Languish.org

Interesting Op-Ed in the FNYT

QuoteOpinion | Op-Ed Contributor
Video Games Are Destroying the People Who Make Them
By JASON SCHREIER
OCT. 25, 2017
The Failing New York Times


Among video game developers, it's called "crunch": a sudden spike in work hours, as many as 20 a day, that can last for days or weeks on end. During this time, they sleep at work, limit bathroom breaks and cut out anything that pulls their attention away from their screens, including family and even food. Crunch makes the industry roll — but it's taking a serious toll on its workers.

In late 2011, as he was finishing up production on the role-playing game The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, the programmer Jean Simonet started feeling severe stomach pains. At first, doctors were perplexed. But on his third emergency room visit, he revealed that he'd been regularly staying at the office late and coming in on weekends to fix bugs and add features that he thought would take Skyrim from good to great, no matter how much sleep he lost along the way.

He took his doctor's advice and took the next few weeks off work, trying to relax and acclimate to a normal sleep schedule. With this hiatus from crunch, "eventually the pain just disappeared," he said.

Anecdotes like this are common in the video game industry, which generated $30.4 billion in the United States last year but has a human cost that can't be calculated. The designer Clint Hocking described suffering memory loss as a result of the stress and anxiety of crunching on a game. Brett Douville, a veteran game programmer, said he once worked so long and for so hard that he found himself temporarily unable to step out of his car.

Modern video games like Mass Effect and Uncharted cost tens of millions of dollars and require the labor of hundreds of people, who can each work 80- or even 100-hour weeks. In game development, crunch is not constrained to the final two or three weeks of a project. A team might crunch at any time, and a crunch might endure for several months. Programmers will stay late on weeknights to squash bugs, artists will use weekends to put the final polish on their characters, and everyone on the team will feel pressured to work extra hours in solidarity with overworked colleagues.
Continue reading the main story

In a 2016 survey by the International Game Developers Association, 65 percent of developers said they'd had to crunch, with 52 percent adding that they'd done it more than twice in the previous two years. (Of those who said they did not crunch, 32 percent noted "that their job did require periods of long hours, extended work hours or extended overtime that was just not called 'crunch.' ")

While many jobs are demanding, the conditions in this industry are uniquely unforgiving. Most game developers in the United States do not receive extra compensation for extra hours. They may gaze with envy at their colleagues in the film industry, where unions help regulate hours and ensure overtime pay. Their income pales in comparison to what's offered in other fields with reputations for brutal hours, like banking and law. The average American game developer earned $83,060 in 2013, according to a Gamasutra survey, or less than half the pay of a first-year associate at a New York law firm.

While I was reporting for a book on how video games are made, veteran game makers told me stories of lost family time, relationship strains and such severe burnout that they considered leaving for other industries.

"People think that making games is easy," said Marcin Iwinski, a co-chief executive and co-founder of CD Projekt Red, the Polish developer of a 2015 game, The Witcher 3. "It's hard-core work. It can destroy your life."

Mr. Iwinski, like many other top video game creators, sees crunch as a necessary evil. He and other developers say because of the rapid evolution of video game technology, among other reasons, the time it takes to complete basic tasks can vary drastically from project to project, which makes it difficult to plan accurate schedules.

A growing faction of game developers, however, argues that it's possible to make good games without crunching. Tanya X. Short, a co-founder of the independent studio Kitfox Games, asked colleagues to sign an online pledge against excessive overtime. The pledge, which was published last year, has been signed by over 500 game developers.

"Crunch trades short-term gains for long-term suffering," said Ms. Short in an email.

To avoid long-term deleterious effects, game developers must commit to stop facilitating a culture in which crunch is the norm. The occasional long night or weekend at the office can be useful and even exhilarating, but as a constant, it is damaging. No video game is worth burnout, brain damage or overnight stays at the hospital.

Those of us who cover the video game industry can see that the current conditions are unsustainable. Too many of the people who make games have left for more lucrative, less stressful industries. Too many who have stayed have suffered the physical and mental consequences. Game developers need to insist — to their bosses and, most important, to themselves — that health comes first.

Jason Schreier is the news editor at Kotaku and the author of "Blood, Sweat, and Pixels: The Triumphant, Turbulent Stories Behind How Video Games Are Made."

Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 25, 2017, 08:04:09 PM

QuoteOpinion | Op-Ed Contributor
The average American game developer earned $83,060 in 2013

Well cry me a river for 'em.

Don't get me wrong--nobody should have to work those kind of hours.  But I worked for years in fast food management, where when you go in to work, you never know when you'll get to leave the restaurant, the pay isn't a third of that for most assistant managers, and the work itself is a lot less fulfilling.

Sounds like they need a Union.

Quote from: dps on October 25, 2017, 09:44:05 PM
Well cry me a river for 'em.

Don't get me wrong--nobody should have to work those kind of hours.  But I worked for years in fast food management, where when you go in to work, you never know when you'll get to leave the restaurant, the pay isn't a third of that for most assistant managers, and the work itself is a lot less fulfilling.

I would agree, but I think that average salary is really geographically skewered to higher-end COLAs on top of the technical premium.  More like SF, Seattle, Chicago, NY and NJ than, say, Brunswick, GA or Lexington, KY.

Crunch time exists in a lot of artistic and intellectual endeavors.  If game developers don't think the compensation (artistic and financial) rewards the labor put in, they should definitely seek alternate ways of making a living.

Now, if the writer of this dog-bites-man op-ed could say something about what distinguished studios that don't rely on crunch time from those that do, this would be worth reading.  As it is, it just notes the issue and then notes that various people have uttered meaningless platitudes about the issue.  There's no there, there.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 25, 2017, 09:55:15 PM

Quote from: dps on October 25, 2017, 09:44:05 PM
Well cry me a river for 'em.

Don't get me wrong--nobody should have to work those kind of hours.  But I worked for years in fast food management, where when you go in to work, you never know when you'll get to leave the restaurant, the pay isn't a third of that for most assistant managers, and the work itself is a lot less fulfilling.

I would agree, but I think that average salary is really geographically skewered to higher-end COLAs on top of the technical premium.  More like SF, Seattle, Chicago, NY and NJ than, say, Brunswick, GA or Lexington, KY.

True, for all I know, BK assistant managers in places like Seattle make north of $83K a year.  Probably not, but I hope they make more there in 2017 than I did in WV 10 years earlier.  But you're not going to get generate much sympathy for someone on financial grounds by pointing out that they make half the starting pay for an associate at a NYC law firm.

I wasn't comparing them to BK assistant manager salaries, and you know it.  Don't be twatty.

Now that's the merciless capitalism I've come to love from Languish.

Quote from: grumbler on October 25, 2017, 09:57:05 PM
Crunch time exists in a lot of artistic and intellectual endeavors.

Well I am glad I do not participate in any of these sadistic and inhuman artistic and intellectual endeavors then. I would think it would be more efficient for your mind and creativity to not violate every piece of advice given by medical professionals regarding stress and sleep and so forth. But hey maybe medicine does not apply to these artistic and intellectual types.

Anyway better them than me.

Yeah, poets routinely demand 20 hours workdays from their employees. It's even worse for performance artists. They bleed their workforce dry.

If there is a sufficiently large number of people who are willing to work crazy hours, there isn't much the rest can do, aside from quitting. 

I am surprised they are only making in the 80k range. For skills like theirs I'd have thought they'd be over 100k at least. Unless there's a bunch of juniors with a high drop out rate dragging down the average?

This is why things like OSHA exist.  Beyond a certain point, employees just shouldn't be allowed to trade health for employment, regardless of how willing they are to succumb to the prevailing culture at the workplace.

Quote from: Tyr on October 26, 2017, 02:17:20 AM
I am surprised they are only making in the 80k range. For skills like theirs I'd have thought they'd be over 100k at least. Unless there's a bunch of juniors with a high drop out weight dragging down the average?

I bet you are one of those, though, who complains when a game on Steam costs more than $20.

People need to relax.

Quote from: Tamas on October 26, 2017, 02:30:33 AM

Quote from: Tyr on October 26, 2017, 02:17:20 AM
I am surprised they are only making in the 80k range. For skills like theirs I'd have thought they'd be over 100k at least. Unless there's a bunch of juniors with a high drop out weight dragging down the average?

I bet you are one of those, though, who complains when a game on Steam costs more than $20.

Economies of scale :contract:

Sounds like a case of chronic poor work flow scheduling.

As a person who previously worked 100 hour weeks for months and then ended up on medical leave...

Quote from: DGuller on October 26, 2017, 02:28:49 AM
This is why things like OSHA exist.  Beyond a certain point, employees just shouldn't be allowed to trade health for employment, regardless of how willing they are to succumb to the prevailing culture at the workplace.

Just like how we cannot trust discount-seeking consumers to prevent airlines from cramming them into airplanes as if they were industrial poultry.

Quote from: Tonitrus on October 26, 2017, 04:35:47 AM

Quote from: DGuller on October 26, 2017, 02:28:49 AM
This is why things like OSHA exist.  Beyond a certain point, employees just shouldn't be allowed to trade health for employment, regardless of how willing they are to succumb to the prevailing culture at the workplace.

Just like how we cannot trust discount-seeking consumers to prevent airlines from cramming them into airplanes as if they were industrial poultry.

I don't see how that's 'just like' that at all. :hmm:

Just like and share. OK?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 26, 2017, 03:36:39 AM
Sounds like a case of chronic poor work flow scheduling.

Agree that that's what it sounds like, but there's no evidence from the story that really tells us how chronic this is.  Mostly, this is just a mass of anecdotes.  Even where it gives us data ("65 percent of developers said they'd had to crunch, with 52 percent adding that they'd done it more than twice in the previous two years") there is no indication of how long these crunch times lasted nor what the average work week was in the industry.

If this is just management fuckups, then presumably some companies have better managers than others, and so have no crunch times.  Unfortunately, neither the author of this op-ed piece, nor the author of a book that supposedly addresses the issue, apparently bothered to find those companies and find out their secret.

Quote from: garbon on October 26, 2017, 05:00:59 AM

Quote from: Tonitrus on October 26, 2017, 04:35:47 AM
Just like how we cannot trust discount-seeking consumers to prevent airlines from cramming them into airplanes as if they were industrial poultry.

I don't see how that's 'just like' that at all. :hmm:

That's okay.  Some people can "get" analogies, and some can't. 

Tonto is noting that people make choices that involve trading less comfort for more money all the time.

Quote from: grumbler on October 26, 2017, 05:17:26 AM

Quote from: garbon on October 26, 2017, 05:00:59 AM

Quote from: Tonitrus on October 26, 2017, 04:35:47 AM
Just like how we cannot trust discount-seeking consumers to prevent airlines from cramming them into airplanes as if they were industrial poultry.

I don't see how that's 'just like' that at all. :hmm:

That's okay.  Some people can "get" analogies, and some can't. 

Tonto is noting that people make choices that involve trading less comfort for more money all the time.

Less comfort on a plane isn't really the same as behavior (overworking) that lead to health issues.

