Video Games Are Destroying the People Who Make Them

[Oexmelin]

Well, I think your argument is similarly weak when "the market" seems to be actually enforcing quite similar standards of crunch time, or the only apparent option for people is to resign - and everything else is read as consent. Is this "the market" working? Are all the different sorts of employees described by Jacob all part of the same labor market?

I'd like to think that, much like health impact can vary, power imbalances can vary too, and should make it possible to discuss actual situations without falling back to convenient label-applying and caricature for ideological opponents. Of course, if the only possible version of employers taking advantage of employees is some kind of revival of 19th century coal mine, there will never be any situation deemed too exploitative in liberal democracies.

[Admiral Yi]

Well, I think your argument is similarly weak when "the market" seems to be actually enforcing quite similar standards of crunch time, or the only apparent option for people is to resign - and everything else is read as consent. Is this "the market" working? Are all the different sorts of employees described by Jacob all part of the same labor market?

I'd like to think that, much like health impact can vary, power imbalances can vary too, and should make it possible to discuss actual situations without falling back to convenient label-applying and caricature for ideological opponents. Of course, if the only possible version of employers taking advantage of employees is some kind of revival of 19th century coal mine, there will never be any situation deemed too exploitative in liberal democracies.

Sure it's the market working.  There's a supply of labor willing to work those hours in exchange for the benefits.  When people lose the willingness, conditions will change.

[Oexmelin]

So, a union, then?

[Berkut]

It's interesting. I expect that someone making an argument for government intervention provide evidence that absent such ntervention there is a problem that is not being solved.

The OP shows no such problem - the market is in fact adjusting to those conditions.

But the left wing position is apparently that we should assume that more intervention is necessary under all circumstances, unless there is some kind of proof that a union already exists? I am not sure what the argument is there beyond "We must have more government intervention as a matter of course".

[garbon]

But the left wing position is apparently that we should assume that more intervention is necessary under all circumstances, unless there is some kind of proof that a union already exists? I am not sure what the argument is there beyond "We must have more government intervention as a matter of course".

Who is that bizarre position apparent to? Certainly doesn't seem what's been argued in this thread.

[Admiral Yi]

So, a union, then?

How do you get that from what I said?  People are no longer willing to work 20 hours a day for the thrill of working on games, the developers have to change conditions to adapt.  How do unions figure into this?

[The Brain]

So, a union, then?

How do you get that from what I said?  People are no longer willing to work 20 hours a day for the thrill of working on games, the developers have to change conditions to adapt.  How do unions figure into this?

So, a more perfect union, then?

[crazy canuck]

It's not semantics at all. You claimed there was a US exemption for people in the video game industry. There is no such thing.

ffs Berkut, go back and read what I actually said and in context of all my other posts.

Well, I think your argument is similarly weak when "the market" seems to be actually enforcing quite similar standards of crunch time, or the only apparent option for people is to resign - and everything else is read as consent. Is this "the market" working? Are all the different sorts of employees described by Jacob all part of the same labor market?

I'd like to think that, much like health impact can vary, power imbalances can vary too, and should make it possible to discuss actual situations without falling back to convenient label-applying and caricature for ideological opponents. Of course, if the only possible version of employers taking advantage of employees is some kind of revival of 19th century coal mine, there will never be any situation deemed too exploitative in liberal democracies.

Sure it's the market working.  There's a supply of labor willing to work those hours in exchange for the benefits.  When people lose the willingness, conditions will change.

And this brings us back to the public policy issue - should the only protection a worker receives be what the market will provide.  If that was the case then when is any worker protection justified?  This isn't so much directed at Yi because he answered by saying that it is justified when the worker might endanger others.  But what if the worker themselves is endangered - is there a role for government regulation?  In the US, the general answer that that is yes.  But there are exceptions to that rule and we are discussing workers who fall within one of those exceptions.

[Jacob]

Personally I'm not arguing for or against anything at this point, but I believe - as I have stated - that even where staff has the ability to move to other career paths, it is not an equal bargaining relationship between the employer and the employee.

Secondly, I believe it is incorrect to claim that the people making videogames can easily move out of the industry if they are dissatisfied. Artists and designers cannot - their skills are largely not transferable - and production and QA staff face significant challenges as well. Roughly speaking, they form at least half of the people making games and they suffer from the uncompensated OT demands as well (except where protected by statute).

Now whether those conditions justify government regulation is essentially a political question.

[Jacob]

Also, when you bandy about things like "health issues", your argument looks emotive and weak. That can mean anything. Any job can result in "health issues". Stress is common, for example, in a variety of jobs, which leads directly to higher blood pressure, ulcers, heart disease, etc., even when those jobs are regulated.

