Video Games Are Destroying the People Who Make Them

[11B4V]

I do

[Admiral Yi]

I can tell you projectionists don't get overtime.

That's surprising.

[Ed Anger]

I can tell you projectionists don't get overtime.

They get a free movie.

[dps]

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.

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).

[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.

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

Projector n  1 a machine that projects pictures.
                  2 a person who projects his insecurities and faults on to other people.

[DGuller]

They both operate in a creative field: The film industry.  They both appear to moonlight as projectors.

[Eddie Teach]

Berkuts an IT guy on weekdays.

[Jacob]

I can tell you projectionists don't get overtime.

Projectionists don't get shit in this town after IATSE faced facts and let the projectionist local sink with nary a murmur back in '00 or so. Since then it's all been managers hitting buttons, not projectionists.

[Tamas]

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.

Surely, in the spirit of the times, being the only guy here with significant experience in the industry, you should just shut up and let the everyone else decide it for you how it is truly.

[grumbler]

Surely, in the spirit of the times, being the only guy here with significant experience in the industry, you should just shut up and let the everyone else decide it for you how it is truly.

Yeah.  The idea that we should pass laws based on evidence rather than anecdotes is so pre-Trump. 

The spirit of the times is to present and believe the anecdotes that we can dredge up to support our pre-determined positions, not to critically analyze the available information.

[Berkut]

Indeed. Sweeping changes to law (as long as it increases the role of the State in markets of course, never ever, EVER the reverse) really ought to be based solely on emotive anecdotal appeals.

As long as one person can come up with a story about how some other one person they know had something bad happen to them because of who they voluntarily chose to work for...

[Josquius]

Indeed. Sweeping changes to law (as long as it increases the role of the State in markets of course, never ever, EVER the reverse) really ought to be based solely on emotive anecdotal appeals.

As long as one person can come up with a story about how some other one person they know had something bad happen to them because of who they voluntarily chose to work for...

Because liberals never use one example of a corrupt public official in their country as an example of why socialism doesn't work anywhere.

[The Minsky Moment]

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.

[Berkut]

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.

This I can get behind.

Basically, a significant tightening of what is considered "exempt" when it comes to salaried employees. Probably, and this is just a guess, 75% of currently "exempt" employees should not be considered exempt from OT rules.

As the workforce has become more service oriented and professionalized, we have let companies make the "exempt" definition basically apply to nearly all of their workforce, rather than just a small percentage of management and professionals, which was the intent of it.

[Josquius]

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