On Grumbler's Latifunium it was always crunch-time.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/oct/26/thriving-work-report-uk-mental-health-problems-forcing-thousands-out

QuoteMental health problems are forcing thousands in UK out of work – report

Thriving at Work report commissioned by government urges employers to commit to six core standards around mental health

About 300,000 people with a long-term mental health problem lose their jobs each year, a review commissioned by Theresa May has found.

The Thriving at Work report, published on Thursday, puts the annual cost to the UK economy of poor mental health at up to £99bn, of which about £42bn is borne by employers.

The authors – the Mind chief executive, Paul Farmer, and the mental health campaigner and a former HBOS chair, Dennis Stevenson – said they were shocked to find the number of people forced to stop work as a result of mental health problems was 50% higher than for those with physical health conditions.

Farmer said the evidence suggested it is still a taboo subject in many workplaces. "The picture is that there are very significant numbers of people in work with mental health problems but there are significant numbers who are not," he said.

"We think that the reasons for that are a combination of a lack of support, lack of understanding within some workplaces and a lack of speedy access to mental health services. Sometimes in organisations people feel themselves excluded as a result of their mental health issues and sometimes people don't necessarily spot that somebody is struggling."

Farmer and Stevenson said that the challenge was bigger than they had envisaged when instructed by the prime minister, but that with action dramatic changes could be achieved over the next 10 years. They said they hoped that the number of people with long-term mental health problems who lose their jobs could be reduced to the same level as those with physical conditions.

They found that about 15% of people at work have symptoms of an existing mental health condition, which they said illustrates the fact that given the right support they can thrive in employment.

Farmer described the economic case as overwhelming and the authors link current failures to the UK's relatively poor productivity. An analysis by Deloitte examining existing workplace interventions identified potential to generate a return to business of between £1.50 and £9 for every £1 invested.

Among examples of good practice highlighted by the report are the mental health first aid courses at Thames Water and, at Aviva, the promotion of e-learning modules to help identify and self-identify when people need support.

Farmer and Stevenson said they want all employers to commit to six core standards around mental health, including having a plan in place, increasing awareness among employees, stipulating line management responsibilities and routinely monitoring staff's mental health and wellbeing. "What we feel is really important is that organisations take responsibility for the mental health of their staff," said Farmer.

"As the stigma around mental health begins to shift, I think the area of mental health in the workplace is becoming much more visible. Employers are recognising that this is an issue, but they don't know what to do. That's why we've recommended these core standards."

Highlighting further benefits for companies, he said that some young people were now asking employers about their mental health policies in the same way they might have asked about their green credentials a decade ago.

"The most progressive organisations in this area are already being quite open in terms of their internal reporting and what they put on their website in terms of how they support their staff," he said.

Large employers are expected to go further and the report calls on the government and public sector to lead by example. It says the government should also ensure that the NHS provides high quality mental health services, quick and convenient to fit around employment, and consider enhancing protections for employees with mental health conditions in the Equality Act 2010.

The report makes 40 recommendations and Stevenson urged the government to accept them all. "We need the right leadership among employers in the public, private and voluntary sectors, and a mandate from policy-makers to deliver our ambitious but achievable plan," he said.

Stephen Martin, director general of the Institute of Directors, welcomed the review which he said shows "mental health is not just a moral issue, but a business one too. Business leaders must put themselves at the frontier of addressing these challenges."

...

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 26, 2017, 03:36:39 AM
Sounds like a case of chronic poor work flow scheduling.

DING DING DING

Because work flow managers are either a) Game designers with delusional of grandeurs or b) constantly over ruled.

Crunch is bad, we should not do it.

Quote from: grumbler on October 26, 2017, 05:13:33 AM
If this is just management fuckups, then presumably some companies have better managers than others, and so have no crunch times.  Unfortunately, neither the author of this op-ed piece, nor the author of a book that supposedly addresses the issue, apparently bothered to find those companies and find out their secret.

No, he did. In his book, he goes to CD Projekt Red, makers of the Witcher series, a company without crunch. The main reasons on why they do not crunch are 1) company culture, founders don't believe in it, 2) Polish law requires overtime to be paid.

Yeah, it is remarkable how adaptable a company can be when it learns overtime pay is required

Quote from: garbon on October 26, 2017, 06:26:44 AM
Less comfort on a plane isn't really the same as behavior (overworking) that lead to health issues.

Overworking only rarely leads to health issues.  Riding on overcrowded airplanes only rarely leads to health issues.  The question is whether that choice should be made by individuals, or by government bureaucracies.

Quote from: grumbler on October 26, 2017, 11:13:36 AM

Quote from: garbon on October 26, 2017, 06:26:44 AM
Less comfort on a plane isn't really the same as behavior (overworking) that lead to health issues.

Overworking only rarely leads to health issues.  Riding on overcrowded airplanes only rarely leads to health issues.  The question is whether that choice should be made by individuals, or by government bureaucracies.

What role do you think government should have to regulate working conditions?

Quote from: Grey Fox on October 26, 2017, 08:18:20 AM
No, he did. In his book, he goes to CD Projekt Red, makers of the Witcher series, a company without crunch. The main reasons on why they do not crunch are 1) company culture, founders don't believe in it, 2) Polish law requires overtime to be paid.

That's the kind of thing the op-ed author needs to include, if he wants to be comprehensive.  Having a law that says that even salaried workers must get overtime would go a long way towards reducing the use of crunch without creating a bunch of nanny-state rules that just invite evasion (yes, overtime laws are subject to abuse as well, but overtime is easier to define than crunch time is).

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 26, 2017, 11:18:14 AM
What role do you think government should have to regulate working conditions?

Government should regulate to minimize the negative consequences of externalities, and to prevent the unilateral imposition of unsafe or unfair practices/conditions by either labor or management.  What role do you think government should have to regulate working conditions?

Quote from: grumbler on October 26, 2017, 11:28:38 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 26, 2017, 11:18:14 AM
What role do you think government should have to regulate working conditions?

Government should regulate to minimize the negative consequences of externalities, and to prevent the unilateral imposition of unsafe or unfair practices/conditions by either labor or management. 

What do you mean by "externalities" in the context of working conditions and particularly worker safety?

Quote from: grumbler on October 26, 2017, 11:24:50 AM

Quote from: Grey Fox on October 26, 2017, 08:18:20 AM
No, he did. In his book, he goes to CD Projekt Red, makers of the Witcher series, a company without crunch. The main reasons on why they do not crunch are 1) company culture, founders don't believe in it, 2) Polish law requires overtime to be paid.

That's the kind of thing the op-ed author needs to include, if he wants to be comprehensive.  Having a law that says that even salaried workers must get overtime would go a long way towards reducing the use of crunch without creating a bunch of nanny-state rules that just invite evasion (yes, overtime laws are subject to abuse as well, but overtime is easier to define than crunch time is).

Yes, I only know it because I've read Jason's book.

Doesn't Jacob here do...something....in the video game industry?  A writer, was it?

Quote from: grumbler on October 26, 2017, 11:13:36 AM

Quote from: garbon on October 26, 2017, 06:26:44 AM
Less comfort on a plane isn't really the same as behavior (overworking) that lead to health issues.

Overworking only rarely leads to health issues.

I'm fairly sure this is not true.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 26, 2017, 03:36:39 AM
Sounds like a case of chronic poor work flow scheduling.

Indeed, though the chronic poor work flow scheduling is structural rather than the result of individual poor decisions. From my point of view, the main factors that drive the chronic poor work flow scheduling are:

- Video-games tend to have to push some envelopes to be successful, whether creatively or technologically. Scoping and scheduling unknown factors are inherently a crap-shoot for a variety of reasons leading to a greater margin of error. Meanwhile, budgetary and development pressure will generally push the error of that margin on to the "underestimation" side.

- A video-game is usually judged to be done (internally) when it hits a particular subjective quality bar, not when it matches a particular set of easily defined benchmarks. You can only really judge whether you're approaching that quality bar when you're getting close to done, at which point you realize "not good enough" in a variety of categories and have to quickly decide how to make it "good enough". This is complicated by the fact that what makes it "good enough" is usually determined by a political process which often takes time as well.

- Game development typically commit to release days and development milestones in advance of defining and scoping the project fully.

- The executives who ultimately control the conditions that create the crunch do not have strong incentives not to, since they're not directly responsible for the health of the game development teams. Frequently publisher and developers are separate companies, and even where they are the same they're fairly separate groups.

Quote from: grumbler on October 26, 2017, 11:24:50 AM
That's the kind of thing the op-ed author needs to include, if he wants to be comprehensive.  Having a law that says that even salaried workers must get overtime would go a long way towards reducing the use of crunch without creating a bunch of nanny-state rules that just invite evasion (yes, overtime laws are subject to abuse as well, but overtime is easier to define than crunch time is).

Yeah, paid OT - or paid comp. time equivalent to or greater than OT - would get rid of most crunch time I expect.

Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on October 26, 2017, 11:45:40 AM
Doesn't Jacob here do...something....in the video game industry?  A writer, was it?

I'm a producer these days.

We've been crunching recently....

Does crunch time have anything to do with uncles and semen?

Quote from: The Brain on October 26, 2017, 12:31:53 PM
Does crunch time have anything to do with uncles and semen?

Not in my experience, no.

Quote from: The Brain on October 26, 2017, 12:31:53 PM
Does crunch time have anything to do with uncles and semen?

TOO SOON

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 26, 2017, 11:32:46 AM
What do you mean by "externalities" in the context of working conditions and particularly worker safety?

Quoteex·ter·nal·i·ty
ˌekstərˈnalədē/Submit
noun
plural noun: externalities
1.
ECONOMICS
a side effect or consequence of an industrial or commercial activity that affects other parties without this being reflected in the cost of the goods or services involved, such as the pollination of surrounding crops by bees kept for honey.

- Google Dictionary

that I know you can cut and paste, if you wish, please answer my question of what you mean in the context of regulating working conditions and safety.

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 26, 2017, 03:15:33 PM
that I know you can cut and paste, if you wish, please answer my question of what you mean in the context of regulating working conditions and safety.

Nope.  Not playing the twenty questions game.  You had the chance to ask your question, and you got your answer.  I note that you refused to answer my first question, so you can hardly whine about my not answering your second.

I think it's clear that Grumbler is concerned about bees pollinating programmers kept for honey.

Quote from: grumbler on October 26, 2017, 03:17:44 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 26, 2017, 03:15:33 PM
that I know you can cut and paste, if you wish, please answer my question of what you mean in the context of regulating working conditions and safety.

Nope.  Not playing the twenty questions game.  You had the chance to ask your question, and you got your answer.  I note that you refused to answer my first question, so you can hardly whine about my not answering your second.

Is asking the same question and not getting an answer the same as asking multiple questions?  If you didn't want to answer the question, why did you bother responding at all?

Quote from: Razgovory on October 26, 2017, 03:25:58 PM
I think it's clear that Grumbler is concerned about bees pollinating programmers kept for honey.

That is only reasonable conclusion one can draw from his responses thus far.

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 26, 2017, 03:29:29 PM

Quote from: grumbler on October 26, 2017, 03:17:44 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 26, 2017, 03:15:33 PM
that I know you can cut and paste, if you wish, please answer my question of what you mean in the context of regulating working conditions and safety.