I know a guy whose studio was going through extended crunch, with heavy mandatory OT pushing past the six-month mark IIRC (and with voluntary OT being encouraged before that for a while too).

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.

This particular guy wanted to be efficient about his sleep when he did sleep - so he was in the habit of taking sleeping pills to help him get the best rest possible.

Turns out that consistently consuming alcohol and caffeine and sleeping pills is a terrible thing (even if not done together) and puts a lot of strain on the heart. He died from a heart attack. I think he was in his late 20s, early 30s at the time.

... I'm not suggesting this anecdote will change anyone's position, but the talk of OT, the game industry, and negative health effects brought it to mind.

[dps]

There is no such exclusion that exists.

There definitely is - at least in British Columbia: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/employment-business/employment-standards-advice/employment-standards/factsheets/high-technology-companies

The hours of work provisions of the Act, including those governing meal breaks, split shifts, minimum daily pay and hours free from work each week, as well as the overtime and statutory holiday provisions, do not apply to “high technology professionals”.

Not sure about other jurisdictions, of course.

His claim was that this exclusion was specific to the gaming industry.

I am not sure what you are talking about now.  I pointed out that the issue was whether employees in the gaming industry should be treated like other exempt employees.  You claimed there was no such exemption.  You are wrong about the US - assuming Grumbler is right about the legislative exemption he referred to.

What you are missing is that the exemption grumbler referred to is neither specific to the gaming industry, nor does it apply to all employees in the gaming industry.  It applies to certain (not all) employees in computer-related occupations.  The employee in questions need not work for a game company, he or she could work for some other type of computer firm, or indeed if I'm reading it correctly, simply be employed as a programmer or system analyst or such in a organization that is not even a computer firm.

Thinking about why programmers and the like might be exempt from OT requirements, in addition to the argument that they have highly marketable skills and thus are less in need of protection than unskilled or semi-skilled laborers (which I find reasonably persuasive FWIW), there's also an argument that the nature of the job provides a reason to not arbitrarily limit working hours.   Consider this difference between a programmer and, say, a cashier.  The cashier can work an 8 hour shift and go home, but another cashier can come in and keep running a register and checking out customers.  It really doesn't matter that a different cashier is now ringing up people's purchases.  OTOH, you can't really work on code for 8 hours and then have another programmer take over, or at least I don't think that would work very well in most cases.

[crazy canuck]

What you are missing is that the exemption grumbler referred to is neither specific to the gaming industry, nor does it apply to all employees in the gaming industry.  It applies to certain (not all) employees in computer-related occupations.  The employee in questions need not work for a game company, he or she could work for some other type of computer firm, or indeed if I'm reading it correctly, simply be employed as a programmer or system analyst or such in a organization that is not even a computer firm.

Yeah, I understood that from what you said.  I am not sure where Berkut got the notion that the exemption from overtime applies to only employees in the gaming industry.  I am only referring to the fact, as you explained it, that most workers do get overtime pay unless they are exempted.  We discussed how that works in the US and Canada and it turns out our countries deal with the issue in a fairly similar way.

Thinking about why programmers and the like might be exempt from OT requirements, in addition to the argument that they have highly marketable skills and thus are less in need of protection than unskilled or semi-skilled laborers (which I find reasonably persuasive FWIW), there's also an argument that the nature of the job provides a reason to not arbitrarily limit working hours.   Consider this difference between a programmer and, say, a cashier.  The cashier can work an 8 hour shift and go home, but another cashier can come in and keep running a register and checking out customers.  It really doesn't matter that a different cashier is now ringing up people's purchases.  OTOH, you can't really work on code for 8 hours and then have another programmer take over, or at least I don't think that would work very well in most cases.

But that is simply an argument that if the employer needs the worker to work longer hours then it is justified.  That would create a situation for significant abuse - as demonstrated by the phenomenon of "crunch time".

[Razgovory]

Berkut and Grumbler are sympathetic to the long hours that artists work.  They both operate in a creative field: The film industry.  They both appear to moonlight as projectors. Sadly, their hands are tied.  Religious obligation.  They can not oppose Mother Market.

[11B4V]

Berkut and Grumbler are sympathetic to the long hours that artists work.  They both operate in a creative field: The film industry.  They both appear to moonlight as projectors. Sadly, their hands are tied.  Religious obligation.  They can not oppose Mother Market.

I thought Berk was a referee and Grumbles an English teacher.

[katmai]

I can tell you projectionists don't get overtime.