Video Games Are Destroying the People Who Make Them

[crazy canuck]

Well, if the point it to prevent the worker from being worked such long hours that their health is significantly endangered, I'm not sure doing away with some of the exemptions from over time really makes much sense as a solution.  While I have no doubt that employers are less likely to work employees long hours if they have to pay OT, it won't totally eliminate having to work long hours for some people.  If you work 100 hours a week, does it make any difference to your health that you make time-and-a-half for 60 of those hours?

Also, what about people who work multiple jobs?  I know one guy who works 3 full-time jobs.  He doesn't get any OT because he doesn't work over 40 hours for any one employer, but he still works 110-120 hours every week.  I don't think that's good for him, but OTOH, I don't think the government should prevent him from doing it if he wants to, either.  And questions of disparate bargaining power between the employer and employee don't really ply, because none of the 3 employers are forcing him to work 2 other jobs (and from my experience, each of them probably wishes he'd quit the other 2 jobs and work solely for them).

I agree that overtime pay requirements are not the whole solution.  The other part is maximum hour requirements so that employees work a certain maximum hours per week and receive a minimum number of hours of rest between work periods.  So after 8 hours of work overtime is paid until the max hours are reached - then the employee gets to stop working.

And you are correct, this is not a perfect fix.  There is no good way to regulate people who work multiple jobs.  But that isn't good reason not to regulate at all.

[grumbler]

So let's dispense with anecdotes.  Present day western economies and the US in particular are experiencing low relative compensation for workers and historically high profits as a share of national income.  Long work hours and work weeks cause stress on families and less sleep which is known to be bad for health.  Solution - presumption of 1.5x pay for work beyond 40 hrs per week.

I could get behind that.  And it would apply across the board (lawyers, bankers, doctors, etc), not to some special interest group that may, or may not, be  "Destroying the People Who Make Them."  I'd vote for comp time as an alternative to overtime pay, though, for non-hourly workers.

[grumbler]

The big potential problem with this is that this extra pay might encourage people to work these extra hours.

My God!  The Horror!  Allow people to make decisions about how much they are willing to work?  People are not adults, able to decide those things for themselves.  They must have  a nanny to make those decisions for them.

[Tamas]

The big potential problem with this is that this extra pay might encourage people to work these extra hours.

My God!  The Horror!  Allow people to make decisions about how much they are willing to work?  People are not adults, able to decide those things for themselves.  They must have  a nanny to make those decisions for them.

You obviously haven't been to England.

[Josquius]

The big potential problem with this is that this extra pay might encourage people to work these extra hours.

My God!  The Horror!  Allow people to make decisions about how much they are willing to work?  People are not adults, able to decide those things for themselves.  They must have  a nanny to make those decisions for them.

That's how things work.
People have a choice in many things. Though they are generally incentivised to take the healthy choice. For example in high tax on tobacco.
The down side of paying more for over 40 hours of work is that it is incentivising the unhealthy option.

[Valmy]

Lots of late nights, lots of weekend work, with significant amount of drinking as a team to "deal with the stress" and "build morale" variously sponsored by the company (picking up the tab) and softly encouraged (a team that parties together works better together, so the leads would invite people drinking and going to the bar with folks was definitely a component of being on the inside in terms of office politics).

The company also provided free soft-drinks (of course), and was heavily stocked with Red Bull because caffeine is helpful to stay alert during those late nights working, and good for perking up in the morning too after those long nights.

Do you get free coffee? Because that might make it worthwhile.

Pushing alcohol and caffeine on your employees eh? Well I guess we should be happy they are not providing amphetamines. I mean...they aren't right?

Why does this industry suck so bad? It just seems like the major players in it are just obsessed with screwing over the players and abusing their employees with sketchy business practices. It really wears you out over time and every time I try to adjust to the new normal they just seem to push the envelope further.

[Eddie Teach]

The down side of paying more for over 40 hours of work is that it is incentivising the unhealthy option.

Not really. How many companies would let their hourly employees take as many hours as they want?

[crazy canuck]

The big potential problem with this is that this extra pay might encourage people to work these extra hours.

My God!  The Horror!  Allow people to make decisions about how much they are willing to work?  People are not adults, able to decide those things for themselves.  They must have  a nanny to make those decisions for them.

That's how things work.
People have a choice in many things. Though they are generally incentivised to take the healthy choice. For example in high tax on tobacco.
The down side of paying more for over 40 hours of work is that it is incentivising the unhealthy option.

Normally it is not the employee's choice to work the overtime.  Because it costs more for the employer, normally overtime has to be approved by the employer.  So yes, higher pay provides the employee with the incentive to work overtime when requested to do so - but generally there has to be a request by the employer.

edit: as Eddie already stated

[grumbler]

That's how things work.
People have a choice in many things. Though they are generally incentivised to take the healthy choice. For example in high tax on tobacco.
The down side of paying more for over 40 hours of work is that it is incentivising the unhealthy option.

I'd love to see your evidence that working 44 hours a week is measurably less healthy than working 40 hours a week.  Or that 40 hours a week is the "healthy choice" compared to 36 hours a week (which it must be, or your argument fails).

I think that you are creating a problem because you want to implement your preferred nanny state solution.

[dps]

I don't think that anyone can reasonably argue that the 40-hour cutoff for OT isn't a more-or-less arbitrary limit.

[Monoriu]

Suppose you implement all these maximum hour and overtime rules.  But places like China and India don't.  Won't game companies move to places where labour cost is lower? 

[Jacob]

Suppose you implement all these maximum hour and overtime rules.  But places like China and India don't.  Won't game companies move to places where labour cost is lower?

Plenty of outsourcing already happens in India and China. As long as the actual market is in North America and Europe, a substantial amount of the work has to happen in those places to properly match the tastes of the market.

[CountDeMoney]

Heh, if we don't put caps on hours a week for people like doctors or first responders that actually do something important, we're certainly not going to put caps on hours worked a week by douchebag software programmers.

[Habbaku]

I don't think that anyone can reasonably argue that the 40-hour cutoff for OT isn't a more-or-less arbitrary limit.

I don't know why you are so confident of that. A modicum of research will tell you that, no, it was quite deliberate.

[Josquius]

That's how things work.
People have a choice in many things. Though they are generally incentivised to take the healthy choice. For example in high tax on tobacco.
The down side of paying more for over 40 hours of work is that it is incentivising the unhealthy option.

I'd love to see your evidence that working 44 hours a week is measurably less healthy than working 40 hours a week.  Or that 40 hours a week is the "healthy choice" compared to 36 hours a week (which it must be, or your argument fails).

I think that you are creating a problem because you want to implement your preferred nanny state solution.

And what solution is that?

There's tonnes of research to show a link between working long hours and negative health effects. Surprised to see someone questioning the very premise of the thread.

https://www.google.ch/search?q=health+effects+working+more+hours&oq=health+effects+working+more+hours&aqs=chrome..69i57&client=ms-android-samsung&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#xxri=10