Nope.  Not playing the twenty questions game.  You had the chance to ask your question, and you got your answer.  I note that you refused to answer my first question, so you can hardly whine about my not answering your second.

Is asking the same question and not getting an answer the same as asking multiple questions?  If you didn't want to answer the question, why did you bother responding at all?

uh oh, you're in trouble, you asked two more questions. He's going to be very cross with you :D

Quote from: HVC on October 26, 2017, 03:30:36 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 26, 2017, 03:29:29 PM

Quote from: grumbler on October 26, 2017, 03:17:44 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 26, 2017, 03:15:33 PM
that I know you can cut and paste, if you wish, please answer my question of what you mean in the context of regulating working conditions and safety.

Nope.  Not playing the twenty questions game.  You had the chance to ask your question, and you got your answer.  I note that you refused to answer my first question, so you can hardly whine about my not answering your second.

Is asking the same question and not getting an answer the same as asking multiple questions?  If you didn't want to answer the question, why did you bother responding at all?

uh oh, you're in trouble, you asked two more questions. He's going to be very cross with you :D

:D

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 26, 2017, 03:29:29 PM
Is asking the same question and not getting an answer the same as asking multiple questions?  If you didn't want to answer the question, why did you bother responding at all?

I answer one question.  If you didn't ask the right question, too bad for you.  Again, given that you have no even answered my first question, this whining about me not answering your second seems more than a little hypocritical.

I paid you the courtesy of answering your question (even if I used words that you didn't understand, I answered the second question that asked what the big word meant).  You lack the courtesy to answer my first question.  I am willing to let your rudeness cause the end of this exchange.

I don't think this is really an area that needs intervention.

Video game developers are, almost by definition, highly competent technical specialists. Their working conditions sometimes suck, but the job is attractive because there are external benefits to those who do it that make it worthwhile to them. They have options.

As the article noted, many exercise those options and leave for higher pay and better conditions. This is a problem the market can and is handling without any help. There is nothing keeping these highly skilled people from marketing their skills elsewhere.

Quote from: grumbler on October 26, 2017, 03:38:50 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 26, 2017, 03:29:29 PM
Is asking the same question and not getting an answer the same as asking multiple questions?  If you didn't want to answer the question, why did you bother responding at all?

I answer one question.  If you didn't ask the right question, too bad for you.  Again, given that you have no even answered my first question, this whining about me not answering your second seems more than a little hypocritical.

I paid you the courtesy of answering your question (even if I used words that you didn't understand, I answered the second question that asked what the big word meant).  You lack the courtesy to answer my first question.  I am willing to let your rudeness cause the end of this exchange.

Oh my, do you really believe that or is this just another way for you to get a "win"

Quote from: Berkut on October 26, 2017, 04:03:33 PM
I don't think this is really an area that needs intervention.

Video game developers are, almost by definition, highly competent technical specialists. Their working conditions sometimes suck, but the job is attractive because there are external benefits to those who do it that make it worthwhile to them. They have options.

As the article noted, many exercise those options and leave for higher pay and better conditions. This is a problem the market can and is handling without any help. There is nothing keeping these highly skilled people from marketing their skills elsewhere.

I think it is a difficult public policy issue.  On the one hand the tech industry has always argued, as you have, that they employee a special type of employee who does not need regulatory protection.  The argument is also made that such regulation would inhibit innovation, investment and the creation of new startups.

There is some merit to those arguments but we are also faced with the evidence that there are those employees within the industry who do suffer and for whom the "market" is not working.

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 26, 2017, 04:25:14 PM

Quote from: Berkut on October 26, 2017, 04:03:33 PM
I don't think this is really an area that needs intervention.

Video game developers are, almost by definition, highly competent technical specialists. Their working conditions sometimes suck, but the job is attractive because there are external benefits to those who do it that make it worthwhile to them. They have options.

As the article noted, many exercise those options and leave for higher pay and better conditions. This is a problem the market can and is handling without any help. There is nothing keeping these highly skilled people from marketing their skills elsewhere.

I think it is a difficult public policy issue.  On the one hand the tech industry has always argued, as you have, that they employee a special type of employee who does not need regulatory protection.  The argument is also made that such regulation would inhibit innovation, investment and the creation of new startups.

There is some merit to those arguments but we are also faced with the evidence that there are those employees within the industry who do suffer and for whom the "market" is not working.

I don't see any evidence that there are employees for whom the market is not working.

The article states exactly the opposite - that the problem is that employees can and do leave for better deals elsewhere. That is EXACTLY the market working. That is a textbook example of the market working in exactly the manner it is supposed to work when labor has real value and reasonable mobility.

If people stay, it is precisely because they WANT to stay, despite the shitty conditions. There are positive externalities just like there are negative. They simply like making computer games - its fun and exciting and challenging.

To the extent there is any problem here, it is one that is self fixing. Computer game companies need highly skilled technical experts. If they treat them badly, they will leave the industry, or do work for their direct competitors who treat them better. I have seen no evidence at all that there is some negative externality that is keeping these people from making perfectly rational and informed choices about where to ply their highly skilled talents. Hence no need for regulatory intervention, and all the consequences that come along with that.

A market works because some can leave?  With that logic there would be no workplace regulation at all.

The article in the OP clearly states that companies still require their employees to work through a "crunch".

Eh, it's a tribal thing.

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 26, 2017, 04:22:38 PM
Oh my, do you really believe that or is this just another way for you to get a "win"

You already know the answer to that.

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 26, 2017, 04:53:11 PM
A market works because some can leave?  With that logic there would be no workplace regulation at all.

A market works when employees have the mobility to effectively market their expertise in a reasonably easy and transparent manner. Yes, that is what defines a working labor market.

I would turn this around - ANY credible economist would say that if this market requires regulation and intercession, then there is no market in existence that would not. This is a textbook case in how you wish all labor markets worked, with highly skilled labor where the companies are vying for that labor in a tight market.

Quote

The article in the OP clearly states that companies still require their employees to work through a "crunch".

So? Companies require workers to do all kinds of things they may not want, like show up to work. That is not evidence of a problem. It is not illegal to demand long hours from your employees, nor is the fact that some companies do any evidence at all that the market is not working.

If this is a unreasonable demand for some particular worker, they should leave. And plenty of them do, as the article points out, to the detriment of those companies and the game development genre in general.

That is the mechanism for how labor markets that work, actually work. If you do not accept that, you do not accept that any labor market can actually work via market mechanisms, and in fact require regulation to work at all. I think that is called communism?

Occupations that have mandated rest/maximum hours worked typically involve risk to others if the employee is fatigued.  Long haul truckers, pilots.  If game designers want to work themselves to death, let them choose.

There's a bit of a power imbalance between the company and the workers.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 26, 2017, 05:32:09 PM
Occupations that have mandated rest/maximum hours worked typically involve risk to others if the employee is fatigued.  Long haul truckers, pilots.  If game designers want to work themselves to death, let them choose.

Is it really try that in the US only employees who pose a risk to others are protected by maximum hour regulations?  I find that hard to believe but perhaps the US is really that out of step with the rest of the industrialized world.  Maximum hour regulations for most workers have existed for a very long time.

Also, you are just wrong about rest breaks only being mandated for employees who pose a risk to others.  Most workers get statutorily mandated breaks.

Quote from: Jacob on October 26, 2017, 05:49:18 PM
There's a bit of a power imbalance between the company and the workers.

Market in action

Quote from: Berkut on October 26, 2017, 05:25:12 PM

A market works when employees have the mobility to effectively market their expertise in a reasonably easy and transparent manner. Yes, that is what defines a working labor market.

The fact that an employee may leave employment is not evidence of a market "working", it is evidence a country has anti-slavery laws and doesnt answer the question of whether workplace protections are necessary.

 

Quote from: Jacob on October 26, 2017, 05:49:18 PM
There's a bit of a power imbalance between the company and the workers.

This adage always pops up when we're discussing labor market issues.  My previous attempts to elicit elaboration have not been very successful.

Quote from: Habbaku on October 26, 2017, 05:11:02 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 26, 2017, 04:22:38 PM
Oh my, do you really believe that or is this just another way for you to get a "win"

You already know the answer to that.

Of course he does.  He, himself, is refusing to answer my question.  He knows perfectly well that I "believe" that I am not going to place myself in a position where I have to make an argument and defend it, while he makes no arguments and has to defend nothing.  That's a mug's game and he is pissed that I won't play it.

Quote from: DGuller on October 26, 2017, 02:28:49 AM
This is why things like OSHA exist.  Beyond a certain point, employees just shouldn't be allowed to trade health for employment, regardless of how willing they are to succumb to the prevailing culture at the workplace.

No, this is not why things like OSHA exists.  OSHA has nothing to do with hours worked.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 26, 2017, 06:37:09 PM

Quote from: Jacob on October 26, 2017, 05:49:18 PM
There's a bit of a power imbalance between the company and the workers.

This adage always pops up when we're discussing labor market issues.  My previous attempts to elicit elaboration have not been very successful.

We'd first have to decide who has the power advantage.  If the company has to woo me to get me to come to work for them, and I can walk away at any time to an equal job, then the bit of a power imbalance is in my favor.

I rather suspect that this idea is heresy in some eyes, though.

Quote from: grumbler on October 26, 2017, 07:11:12 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 26, 2017, 06:37:09 PM

Quote from: Jacob on October 26, 2017, 05:49:18 PM
There's a bit of a power imbalance between the company and the workers.

This adage always pops up when we're discussing labor market issues.  My previous attempts to elicit elaboration have not been very successful.

We'd first have to decide who has the power advantage.  If the company has to woo me to get me to come to work for them, and I can walk away at any time to an equal job, then the bit of a power imbalance is in my favor.

I rather suspect that this idea is heresy in some eyes, though.

Pfft...Heresy?  Hell, you free marketeers convinced me a quite a while ago:  the worker really does have all the power, because if they don't like it, they can walk.  Work does, in fact, set you free.  #AuschwitzLocal453

Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 26, 2017, 07:10:14 PM

Quote from: DGuller on October 26, 2017, 02:28:49 AM
This is why things like OSHA exist.  Beyond a certain point, employees just shouldn't be allowed to trade health for employment, regardless of how willing they are to succumb to the prevailing culture at the workplace.

No, this is not why things like OSHA exists.  OSHA has nothing to do with hours worked.

:unsure: Am I missing some joke?

Quote from: DGuller on October 26, 2017, 07:21:04 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 26, 2017, 07:10:14 PM

Quote from: DGuller on October 26, 2017, 02:28:49 AM
This is why things like OSHA exist.  Beyond a certain point, employees just shouldn't be allowed to trade health for employment, regardless of how willing they are to succumb to the prevailing culture at the workplace.

No, this is not why things like OSHA exists.  OSHA has nothing to do with hours worked.

:unsure: Am I missing some joke?

You tell me, you're obviously the occupational safety and health officer.

I wasn't sure whether I wrote something in a grammatically incorrect way and you were humorously misinterpreting it, so that's why I asked.  It appears it was just you being genuinely incredibly dense.  Here's a hint to my argument:  "things like OSHA" refers to not specifically OSHA, but rather the general principle behind existence of OSHA.

