mosaic. Intranets didn't really exist yet,and I was actually on the team that helped create it in our department. (I actually got an award for it, which is kind of funny now) We were on Solaris servers, 10 users per server. So we each had "web space", and people created web pages. It was kind of cool because it was new, people were putting information out there for the whole department to use.

      On my page, I had lots of work related stuff, but I also had a small collection of engineer jokes. Nothing dirty at all, just dork humor. And so it went for a few years. One day I was called into Human Resources, and my manager was there. Neither of us knew what was going on. It turned out I was being written up for using corporate resources for non work related activities. My manager stood behind me, and fought for me. He explained that my web page was internal, and that it had mostly work related things on it. There was nothing offensive on it. As it turned out, some other people in the company had discovered the intranet, and found my jokes. They were looking at them, and their supervisor got pissed because they were goofing off. So they called HR. I wasn't even informed, and asked to take the material down, and neither was my manager. I was just written up for it, and it was considered a serious infraction. All we were able to do was argue it down from a class 1 infraction to a class 2. That meant that one more infraction could result in termination. I got a little livid with the HR person, and asked her if she had ever used her email for something non-work related, even saying hi to a family member. She didn't want to answer me, and I pressed her and kept asking. She finally admitted that she had. I asked if she was going to write herself up, and my manager stepped in at that point and ended the meeting.

      I left Motorola about 3 months later. There were other factors, but I have to admit that the HR interaction helped me to realize that I didn't want to be there anymore.

  • by TempusMagus ( 723668 ) * on Friday November 12, 2004 @10:23AM (#10797849) Homepage Journal
    The response will be to outsource your jobs at EA. Hopefully folks will learn the lesson; organize and plan for the worst when times are good and companies need the services you, as an employee, provide.

    It's sad but I can't imagine any large company making concessions to it's employees in the current political climate.

    Does anyone know how many of EA's employees are contractors, BTW?
  • by GillBates0 ( 664202 ) on Friday November 12, 2004 @10:25AM (#10797862) Homepage Journal
    to come up with NLA Lawsuit 2005.

    "Starting this week and lasting through the end of the season, you can get the #1-selling lawsuit game for an unbelievable $29.95!"

  • Bye bye to the jobs (Score:5, Interesting)

    by lukeduff ( 156720 ) on Friday November 12, 2004 @10:26AM (#10797869) Homepage
    I'm sure a lot of talented Eastern European, Indian, and Chinese developers wouldn't mind being exploited by EA.
  • Pink slip (Score:3, Insightful)

    by RandoX ( 828285 ) on Friday November 12, 2004 @10:27AM (#10797893)
    "Remember, you can't spell ExploitAtion without EA." No, but you can spell "Out of work" without it. In many states (including mine) the employer doesn't need ANY reason to terminate an employee. Period.
    • Re:Pink slip (Score:5, Interesting)

      by gcaseye6677 ( 694805 ) on Friday November 12, 2004 @10:33AM (#10797936)
      Yes, but even in a right to work state, which is what you're referring to, firing an employee in a manner that appears to be retaliation for complaining about illegal working conditions is legally very risky. Federal law punishes employers for a number of labor law violations, such as overtime pay, and the punishment is much more severe when they try to retaliate against the complaining employee. Contrary to what many people believe, salaried employees are entitled to overtime in many situations. Only if they are truly in management, with direct reports and a certain amount of autonomy over their job situations, are they fully exempt from overtime. EA had better be careful if they want to avoid a nasty legal mess, and it may be too late for them.
      • Re:Pink slip (Score:3, Informative)

        by Nintendork ( 411169 )
        Actually, Right to Work [about.com] refers to having the choice to join a union instead of being forced to when you become employed in a company with a union. What you're referring to is called At Will [about.com]. Regarding your comment on employers being careful when they fire employees, the laws that protect employees from wrongful termination are easy for the employer to work around. Unless you're a 100% super employee, they can and will find another reason for firing you. Unless you have an email, recording, or some other
  • by telstar ( 236404 ) on Friday November 12, 2004 @10:29AM (#10797915)
    Don't hate the player ... hate the game!
  • by JumperCable ( 673155 ) on Friday November 12, 2004 @10:30AM (#10797919)
    that the class action results in an award for payment of lawyer fees & $5 off their next EA game purchase.
  • errrrm (Score:5, Funny)

    by Prince Vegeta SSJ4 ( 718736 ) on Friday November 12, 2004 @10:32AM (#10797926)

    Electronic Arts news release: due to popular demand, and the growing number of civil actions filed in this country, Electronic Arts announces a new game due to hit stores just in time for Christmas '05

    commercial begins

    -Johnny Cochran comes out-

    EA COURTS : it's in the game!

  • by GSpot ( 134221 ) on Friday November 12, 2004 @10:32AM (#10797934) Homepage
    Has anyone ever heard of a "gruntled" employee? Just wondering.
  • Yeah. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Renraku ( 518261 ) on Friday November 12, 2004 @10:33AM (#10797939) Homepage
    While I don't have much against a free market, this is clearly abuse. We take skilled workers, and treat them like shit. People that are great programmers, talented minds, etc. We run them through the dirt and then don't even have the common courtesy to give them overtime.