Quote from: Berkut on October 26, 2017, 05:25:12 PM

A market works when employees have the mobility to effectively market their expertise in a reasonably easy and transparent manner. Yes, that is what defines a working labor market.

Quote from: CC
The fact that an employee may leave employment...

The fact that you equate what I wrote with what you wrote shows that we are in the realm of faith, not reason.

Quote from: DGuller on October 26, 2017, 07:40:58 PM
I wasn't sure whether I wrote something in a grammatically incorrect way and you were humorously misinterpreting it, so that's why I asked.  It appears it was just you being genuinely incredibly dense.  Here's a hint to my argument:  "things like OSHA" refers to not specifically OSHA, but rather the general principle behind existence of OSHA.

Your argument about "things like OSHA" still has nothing to with the article's primary bitch, which is labor hours worked, all crunchy-like.  "Things like OSHA" don't protect employees from themselves.  Cossack twat.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 26, 2017, 07:56:10 PM

Quote from: DGuller on October 26, 2017, 07:40:58 PM
I wasn't sure whether I wrote something in a grammatically incorrect way and you were humorously misinterpreting it, so that's why I asked.  It appears it was just you being genuinely incredibly dense.  Here's a hint to my argument:  "things like OSHA" refers to not specifically OSHA, but rather the general principle behind existence of OSHA.

Your argument about "things like OSHA" still has nothing to with the article's primary bitch, which is labor hours worked, all crunchy-like.  "Things like OSHA" don't protect employees from themselves.  Cossack twat.

It protects employees from accepting certain unsafe conditions, regardless of their willingness to do so.

Quote from: DGuller on October 26, 2017, 07:57:35 PM
It protects employees from accepting certain unsafe conditions, regardless of their willingness to do so.

No, it requires employers by law to maintain standards and follow established guidelines in providing a safe and hazard-free workplace for employees. 
Which STILL has absolutely nothing to do with labor hours worked.

You said no, then agreed with him.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 26, 2017, 08:14:46 PM
You said no, then agreed with him.

Even your pedantic ass knows the difference between laws that govern employers versus actions of employees that voluntarily engage in unhealthy behavior. 

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 26, 2017, 06:37:09 PM

Quote from: Jacob on October 26, 2017, 05:49:18 PM
There's a bit of a power imbalance between the company and the workers.

This adage always pops up when we're discussing labor market issues.  My previous attempts to elicit elaboration have not been very successful.

Though you and I have a record of mutual unintelligibility on these kinds of issues, I'll give it one more go:

1) There are usually more potential candidates available should an employee leave than there are potential positions available should an employee want a different job.

2) The consequences for failing to secure a similar situation when an employee-employer relationship ends is usually much higher for an employee than an employee. Companies can typically afford to wait for the right candidate much more than workers can afford to weight for the right job.

3) Companies are much more able to shape employees into the workers they need than individual employees are able to shape the particulars of a job or a company to suit them.

4) Companies generally have a much greater level of accumulated experience in managing employee-employer relationships than any given worker does.

5) Companies - at least past a certain minimum size - have dedicated resources for managing relationships with employees, hiring staff for missing functions etc. That means dealing with staffing issues do not detract from regular company functions, while for workers dealing with issues - and finding new work - comes out of their individual limited time and mental energy. Similarly, company staff dealing with such things are usually trained for and are suited for such activities - that is not necessarily true for workers.

Thus in aggregate the company has an advantage in power since they can engage in any given situation with more energy and confidence in their methods, while the consequences they suffer for things not working out are much less than those suffered by individuals.

Quote from: Jacob on October 26, 2017, 09:25:07 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 26, 2017, 06:37:09 PM

Quote from: Jacob on October 26, 2017, 05:49:18 PM
There's a bit of a power imbalance between the company and the workers.

This adage always pops up when we're discussing labor market issues.  My previous attempts to elicit elaboration have not been very successful.

Though you and I have a record of mutual unintelligibility on these kinds of issues, I'll give it one more go:

1) There are usually more potential candidates available should an employee leave than there are potential positions available should an employee want a different job.

2) The consequences for failing to secure a similar situation when an employee-employer relationship ends is usually much higher for an employee than an employee. Companies can typically afford to wait for the right candidate much more than workers can afford to weight for the right job.

3) Companies are much more able to shape employees into the workers they need than individual employees are able to shape the particulars of a job or a company to suit them.

4) Companies generally have a much greater level of accumulated experience in managing employee-employer relationships than any given worker does.

5) Companies - at least past a certain minimum size - have dedicated resources for managing relationships with employees, hiring staff for missing functions etc. That means dealing with staffing issues do not detract from regular company functions, while for workers dealing with issues - and finding new work - comes out of their individual limited time and mental energy. Similarly, company staff dealing with such things are usually trained for and are suited for such activities - that is not necessarily true for workers.

Thus in aggregate the company has an advantage in power since they can engage in any given situation with more energy and confidence in their methods, while the consequences they suffer for things not working out are much less than those suffered by individuals.

The problem lies with the assumption that this generic case applies to all employer-employee situations.  I can assure you that it does not.  So, for you to play the "power imbalance card," you need to show that it applies.  Now, for the bog-standard employer-employee relationship, it shouldn't be too hard for you to meet that standard.  In the case of video game designers, though, I am not at all sure that it does.  Video game companies are pretty ephemeral and a name designer wants his own team.   You work in the business, though, so you'd know better than me:  other than the low-level guys, does the designer want the studio more than the studio wants the designer?  I'm always hearing the studios bemoan the lack of developers.

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 26, 2017, 06:33:00 PM
Is it really try that in the US only employees who pose a risk to others are protected by maximum hour regulations?   

Well, yes and no, depending on what you mean by maximum hour regulations.

First, there are some jobs, such as the over-the-road truckers and airline pilots mentioned above, that have strict regulations about how many hours you can work.  The over-the-road truckers, for example, are only allowed to work an 8 hour shift, and then can't drive again for 12(?) hours (not sure exactly about the length of the time required between driving shifts;  I've never worked as a trucker or supervised them, so I don't have detailed knowledge of the exact rules for them).  Strictly speaking, though, laws like this aren't technically an issue of protection for workers from their employers--the 8 hour limit for truckers applies even to a driver who is self-employed, for example.

For most hourly wage earners, there are restrictions on how long you can work without a break, but generally there's no direct restriction on how many total hours you can work a week, just when during a work shift you have to be given a break.  In many (most?) states, an hourly worker has to be given a break after 6 hours, but that doesn't mean that you're only going to be scheduled to work a 6 hour shift on a given day.  I'm usually scheduled to work an 8 hour shift from 8 AM to 5 PM with an hour lunch.  So I work until noon or so, take my lunch, and then work another 4 hours or so before I go home.  Legally, they only have to give me a half hour lunch after 6 hours worked, but company policy says that I am allowed to take an hour.  In practice, my supervisors usually don't care exactly when I take my lunch, as long as I neither work more than 6 hours before clocking out for lunch, nor go to lunch so early that my shift has more than 6 hours left once I finish lunch.  And there's nothing that legally prevents them from scheduling me an 18-hour shift, as long as I take a half-hour break every 6 hours.  Heck, AFAIK, there's no law in this state that keeps them form scheduling me to work a 48-hour shift, as long as they give me that half-hour break every 6 hours, and pay me overtime for any hours over 40 in a given week.  There probably are laws in some states that don't let an employer keep an hourly worker on the job for that long at a time, and even in states with no general prohibition against it there may be special restrictions in certain industries.

And note that the restrictions I mentioned in the previous paragraph apply to hourly wage earners.  There is much, much less protection for people who are salaried.  An employer could, generally, legally keep a salaried employee working 24 hours straight or more   with no breaks.  And you don't have to pay salaried employees overtime, or technically even keep records of how many hours they work.

The rules on overtime and who can be salaried are a matter of federal law, but most other aspects of labor law are governed at the state level.  It would appear that the designers and developers who work very long hours during "crunch time" are salaried, because otherwise they'd have to be paid overtime.  If they weren't salaried, they could still have to work those long hours, but they'd get time-and-a-half for anything over 40 hours in a week.  I'm not sure exactly what detail in Federal law allows them to be exempt from overtime regulations;  generally people have to be employed in management-type positions to be salaried and thus exempt, but I would guess that it's something similar to the provisions that exempt actors and the like.

If you did want to legally intervene to limit the long hours of "crunch time", all you'd really need to do would be change the regulations so that the designers and developers are no longer salaried.  Then they'd have to be paid overtime, and as someone mentioned earlier, having to pay you time-and-a-half for any hours worked over 40 in a week goes a very long way towards convincing an employer that they don't really need to have you work more than 40 hours in a week.

I would actually support some kind of broad based rules that would greatly restrict the ability of companies to exempt most salaried workers, and force them to pay overtime or comp time of equal or greater value for hours over 40.

Not because I think salaried workers need the protection, but because I think it would be good for the economy in general to pay 4 people at 40 hours a week then 3 people at 50 hours a week. I do think the salaried 40 hour work week exemption has become de facto abused by companies overall.

But that has nothing to do with the OP.

It's not necessarily a case of having to change people from salaried to hourly.
It could also be a case of mandating hour tracking and putting a reasonable limit on hours in a given week.
I. E. Doing a 50 hour week is fine. Though that 10 hours of overtime is yours. Either you take the 10 hours to go and do your own thing or at the end of the year the employer has to pay you it, calculated from monthly salary divided by number of hours. Plus a premium.

..that is what Berk said.

Quote from: dps on October 27, 2017, 12:27:39 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 26, 2017, 06:33:00 PM
Is it really true that in the US only employees who pose a risk to others are protected by maximum hour regulations?   

Well, yes and no, depending on what you mean by maximum hour regulations.

First, there are some jobs, such as the over-the-road truckers and airline pilots mentioned above, that have strict regulations about how many hours you can work.  The over-the-road truckers, for example, are only allowed to work an 8 hour shift, and then can't drive again for 12(?) hours (not sure exactly about the length of the time required between driving shifts;  I've never worked as a trucker or supervised them, so I don't have detailed knowledge of the exact rules for them).  Strictly speaking, though, laws like this aren't technically an issue of protection for workers from their employers--the 8 hour limit for truckers applies even to a driver who is self-employed, for example.

For most hourly wage earners, there are restrictions on how long you can work without a break, but generally there's no direct restriction on how many total hours you can work a week, just when during a work shift you have to be given a break.  In many (most?) states, an hourly worker has to be given a break after 6 hours, but that doesn't mean that you're only going to be scheduled to work a 6 hour shift on a given day.  I'm usually scheduled to work an 8 hour shift from 8 AM to 5 PM with an hour lunch.  So I work until noon or so, take my lunch, and then work another 4 hours or so before I go home.  Legally, they only have to give me a half hour lunch after 6 hours worked, but company policy says that I am allowed to take an hour.  In practice, my supervisors usually don't care exactly when I take my lunch, as long as I neither work more than 6 hours before clocking out for lunch, nor go to lunch so early that my shift has more than 6 hours left once I finish lunch.  And there's nothing that legally prevents them from scheduling me an 18-hour shift, as long as I take a half-hour break every 6 hours.  Heck, AFAIK, there's no law in this state that keeps them form scheduling me to work a 48-hour shift, as long as they give me that half-hour break every 6 hours, and pay me overtime for any hours over 40 in a given week.  There probably are laws in some states that don't let an employer keep an hourly worker on the job for that long at a time, and even in states with no general prohibition against it there may be special restrictions in certain industries.