    My father is a construction worker. 5 or 6 years ago, his company started pulling the same thing. He would go in at 8am, and not get home until 10pm or 11pm each night. Sometimes on Saturdays. They did, however, get overtime.

    A month of this went by. People were tired. They were cranky. Accidents happened at work all the time, usually involving equipment damage or damage to whatever they were working on. They just didn't get much done in a 14 hour day.

    Thankfully, the management saw what was going on and when that job was completed later that month, everyone was given a big bonus, an apology, and promises that they weren't going to set their 'completion dates' that low again.

    It was depressing to watch my dad come in, after a 12 or 14 hour day, eat, shower, and go to bed, knowing that in a few hours, he'd have to be right back at work for another 12 to 14 hours. It was barely worth it in my opinion, even with overtime.

    EA's shit should be a warning to other companies of what not to do.
  • Good for them (Score:3, Interesting)

    by DeVilla ( 4563 ) on Friday November 12, 2004 @10:35AM (#10797959)
    Last night I was scanning EA's site trying to find a contact address of some sort so I could ask them to publicly address the message from the employee's spouce. I never found an address, but a lawsuit is more likely to get a serious response anyhow.

    EA was one of the best companies that made games for the C64. However, as a gamer, I would have no problem boycotting them now, until they start treating their human resources like people. I would assume this sort of thing is how they destroyed Origin Systems. In any case, I don't need games developed in a sweat shop.
  • by photovoltaics ( 470242 ) on Friday November 12, 2004 @10:35AM (#10797960)
    It's about time we stood up as a unit. The spouse's story sounds all too familiar. For nearly three years, I worked seventy and eighty hours weeks-- several times per month at one position. I don't know if management realizes how badly this has become. I don't believe this is necessary to continue this way. One thing not mentioned in the EA spouse's letter was how difficult it is to get another job while you're in the middle of an eighty hour work week. Your options seem much more limited than the reality of the situation. Thanks again to the EA spouse and /. for getting this message out there.
  • by wooby ( 786765 ) on Friday November 12, 2004 @10:37AM (#10797979) Journal

    It sounds to me like there needs to be some alliance or union of game industry workers. Is there such a thing? Problems like ridiculous hours were solved a hundred years ago by the introduction of unions in other industries.

  • by ad0gg ( 594412 ) on Friday November 12, 2004 @10:44AM (#10798045)
    Exempted Programmers in california are required $45/hr pay or higher. So EA is obviously paying above ~$94k a year. We aren't talking about low paid employees. I'm sure if they quit, EA would have no problems filling someone at the salary range.
    • by WIAKywbfatw ( 307557 ) on Friday November 12, 2004 @11:01AM (#10798221) Journal
      The exemption that you're referring to excludes people in the entertainment industry, because it is specifically designed to cover essential workers, such as a company's IT staff, and not non-essential workers, such as someone writing the AI for a game. Besides, from what I've read it's clear that not everyone at EA earns above the magic exemption barrier.

      And even if they did, requiring staff to work 10-12 hour days, 7 days a week isn't only counterproductive, it's dangerous to their long-term health: I'm sorry, but it's the 21st century, and companies shouldn't be working their employees into the ground anywhere in the world, let alone in California.

      I don't care if someone is paid $10/hr or $45/hr, they still have rights, and those rights include decent, respectful working practices.
  • by HarveyBirdman ( 627248 ) on Friday November 12, 2004 @10:49AM (#10798099) Journal
    The responses so far

    So quit! --- 51%
    Unionize! --- 48%

    Odd... I've seen those numbers somewhere before.

  • Boycott EA Games!!! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by StarTux ( 230379 ) on Friday November 12, 2004 @10:53AM (#10798139) Journal
    I am never going to buy their games ever again!

    Oh wait, I use Linux...

    StarTux
  • Company Culture (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ShelbyCobra ( 134614 ) on Friday November 12, 2004 @10:54AM (#10798145)
    While I am an engineer, not a programmer, I have to say that the real answer to this problem lies in the company's culture, which includes the culture of the management. As long as there are people willing to submit to this sort of treatment, it will continue, EA being a very extreme case. Here are two examples of situations that I have worked in recently to compare and contrast.

    Company #1: While it was never specifically stated that the employee should put in long hours, it was common for employees to work 7:00 am-5:30pm m-f with weekend work at least every other weekend. This was with no "crunch-time" effect. The culture of the employees was simply "I work more than you do so I am a more valued employee." The odd thing about it, is it was still impossible to actually complete an improvement project, and those employees who worked long hours were more adept at creating more work for themselves than completing it. A common joke at this company was "If you are working from 7:00 am to 7:00 pm, you are only working half days." Very funny. Even funnier, this company regularly makes the fortune magazine 100 best companies to work for list. Needless to say, I am no longer with this group.