And note that the restrictions I mentioned in the previous paragraph apply to hourly wage earners.  There is much, much less protection for people who are salaried.  An employer could, generally, legally keep a salaried employee working 24 hours straight or more   with no breaks.  And you don't have to pay salaried employees overtime, or technically even keep records of how many hours they work.

The rules on overtime and who can be salaried are a matter of federal law, but most other aspects of labor law are governed at the state level.  It would appear that the designers and developers who work very long hours during "crunch time" are salaried, because otherwise they'd have to be paid overtime.  If they weren't salaried, they could still have to work those long hours, but they'd get time-and-a-half for anything over 40 hours in a week.  I'm not sure exactly what detail in Federal law allows them to be exempt from overtime regulations;  generally people have to be employed in management-type positions to be salaried and thus exempt, but I would guess that it's something similar to the provisions that exempt actors and the like.

If you did want to legally intervene to limit the long hours of "crunch time", all you'd really need to do would be change the regulations so that the designers and developers are no longer salaried.  Then they'd have to be paid overtime, and as someone mentioned earlier, having to pay you time-and-a-half for any hours worked over 40 in a week goes a very long way towards convincing an employer that they don't really need to have you work more than 40 hours in a week.

In the fundamentals your system is the same as ours.  There is a distinction between putting a limit on the maximum hours which can be worked and the point at which overtime must be paid.  That provides flexibility for employers because they can choose to have employees working longer than a normal work day but they have to pay for it.  At the same time maximum hours of work (both in terms of hours in a week and mandatory rest periods between days worked) are imposed so that workers' health does not suffer.

For the purposes of this thread the issue is which workers are excluded from these protections.  In the US, it seems excluded employees are defined by whether they are paid a salary or an hourly rate.  The exclusions in Canada are based on whether they employee is a "manager" or whether they fall within a description of work which is excluded from the protections of the regulation (eg most professions). Relevant to this thread, employees in the Gaming industry are excluded (at least in BC) because of the logic argued by Berkut - that they are a special type of employee who do not need protection.

The difficulty with that argument is that if those employees are so special, why do so many end up accepting employment with such poor contractual terms of employment - eg no overtime pay, long hours of work, uncertain tenure (most work in the industry is now project based).  I doubt the answer is that every one those employees prefers to work under those conditions.  More likely the answer is that most have no other alternative.

Quote from: DGuller on October 26, 2017, 02:28:49 AM
This is why things like OSHA exist.  Beyond a certain point, employees just shouldn't be allowed to trade health for employment, regardless of how willing they are to succumb to the prevailing culture at the workplace.

The issue is that a lot of them literally live for their jobs. A lot of the time this isn't imposed on them; it's a choice that they make.

Quote from: merithyn on October 27, 2017, 10:51:27 AM

Quote from: DGuller on October 26, 2017, 02:28:49 AM
This is why things like OSHA exist.  Beyond a certain point, employees just shouldn't be allowed to trade health for employment, regardless of how willing they are to succumb to the prevailing culture at the workplace.

The issue is that a lot of them literally live for their jobs. A lot of the time this isn't imposed on them; it's a choice that they make.

Yeah, but I think you and DG are saying the same thing - it is the culture of the industry.

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 27, 2017, 10:53:51 AM

Quote from: merithyn on October 27, 2017, 10:51:27 AM

Quote from: DGuller on October 26, 2017, 02:28:49 AM
This is why things like OSHA exist.  Beyond a certain point, employees just shouldn't be allowed to trade health for employment, regardless of how willing they are to succumb to the prevailing culture at the workplace.

The issue is that a lot of them literally live for their jobs. A lot of the time this isn't imposed on them; it's a choice that they make.

Yeah, but I think you and DG are saying the same thing - it is the culture of the industry.

That's why it sucks. Gamers on average are older & more women play than in the past yet the games keep being made by the different generations of 20 years old guys because experienced people leave the industry.

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 27, 2017, 10:53:51 AM

Quote from: merithyn on October 27, 2017, 10:51:27 AM

Quote from: DGuller on October 26, 2017, 02:28:49 AM
This is why things like OSHA exist.  Beyond a certain point, employees just shouldn't be allowed to trade health for employment, regardless of how willing they are to succumb to the prevailing culture at the workplace.

The issue is that a lot of them literally live for their jobs. A lot of the time this isn't imposed on them; it's a choice that they make.

Yeah, but I think you and DG are saying the same thing - it is the culture of the industry.

They are saying the same thing, but it isn't about the culture of the industry, it is about the nature of the people who gravitate towards that industry.  Should musical groups, for instance, be forbidden to voluntarily work 24 hours or more consecutively to get that song down perfectly, in order to protect them from their own artistic vision?  Should stage actors be forbidden from engaging in "hell week" (which virtually every play suffers from) in order to protect them from their own desire to perfect their roles?  Shall we forbid the scientist on the verge of that big breakthrough from working through the night, to save her from herself?

Some people have that drive for perfection that makes them over-work themselves voluntarily to see their vision realized.  Even of they are working completely independently, they still do it.  Your nanny state shouldn't stop them.

Quote from: Grey Fox on October 27, 2017, 11:06:03 AM
That's why it sucks. Gamers on average are older & more women play than in the past yet the games keep being made by the different generations of 20 years old guys because experienced people leave the industry.

Why does that suck?  If programmers see CD Projekt Red succeeding without crunching, why don't they follow suit? Unless, of course, crunch time doesn't really bother the vast majority of programmers.  As far as the youth of the game programmers, I think that's probably unavoidable.  Only a few of the grunts will get promoted to leadership positions within the industry, and those who don't won't want to work for beginner's wages when they are experienced.  Game development really isn't all that lucrative for the game development companies, and they can't pay what more mainstream companies can pay for experienced programmers and artists.

Quote from: grumbler on October 27, 2017, 11:08:51 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 27, 2017, 10:53:51 AM

Quote from: merithyn on October 27, 2017, 10:51:27 AM

Quote from: DGuller on October 26, 2017, 02:28:49 AM
This is why things like OSHA exist.  Beyond a certain point, employees just shouldn't be allowed to trade health for employment, regardless of how willing they are to succumb to the prevailing culture at the workplace.

The issue is that a lot of them literally live for their jobs. A lot of the time this isn't imposed on them; it's a choice that they make.

Yeah, but I think you and DG are saying the same thing - it is the culture of the industry.

They are saying the same thing, but it isn't about the culture of the industry, it is about the nature of the people who gravitate towards that industry.  Should musical groups, for instance, be forbidden to voluntarily work 24 hours or more consecutively to get that song down perfectly, in order to protect them from their own artistic vision?  Should stage actors be forbidden from engaging in "hell week" (which virtually every play suffers from) in order to protect them from their own desire to perfect their roles?  Shall we forbid the scientist on the verge of that big breakthrough from working through the night, to save her from herself?

Some people have that drive for perfection that makes them over-work themselves voluntarily to see their vision realized.  Even of they are working completely independently, they still do it.  Your nanny state shouldn't stop them.

Crunch time has nothing to do with what you are now describing.  Although, you have made a valiant attempt to move the goal posts.

Crunch time is an employer telling their employees that a certain date must be met for a certain piece of a certain project.  Very different from someone, on their own, for their own benefit, engaging in some creative endeavor for their own edification.

Quote from: Grey Fox on October 27, 2017, 11:06:03 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 27, 2017, 10:53:51 AM

Quote from: merithyn on October 27, 2017, 10:51:27 AM

Quote from: DGuller on October 26, 2017, 02:28:49 AM
This is why things like OSHA exist.  Beyond a certain point, employees just shouldn't be allowed to trade health for employment, regardless of how willing they are to succumb to the prevailing culture at the workplace.

The issue is that a lot of them literally live for their jobs. A lot of the time this isn't imposed on them; it's a choice that they make.

Yeah, but I think you and DG are saying the same thing - it is the culture of the industry.

That's why it sucks. Gamers on average are older & more women play than in the past yet the games keep being made by the different generations of 20 years old guys because experienced people leave the industry.

That is likely why we are knowing seeing stories like the one in the OP.

Quote from: grumbler on October 27, 2017, 11:18:57 AM

Quote from: Grey Fox on October 27, 2017, 11:06:03 AM
That's why it sucks. Gamers on average are older & more women play than in the past yet the games keep being made by the different generations of 20 years old guys because experienced people leave the industry.

Why does that suck?

As a consumer of games, I don't get games made with serious & insightful stories in mind, I get dude bros Overwatch & DOTA.

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 27, 2017, 11:26:45 AM
Crunch time has nothing to do with what you are now describing.  Although, you have made a valiant attempt to move the goal posts.

Crunch time is an employer telling their employees that a certain date must be met for a certain piece of a certain project.  Very different from someone, on their own, for their own benefit, engaging in some creative endeavor for their own edification.

Now you are trying to shift the goal posts to avoid admitting that you were wrong.  The article that we are discussing says nothing about "an employer telling their employees that a certain date must be met for a certain piece of a certain project." And it would be asinine if it did define crunch time as anything so banal as an employer setting a deadline for the completion of a task.

If you want to talk about some fantasy you have about slave-driving employers, start your own thread about it.  This thread is about the article in the OP.

Quote from: Grey Fox on October 27, 2017, 11:42:40 AM
As a consumer of games, I don't get games made with serious & insightful stories in mind, I get dude bros Overwatch & DOTA.

The circumstances you described earlier have always been true in the gaming industry.  If you think that you don't get stories because there aren't enough geezers working on games, you need to have some evidence that game features are decided by the age of the coders, not the market.  I very much doubt that that is true.

Quote from: grumbler on October 27, 2017, 12:13:16 PM
The article that we are discussing says nothing about "an employer telling their employees that a certain date must be met for a certain piece of a certain project."

I am sorry, I assumed you had a basic understanding of what causes "crunch time".   An assumption I should not have made given your responses.  Jacob provided a good explanation for the causes early in the thread.  Please go back and read that.

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 27, 2017, 12:25:43 PM

Quote from: grumbler on October 27, 2017, 12:13:16 PM
The article that we are discussing says nothing about "an employer telling their employees that a certain date must be met for a certain piece of a certain project."

I am sorry, I assumed you had a basic understanding of what causes "crunch time".   An assumption I should not have made given your responses.  Jacob provided a good explanation for the causes early in the thread.  Please go back and read that.

Now that I have demonstrated that I understand crunch time and you do not (and you have tacitly admitted that by instantly abandoning your definition of it when I challenged it), I can point out that I have worked "crunch time" many times in my career.  The most extended crunch times were those when I worked as an analyst for the US Navy and we sponsored the Navy's annual ASW wargame.  That was three weeks every year, and consisted of spending time with the Navy players during the day, and then overseeing my team running the new scenarios generated that day at night.  The regular analysts shifted to working from 6pm-2am, since they didn't have to deal with the Navy guys, but all of the Principal Investigators spent the day with our Navy counterparts, and then the evening and early morning with our team, and then some more time preparing the presentations of the results.  Then, at 8 am, we were back with the Navy guys to run the next day's simulation.  Generally, the PIs got about three hours of sleep while the analysts crunched the numbers (often awakened to answer questions) on cots in our offices, and then went home for a nap and shower around 4am.  It was an exhausting three weeks, but it was worth it because we set up the game results we would be using for the rest of the year.

Now, the PIs were actually only required to work from 8 am-5 pm (though 7 days a week during the wargame), and we could technically just leave notes for the analysts to use setting up their problems for the night.  None of us did that, though, because we wanted the work to be perfect, and we didn't want to frustrate our subordinates by leaving them to deal with their questions on their own.  So we put in probably 60 extra, voluntary hours a week to make sure things went well.  It wasn't a "culture" issue, since there was no "culture" to running Navy wargames.  It was a desire to see an important project run and finish well. 

That's far more what the Op is talking about.  Jean Simonet didn't say he was forced to work long hours.  He said he did so because he wanted to move his work "from good to great."  I think that great is a worthwhile target, and that government should not ban great to protect Jean Simmons from himself.  He needs education, not regulation.

Quote from: grumbler on October 27, 2017, 12:15:54 PM

Quote from: Grey Fox on October 27, 2017, 11:42:40 AM
As a consumer of games, I don't get games made with serious & insightful stories in mind, I get dude bros Overwatch & DOTA.

The circumstances you described earlier have always been true in the gaming industry.  If you think that you don't get stories because there aren't enough geezers working on games, you need to have some evidence that game features are decided by the age of the coders, not the market.  I very much doubt that that is true.

No, how to monetize the game is decided by the market/publisher. But actual stories & gameplay loops? All designers.

Quote from: grumbler on October 27, 2017, 12:56:14 PM
Now that I have demonstrated that I understand crunch time

When did that happen?

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 27, 2017, 02:16:14 PM

Quote from: grumbler on October 27, 2017, 12:56:14 PM
Now that I have demonstrated that I understand crunch time

When did that happen?

If you can't keep up, you should get help from someone who cares whether you keep up.  That's not me.

How can the situation of, say, musicians in a band, even remotely comparable to employees in the game industry?

Quote from: Oexmelin on October 27, 2017, 03:10:26 PM
How can the situation of, say, musicians in a band, even remotely comparable to employees in the game industry?

Grumbler has declared he has fully understood the issue - that should be enough for us.

Oh, my, god.

Grumbler is General Kelly!

Quote from: Oexmelin on October 27, 2017, 03:10:26 PM
How can the situation of, say, musicians in a band, even remotely comparable to employees in the game industry?

Artists tend to be artists, whether they create music or game graphics.  How can musicians be even remotely considered not artists?

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 27, 2017, 03:13:31 PM

Quote from: Oexmelin on October 27, 2017, 03:10:26 PM
How can the situation of, say, musicians in a band, even remotely comparable to employees in the game industry?

Grumbler has declared he has fully understood the issue - that should be enough for us.

:lmfao:  Man, you have no shame when it comes to intellectual dishonesty, do you?  I wonder if you are this intellectually dishonest in everything, or whether you save all your dishonesty for Languish.

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 27, 2017, 10:26:54 AM

In the fundamentals your system is the same as ours.  There is a distinction between putting a limit on the maximum hours which can be worked and the point at which overtime must be paid.  That provides flexibility for employers because they can choose to have employees working longer than a normal work day but they have to pay for it.  At the same time maximum hours of work (both in terms of hours in a week and mandatory rest periods between days worked) are imposed so that workers' health does not suffer.

For the purposes of this thread the issue is which workers are excluded from these protections.  In the US, it seems excluded employees are defined by whether they are paid a salary or an hourly rate.  The exclusions in Canada are based on whether they employee is a "manager" or whether they fall within a description of work which is excluded from the protections of the regulation (eg most professions). Relevant to this thread, employees in the Gaming industry are excluded (at least in BC) because of the logic argued by Berkut - that they are a special type of employee who do not need protection.

It's actually more similar that what you seem to imply here, simply because in the US, the definition of who can be a salaried employee mostly limits it to managers and members of certain professions (doctors, lawyers, etc.).  The trick is in defining who can be considered a manager and thus be salaried.  Generally, the trend has been to place more restrictions on who can be considered a "manager" for the purposes of overtime law.

Quotethe difficulty with that argument is that if those employees are so special, why do so many end up accepting employment with such poor contractual terms of employment - eg no overtime pay, long hours of work, uncertain tenure (most work in the industry is now project based).  I doubt the answer is that every one those employees prefers to work under those conditions.  More likely the answer is that most have no other alternative.

More likely the answer is that they enjoy that type of work, and find it fulfilling.  I very much doubt that people with no other alternative end up with job titles like "game developer".  People with no other alternatives end up with job titles like "ditch digger", "janitor" or "fast-food restaurant crew member".

Quote from: grumbler on October 27, 2017, 04:16:25 PM
Artists tend to be artists, whether they create music or game graphics.  How can musicians be even remotely considered not artists?

I am trying to assert how you draw (ha) the line. Every one who works on video game is an artist? Every member of a recording company? Every roadie? Does wage labor enter the equation?

Quote from: Oexmelin on October 27, 2017, 05:40:36 PM
I am trying to assert how you draw (ha) the line. Every one who works on video game is an artist? Every member of a recording company? Every roadie? Does wage labor enter the equation?

I am not sure why you are looking for an absolutist answer to a complex problem.  What does it matter that the janitor in the game development office and the secretary to the band manager are not artists.  The problem with overwork/crunch time isn't limited to game developers and it isn't caused solely by evil/incompetent corporations.  Some aspects of the problem might be alleviated by, e.g. forcing employers to pay overtime to professional staff when employers force them to work overtime, but the perfectionist problem will remain. 

CD Projekt Red  doesn't do crunch time, according to GF, and yet it's co-CEO claims in the op that work there is "hard-core work. It can destroy your life."  Simple solutions may be attractive, but they don't seem to work in this case.  Drawing black-and-white lines may sound logical to you, but I think that there are grays you are ignoring.

Of course, every one wants nuance and complexity. But I fail to see how insisting that the video game industry tolerates crunch time because it is an artistic pursuit relevant to the issue at hand. We could certainly try to establish parallels - and it is possible - but you seem to want it to be a normative-prescriptive matter: i.e., crunch is just the inevitable byproduct of artistic activity (and thus, presumably, everything is fine?).

The artists I know indeed pour a lot of time in projects, but they are not salaried. They control their time, they decide on their gigs, their crunch times are of their own choosing. They are, at most, 4-5 people in a band, and their decisions are usually decided by consensus. They are not working for wages - which I think is a crucial distinction here.   

People who work in highly structured "cultural industries" like movies and circus, for instance, are either solidly unionized (i.e., IATSE), or under much scrutiny for health and safety-related questions. Directors may indeed be artsy type motivated by "perfectionism", but they belong to an entire industry, where thousands of other people employed, from technicians to set designers, do not share in this ethos - and indeed, should not.

In short, it's not about "evil industry" - it's about "industry". To claim that a multi-billion industry cannot really care for the health of its employees because they are all artists willfully living a bohemian lifestyle which requires crunch seems disingenuous. Not to mention at odds with the actual outlook of many people involved in the creation of, say, a AAA title.

I don't know man. The way those artists skillfully fit all those loot boxes and micro-transactions and DLC into $60.00 games puts Michelangelo to shame. Middle Earth: Shadow of War is the Sistine Chapel of our age.

I am the one saying that crunch time and overwork comes from multiple forces, and that a one-size fits-all "save the artist from himself" approach is too simple to solve the problem.

The first step in solving the problem is to recognize that "crunch time" isn't always imposed on an unwilling but helpless employee and that solutions that assume that it is will fail (as, indeed, it seems to have failed for CD Projekt Red, whose co-CEO considers it "a necessary evil" even though his company doesn't use it). 

The idea that the employee is forced to accept work for a company that employs "crunch time" also seems unfounded.  CD Projekt Red, again, doesn't use it, but checking its jobs listing it has about 80 openings listed for a job force of 700.  I'd guess the potential hires have a great deal of leverage there.  Bethesda Game Studios has 18 openings for a staff of 180.  Sounds like the candidate is going to have a lot of leverage there, as well.  Ten percent vacancy rates are high in a professional business.

What bonuses do these folks get on a successful game?

Thanks for responding Yakey.  Nothing to say right now but I reserve the right.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 27, 2017, 08:08:13 PM
Thanks for responding Yakey.  Nothing to say right now but I reserve the right.

:cheers:

I have more to say on the topic at hand, but ironically - or perhaps aptly - I can't spare the time to read the posts and respond thoroughly right now....

Edit: re: who hold the cards when it comes to OT in the game industry I will say that I have seen it on both side of the issue - working on the floor and being the manager who determines if and how the OT trigger is pulled.

Quote from: grumbler on October 13, 1974, 12:48:36 PMBethesda Game Studios has 180 openings for a staff of 180. 

That sounds like "out of business".

Quote from: Eddie Teach on October 27, 2017, 08:53:12 PM

Quote from: grumbler on October 13, 1974, 12:48:36 PMBethesda Game Studios has 180 openings for a staff of 180. 

That sounds like "out of business".

They deserve everything they get.

Bring back SSI!

Quote from: Eddie Teach on October 27, 2017, 08:53:12 PM

Quote from: grumbler on October 13, 1974, 12:48:36 PMBethesda Game Studios has 180 openings for a staff of 180. 

That sounds like "out of business".

That first number should be 18.

Quote from: grumbler on October 27, 2017, 09:38:08 PM

Quote from: Eddie Teach on October 27, 2017, 08:53:12 PM

Quote from: grumbler on October 13, 1974, 12:48:36 PMBethesda Game Studios has 180 openings for a staff of 180. 

That sounds like "out of business".

That first number should be 18.

I really don't think that changing the date of Eddie's post from 27 to 18 will alter the situation.

I for one, would like to hear more about how computer programming is an "art" and thus should not be regulated.

Quote from: Razgovory on October 28, 2017, 11:12:11 AM

I for one, would like to hear more about how computer programming is an "art" and thus should not be regulated.

Just for the record, I didn't make that argument here.  What I said was that I'd guess that people employed in making video games are exempt form having to be paid OT under similar provisions to those exempting actors and the like.

Having said that, though, I'd say that from what (little) I know about programming, there is an art to it, especially if you're working on a game and not writing, say, an automated billing program.

Quote from: dps on October 28, 2017, 12:57:25 PM
Having said that, though, I'd say that from what (little) I know about programming, there is an art to it, especially if you're working on a game and not writing, say, an automated billing program.

Michaelangelo used the Unreal engine for the Sistine Chapel.

Quote from: dps on October 27, 2017, 05:18:54 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 27, 2017, 10:26:54 AM

In the fundamentals your system is the same as ours.  There is a distinction between putting a limit on the maximum hours which can be worked and the point at which overtime must be paid.  That provides flexibility for employers because they can choose to have employees working longer than a normal work day but they have to pay for it.  At the same time maximum hours of work (both in terms of hours in a week and mandatory rest periods between days worked) are imposed so that workers' health does not suffer.