    Company #2: This company's culture is "Get your work done and get out of here." Much more relaxing. The value is placed not upon how much time an employee spends at work, but on how much the employee gets done. I would feel completely secure in this position if I would work myself out of a job by automating all things possible, because the company recognizes innovation rather than time at the grindstone. The 4.5 day week is common practice, and if you have to work overtime, other employees feel honestly bad for you. The best part about it, if an exempt employee works more than 40 hours in a week, management actually insists that the employee takes comp time. I could go on and on about this, but the culture of the employees and managers is the key.

    The culture of a company is a very difficult thing to change, and it gets more and more difficult to change as the number of employees increases. The best thing that an individual can do at this time is to find a company whose culture is acceptable to their work habits. If enough of the best and brightest employees find the companies with the good culture, eventually the corporate giants with bad work practices will either change or die off.

    If you think that you are the best and brightest, prove that you are the brightest by changing your own situation. Not only will it help you, but it will help others in the long run.
  • Sonic extreme (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Turn-X Alphonse ( 789240 ) on Friday November 12, 2004 @11:02AM (#10798224) Journal
    Anyone remember the deal with the Sonic on the Saturn game?

    One guy ended up in hospital for over work on that game and it never saw the light of dawn let alone day.

    Yet everyone whines when game X is delayed because they want it NOW!

    Well maybe we should start showing these people (I'm looking at you Duke Nukem forever fans!), what people go through so we can get our 5 minutes of kicks.
  • by StikyPad ( 445176 ) on Friday November 12, 2004 @11:07AM (#10798303) Homepage
    While I agree that the conditions imposed are/were arduous, and I myself have endured employment by an equally demanding employer, I'm curious about the rights of a salary worker to demand overtime. As much as we enjoy deriding doctors and lawyers, many of them work 80-90 hour weeks, albeit usually for substantially more money than the average programmer. If you agree to be paid on salary, and you agree that time worked in excess of 40 hours per week is acceptable when your employer deems necessary, then can you still complain that you have to work overtime without compensation? I guess I'm a little fuzzy on labor laws in the US.. Perhaps someone can elaborate.
  • Corporate Politics (Score:5, Informative)

    by null etc. ( 524767 ) on Friday November 12, 2004 @11:13AM (#10798383)
    It's a real shame this guy hasn't been around the block a few times with regards to management. There are some very clear actions he could have taken to ensure that the noose wasn't just around his neck, but also around the next of his supervisor and HR contact.

    Just some examples:

    • Get all job requirements in writing or email. If your boss asks you to complete something, send him an email asking him to verify the scope and priority of the work to be performed. If necessary, use clauses such as "Do you agree that until completion of this task, this task takes precedence over all other requests made of me, unless otherwise communicated by you?"
    • Get all reprimands in writing or email, and get as much clarification as possible. If your boss reprimands you verbally, follow up with an email asking him if your interpretation of his reprimand is correct. Ask him to describe or verify the actions that will be required to resolve the issue.
    • Follow up on every contradiction. If your boss says "good job" one day, and yells at you the next, ask him via email to clarify the situation so that you can take steps to avoid repeating the situation. This is especially important if you need to represent yourself as a dutiful employee during future lawsuits.
    • Ask to be educated about the formal HR policies for reprimand. Many companies, in order to avoid lawsuits, have clearly defined policies for reprimanding employees. These include written warning, signed by the employee; mandatory HR sessions upon reprimand; follow-up performance evaluations, etc. Some companies get lazy and stop following the policies they've defined. If so, your lawsuit will be much stronger! Try to get all reprimands processes as clearly and officially as possible. This will require your employer to make clear and rational decisions regarding your reprimand, unless they want to risk facing an unlawful termination suit.
    • Save all email. During a lawsuit, your lawyer will need emails that may be years old, in order to make certain cases such as "this company promoted an atmosphere of such and such, as evidenced by these emails going as far back as..." I know of a lawsuit in which an employee saved his spam, and used that as evidence that the company wasn't serious about enforcing "corporate use only" policies.
  • by Thagg ( 9904 ) <thadbeier@gmail.com> on Friday November 12, 2004 @11:49AM (#10798796) Journal
    Seriously, quitting is almost certainly painless to EA, as they can get other people to do the job pretty easily. Just send an email saying that you're only going to work 50 hours a week, and stick to it, and see what happens.

    Because firing people has consequences. I run a small visual effects production company, and we hire freelance people as we get projects, for the length of the project. The State of California doesn't see it that way, though, and to the state it appears that we hire and fire people at a high rate.

    This causes our unemployment insurance rate to be insanely high -- we pay about 10% of our employee's earnings into the state unemployment insurance system. Now, we consider that the cost of doing business -- we could even avoid it if we wanted to by various means but it does seem to us a reasonable price to pay for the privilege of hiring people just when we need them.

    But, if EA's unemployment insurance rate skyrocketed, it'd hit them right in the wallet. They might even do something about it.

    Just a suggestion. Any EA exec reading this (Hi!) can thank me privately -- as you must know, long term, that these "crunch" policies will destroy the company.

    Thad

To stay youthful, stay useful.

Working...