For the purposes of this thread the issue is which workers are excluded from these protections.  In the US, it seems excluded employees are defined by whether they are paid a salary or an hourly rate.  The exclusions in Canada are based on whether they employee is a "manager" or whether they fall within a description of work which is excluded from the protections of the regulation (eg most professions). Relevant to this thread, employees in the Gaming industry are excluded (at least in BC) because of the logic argued by Berkut - that they are a special type of employee who do not need protection.

It's actually more similar that what you seem to imply here, simply because in the US, the definition of who can be a salaried employee mostly limits it to managers and members of certain professions (doctors, lawyers, etc.).  The trick is in defining who can be considered a manager and thus be salaried.  Generally, the trend has been to place more restrictions on who can be considered a "manager" for the purposes of overtime law.

Quotethe difficulty with that argument is that if those employees are so special, why do so many end up accepting employment with such poor contractual terms of employment - eg no overtime pay, long hours of work, uncertain tenure (most work in the industry is now project based).  I doubt the answer is that every one those employees prefers to work under those conditions.  More likely the answer is that most have no other alternative.

More likely the answer is that they enjoy that type of work, and find it fulfilling.  I very much doubt that people with no other alternative end up with job titles like "game developer".  People with no other alternatives end up with job titles like "ditch digger", "janitor" or "fast-food restaurant crew member".

So it turns out our laws protecting workers are a lot more similar then Yi initially described.  Thank you for clarifying that.

In relation to your second point, by no alternative, I meant that if someone has the skill set and desire to work in the game industry, there are few choices available to them other than to work for employers who do not pay overtime.  Telling them choice is to accept those working conditions or go work as a ditch digger is effectively no choice at all. 

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 29, 2017, 11:41:44 AM


In relation to your second point, by no alternative, I meant that if someone has the skill set and desire to work in the game industry, there are few choices available to them other than to work for employers who do not pay overtime.  Telling them choice is to accept those working conditions or go work as a ditch digger is effectively no choice at all. 

Well, how is that any different than telling someone who wants to be a medical doctor that they have to work the notoriously long hours required of interns and residents (except that internships and residencies are just a stage of their career, not something they'll have to deal with on a permanent basis)?  People with those levels of skill and talent have a lot of options besides digging ditches.

Quote from: dps on October 29, 2017, 07:04:48 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 29, 2017, 11:41:44 AM


In relation to your second point, by no alternative, I meant that if someone has the skill set and desire to work in the game industry, there are few choices available to them other than to work for employers who do not pay overtime.  Telling them choice is to accept those working conditions or go work as a ditch digger is effectively no choice at all. 

Well, how is that any different than telling someone who wants to be a medical doctor that they have to work the notoriously long hours required of interns and residents (except that internships and residencies are just a stage of their career, not something they'll have to deal with on a permanent basis)?  People with those levels of skill and talent have a lot of options besides digging ditches.

On top of that, the idea that computer programmers must choose between working for game companies that don't pay overtime and digging ditches is utterly ludicrous.  CC apparently hasn't noticed that there are computers everywhere, and programmers (even for the gaming companies) have lots of choices.

So, the disagreement then seems to be about the government imposing regulations over the conditions of wage labor, if workers are deemed to have sufficient alternative choice (with the understanding that said choice implies resignation).  Does this, in turn, mean that regulations should be more forthcoming in a variety of industries, or for workers, who are deemed to have less choice, or less capacity to find "comparable" employment?

Quote from: dps on October 29, 2017, 07:04:48 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 29, 2017, 11:41:44 AM


In relation to your second point, by no alternative, I meant that if someone has the skill set and desire to work in the game industry, there are few choices available to them other than to work for employers who do not pay overtime.  Telling them choice is to accept those working conditions or go work as a ditch digger is effectively no choice at all. 

Well, how is that any different than telling someone who wants to be a medical doctor that they have to work the notoriously long hours required of interns and residents (except that internships and residencies are just a stage of their career, not something they'll have to deal with on a permanent basis)?  People with those levels of skill and talent have a lot of options besides digging ditches.

I think you answered your own question.  Residents become specialists, articled students become lawyers etc.  The pain is relatively short term.  Once that training is over doctors and lawyers have a wide range of options regarding how they will work in their fields.  The argument for better regulating the gaming industry is that the gaming company employers are the only game in town - ok bad pun.

I could see an argument that people who start their own gaming companies should not be regulated.  Maybe that was the argument Grumbler was awkwardly trying to make?  But I think that a good argument can be made that the employees in the industry should be treated differently.

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 30, 2017, 09:53:57 AM

Quote from: dps on October 29, 2017, 07:04:48 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 29, 2017, 11:41:44 AM


In relation to your second point, by no alternative, I meant that if someone has the skill set and desire to work in the game industry, there are few choices available to them other than to work for employers who do not pay overtime.  Telling them choice is to accept those working conditions or go work as a ditch digger is effectively no choice at all. 

Well, how is that any different than telling someone who wants to be a medical doctor that they have to work the notoriously long hours required of interns and residents (except that internships and residencies are just a stage of their career, not something they'll have to deal with on a permanent basis)?  People with those levels of skill and talent have a lot of options besides digging ditches.

I think you answered your own question.  Residents become specialists, articled students become lawyers etc.  The pain is relatively short term.  Once that training is over doctors and lawyers have a wide range of options regarding how they will work in their fields.  The argument for better regulating the gaming industry is that the gaming company employers are the only game in town - ok bad pun.

That is simply not true.

Video game programmers are software developers. They are not "video game programmers". Video games are software, and the skills needed to develop them translate perfectly well to a variety of other endeavors.

Which you know perfectly well since the original article pointed out that a problem in the particular industry with these long work hours is that people leave and go find jobs that use their skills that do no demand those hours or crunch.

So no - this is not the only game in town for them, and they do in fact have a incredibly wide range of options regarding how they will work in their field of software engineering and software development.

Many choose to work in this particular subset of their field because the rewards make it worth the downside of often having long hours. There is no problem here that needs your nanny state to fix in particular. Many do it for some time, then decide to move on for more reasonable hours and better pay writing less interesting software.


It's kind of hilarious that the proponents of the nanny state will invent problems to justify more government intrusion under any conceivable circumstance. Which has always been my basic problem with the left - there is no possible end state where they will say "Yes, this is the right amount of government control! We are good!"


And this absolutely proves that - there might not be any job industry ever with as good a deal for skilled technicians than what exists right now for people who know how to write code. Unemployment is basically zero, pay is solid, and they have outstanding mobility and ability to find the right balance, and for some of them, the shot at being brilliant and becoming incredibly wealthy. There are not many jobs ever that have enjoyed such a great amount of power in the hands of the individual provider of this kind of labor, and I say this as someone who does EXACTLY this kind of work.


And yet...nope, not enough. We even need the state to mandate how they can work anyway. It is clearly not about this market at all, but rather about increasing the control of the state under any and all circumstances.

Quote from: Berkut on October 30, 2017, 10:07:12 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 30, 2017, 09:53:57 AM

Quote from: dps on October 29, 2017, 07:04:48 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 29, 2017, 11:41:44 AM


In relation to your second point, by no alternative, I meant that if someone has the skill set and desire to work in the game industry, there are few choices available to them other than to work for employers who do not pay overtime.  Telling them choice is to accept those working conditions or go work as a ditch digger is effectively no choice at all. 

Well, how is that any different than telling someone who wants to be a medical doctor that they have to work the notoriously long hours required of interns and residents (except that internships and residencies are just a stage of their career, not something they'll have to deal with on a permanent basis)?  People with those levels of skill and talent have a lot of options besides digging ditches.

I think you answered your own question.  Residents become specialists, articled students become lawyers etc.  The pain is relatively short term.  Once that training is over doctors and lawyers have a wide range of options regarding how they will work in their fields.  The argument for better regulating the gaming industry is that the gaming company employers are the only game in town - ok bad pun.

Many choose to work in this particular subset of their field because the rewards make it worth the downside of often having long hours. There is no problem here that needs your nanny state to fix in particular. Many do it for some time, then decide to move on for more reasonable hours and better pay writing less interesting software.

I like how you think this is my nanny state  :lol: 

DPS has already confirmed that US workers have these protections.  So stop pretending like the US is some Yi inspired dystopia.  The question we are debating with whether the protections given to most American workers should be extended to the gaming industry.  You have repeated the argument a few times that employees in the gaming industry choose these working conditions.  Do you really think that employers are paying no overtime because the employees prefer it that way?

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 30, 2017, 10:13:55 AM

Quote from: Berkut on October 30, 2017, 10:07:12 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 30, 2017, 09:53:57 AM

Quote from: dps on October 29, 2017, 07:04:48 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 29, 2017, 11:41:44 AM


In relation to your second point, by no alternative, I meant that if someone has the skill set and desire to work in the game industry, there are few choices available to them other than to work for employers who do not pay overtime.  Telling them choice is to accept those working conditions or go work as a ditch digger is effectively no choice at all. 

Well, how is that any different than telling someone who wants to be a medical doctor that they have to work the notoriously long hours required of interns and residents (except that internships and residencies are just a stage of their career, not something they'll have to deal with on a permanent basis)?  People with those levels of skill and talent have a lot of options besides digging ditches.

I think you answered your own question.  Residents become specialists, articled students become lawyers etc.  The pain is relatively short term.  Once that training is over doctors and lawyers have a wide range of options regarding how they will work in their fields.  The argument for better regulating the gaming industry is that the gaming company employers are the only game in town - ok bad pun.

Many choose to work in this particular subset of their field because the rewards make it worth the downside of often having long hours. There is no problem here that needs your nanny state to fix in particular. Many do it for some time, then decide to move on for more reasonable hours and better pay writing less interesting software.

I like how you think this is my nanny state  :lol: 

DPS has already confirmed that US workers have these protections.  So stop pretending like the US is some Yi inspired dystopia.  The question we are debating with whether the protections given to most American workers should be extended to the gaming industry.  You have repeated the argument a few times that employees in the gaming industry choose these working conditions.  Do you really think that employers are paying no overtime because the employees prefer it that way?

You are totally changing the argument from the claim that game developers have some special problem that needs to be fixed, to the much more general problem that salaried employees in general are not paid overtime.

That is a completely different argument entirely, and has nothing to do with the game industry in particular, except that they are an example of a set of people who are typically salaried and hence don't get overtime.

If you want to argue about this in general, rather than in this particular. then make THAT argument. Hell, I would probably agree with you- in fact I made exactly that argument several pages ago.

But the idea that software developers are some oppressed class of workers without options is so bizarrely ludicrous for anyone who actually works in this industry makes your idiotic comments like comparing them to ditch diggers just farcical.

Quote from: Berkut on October 30, 2017, 10:23:33 AM
You are totally changing the argument from the claim that game developers have some special problem that needs to be fixed, to the much more general problem that salaried employees in general are not paid overtime.

I am genuinely confused by why you think that.  My whole argument is that excluding all employees who work in the gaming industry from the legal protections most other employees enjoy should be reconsidered.  My reasoning all along have been that at least some of those employees have more in common with other employees who are paid overtime than not. 

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 30, 2017, 10:28:10 AM

Quote from: Berkut on October 30, 2017, 10:23:33 AM
You are totally changing the argument from the claim that game developers have some special problem that needs to be fixed, to the much more general problem that salaried employees in general are not paid overtime.

I am genuinely confused by why you think that.  My whole argument is that excluding all employees who work in the gaming industry from the legal protections most other employees enjoy should be reconsidered.

There is no such exclusion that exists.

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 30, 2017, 10:28:10 AM
I am genuinely confused by why you think that.  My whole argument is that excluding all employees who work in the gaming industry from the legal protections most other employees enjoy should be reconsidered.  My reasoning all along have been that at least some of those employees have more in common with other employees who are paid overtime than not. 

The problem with your proposed solution is that it does not seem to work.  CD Projekt Red pays overtime, and has a 10% job vacancy rate.  Bethesda game Studios does not pay overtime and has a 10% job vacancy rate.  It doesn't seem like overtime pay has a big impact.

Your proposal would also require (in the US) that the artists and programmers be paid on an hourly, vice salary basis.  I'm not sure that they would want to shift.

However, in the US, all that would be required to imnplement your scheme would be to eliminate the "Exemption for Employees in Computer-Related Occupations" under the FLSA, rather than the creation of new laws.

Quote from: Berkut on October 30, 2017, 10:34:40 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 30, 2017, 10:28:10 AM

Quote from: Berkut on October 30, 2017, 10:23:33 AM
You are totally changing the argument from the claim that game developers have some special problem that needs to be fixed, to the much more general problem that salaried employees in general are not paid overtime.

I am genuinely confused by why you think that.  My whole argument is that excluding all employees who work in the gaming industry from the legal protections most other employees enjoy should be reconsidered.

There is no such exclusion that exists.

The exclusion exists because all employees in the industry, at least in American terms, are defined as salary workers . At least that is how Languish has explained why gaming employers are exempted from having to pay overtime.   I understand from DPS that salary is another way of saying manager or professionals.  Which bring us back to the public policy argument of whether all employees in the industry should be defined as such.

Quote from: grumbler on October 30, 2017, 11:00:52 AM

Your proposal would also require (in the US) that the artists and programmers be paid on an hourly, vice salary basis.  I'm not sure that they would want to shift.

Yes, that is the heart of the public policy debate.  As I stated earlier the prevailing wisdom (and the position forcefully taken by Berkut) is that they do not.   But the problem I see with that argument is it is likely the employers who would rather not pay overtime.  If one accepts the open market theory which underlies Berkut's argument, the only way the employees would agree to such a bargain is if they are compensated in other ways which are greater or equal to the overtime pay.  We would need more data to make a reasoned conclusion on that point.

My purpose is simply to challenge the accepted wisdom that there is no issue to consider.

QuoteHowever, in the US, all that would be required to imnplement your scheme would be to eliminate the "Exemption for Employees in Computer-Related Occupations" under the FLSA, rather than the creation of new laws.

Yes, I was initially led astray by Yi's inaccurate description of workers rights in the US.  As DPS later explained, US law is very similar to Canadian law and that all that needs to be done is amend the exemption.  Btw, that would be the same legislative change in, at least, BC.

Quote from: Berkut on October 30, 2017, 10:34:40 AM
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

QuoteThe 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.

Quote from: Jacob on October 30, 2017, 11:54:21 AM
Not sure about other jurisdictions, of course.

Grumbler helpfully identified the "Exemption for Employees in Computer-Related Occupations" under the FLSA"

Quote from: Jacob on October 30, 2017, 11:54:21 AM

Quote from: Berkut on October 30, 2017, 10:34:40 AM
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

QuoteThe 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.

Quote from: Berkut on October 30, 2017, 12:02:06 PM

Quote from: Jacob on October 30, 2017, 11:54:21 AM

Quote from: Berkut on October 30, 2017, 10:34:40 AM
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

QuoteThe 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.

Quote from: Berkut on October 30, 2017, 10:34:40 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 30, 2017, 10:28:10 AM

Quote from: Berkut on October 30, 2017, 10:23:33 AM
You are totally changing the argument from the claim that game developers have some special problem that needs to be fixed, to the much more general problem that salaried employees in general are not paid overtime.

I am genuinely confused by why you think that.  My whole argument is that excluding all employees who work in the gaming industry from the legal protections most other employees enjoy should be reconsidered.

There is no such exclusion that exists.

There is no such exclusion that exists.

My perspective (so insert a liberal amount of "IMO" and "from what I've seen" throughout):

Ease of transition to non-game work

First off, keep in mind that a significant number of people who make videogames are not programmers. There are also production staff (project managers, producers), quality assurance, artists of various sorts (animators, modelers, compositors, effects artist, writers, concept artists - often highly specialized), designers (gameplay scripters, level designers). It depends on the project of course, but when we talk about he people making games only roughly half of them are programmers.

How easily can these people get work outside of games, should they desire it?

Production Staff - in theory project management is the same across industries, but in practice there are usually enough specialized elements in the process that it is non-trivial. We don't hire in a lot of PM type people from other industries, and conversely game management experience isn't particularly valued in other industries. This is even more true once you get into producing rather than pure project management. I'd rate the shifting career option here as theoretically possible, but definitely non-trivial. I expect you'd need to set it as a deliberate goal, pick a destination, work on certs. and industry specific networking and then deliberately jump.

Artists - most of them are locked into the game industry hard. There is some potential movement to adjacent industries (related to films and TV mostly), but those are managed similarly so it isn't really relevant if we're talking about moving to improve working conditions. In most cases the skills are quite specialized - related to very specific software and very small segments of the game production pipeline. There are a few exceptions, but the vast majority of artists (and they make up equal numbers to engineers), have nowhere else to go where they wouldn't be starting over from basically scratch.

Designers - they have even less options than the artists. Unless they luck out and manage to catch a wave of "gamification" being popular in some other industry, there's nowhere else for them. Some are technical, but experienced lua scripters (f.ex.) are not in demand anywhere else no matter how much you argue it's pretty much the same as programming.

QA - pretty much like the production staff. In theory there are cross field applications, but in practice it seems training up a talented beginner is more attractive than bringing in someone experienced in from another industry (and this goes in both directions).

Programmers (sometimes called engineers, but most of them are not in fact engineers) - they're in the best position to move out of games of these groups, but it's still varied. High end programmers in math heavy fields - like graphics or physics - seem to have no problem in moving on.HOwever, since people tend to specialize, there are still a  large group of programmers whose skills are less transferable. The demand for game play programmers, animation engineers, and UI programmers (in the numbers that exist in games), audio programmers etc, is somewhat limited compared to demand. There's the additional fact that video game programmers are not always held in that high regard due to the very different development processes in place in games compared to industry. Still, I think most programmers would probably land okay after spamming resumes for a while.

Quote from: Berkut on October 30, 2017, 12:02:06 PM
His claim was that this exclusion was specific to the gaming industry.

Even though the language suggests otherwise, it is in fact specific to the gaming industry in the case of BC - it was brought in on behest of the gaming industry and is pretty much only used by the gaming industry (and adjacent FX and animation industries).

Quote from: Jacob on October 30, 2017, 12:53:57 PM

Quote from: Berkut on October 30, 2017, 12:02:06 PM
His claim was that this exclusion was specific to the gaming industry.

Even though the language suggests otherwise, it is in fact specific to the gaming industry in the case of BC - it was brought in on behest of the gaming industry and is pretty much only used by the gaming industry (and adjacent FX and animation industries).

A, so specific to the gaming industry, except for the other industries that are not gaming that it applies to?

Gotcha.

Languish - 'No empathy left behind'

Quote from: Jacob on October 30, 2017, 12:53:57 PM

Quote from: Berkut on October 30, 2017, 12:02:06 PM
His claim was that this exclusion was specific to the gaming industry.

Even though the language suggests otherwise, it is in fact specific to the gaming industry in the case of BC - it was brought in on behest of the gaming industry and is pretty much only used by the gaming industry (and adjacent FX and animation industries).

Mainly used that way these days, but back in the day other high tech firms lobbied for the exemption.  Its just that, in BC, the gaming industry has become a dominant entity in the sector.

... continuing my perspective.

People in the game industry put up with OT because they love what they do

It is definitely true that most people who start in the game industry love games and are excited to work on games. It is also true that they put up with all kinds of shit because they love games, though usually it's mostly because they're told "that's the way it is."

It is also true that companies ruthlessly and explicitly promote and exploit that. The message that it's reasonable to put up with shit because it's games and "we love making games" is relentless - "we're so lucky to be doing what we love! Have a branded t-shirt and some free beer! Mandatory 60-hour weeks are still in effect this month!"

Many of the larger companies work on a model deliberately designed to bring in large volumes of staff and relentlessly grinding them with OT and discarding them when they break from the stress and/ or the project no longer needs them (and with little thought towards staff retention between projects). Not all companies do that, of course, but plenty do - and even the ones who don't do it as a deliberate strategy often do so less deliberately due to general industry factors.

Quote from: Berkut on October 30, 2017, 12:57:52 PM
A, so specific to the gaming industry, except for the other industries that are not gaming that it applies to?

Gotcha.

It wouldn't be the first time a law designed to achieve something was expressed in more general terms.

It is my understanding that the law was designed for and is primarily used by the games industry. But for sake of argument, let's say that it is broadly used in the high-tech sector across BC, how do the arguments change?

I reckon the "they do it for the love, so it's okay" thing falls flat, but other than that does it change anything about the degree to which the gov't should opr should not regulate or whether or not an explicit exemption is good policy - whether it applies to and/ or is used by "games" or "high tech"?

Quote from: Jacob on October 30, 2017, 01:29:27 PM

Quote from: Berkut on October 30, 2017, 12:57:52 PM
A, so specific to the gaming industry, except for the other industries that are not gaming that it applies to?

Gotcha.

It wouldn't be the first time a law designed to achieve something was expressed in more general terms.

It is my understanding that the law was designed for and is primarily used by the games industry. But for sake of argument, let's say that it is broadly used in the high-tech sector across BC, how do the arguments change?

I reckon the "they do it for the love, so it's okay" thing falls flat, but other than that does it change anything about the degree to which the gov't should opr should not regulate or whether or not an explicit exemption is good policy - whether it applies to and/ or is used by "games" or "high tech"?

Go back and see my arguments previously.

If there are industries where the ability to force people to work long hours where they lack the ability to counter that pressure, then it might make for a good argument for intervention. And in fact, I think that broadly that is the case.

This is just a singularly terrible example to use. Software designers have a very marketable, valuable, and nighly transferable skill set that allows them to move to other companies or even other genres within the industry if they so choose.

I think using them as the "example" of poor, oppressed workers being taken advantage of betrays that this isn't really about any rational argument based on practical reality at all, but rather the generic, left wing, business is bad no matter what, and the workers are always oppressed by The Man.

Which I find frustrating, because it is a path that never has an end to it. If your argument is that people being paid almost 6 figures on average are the example case of those who need protection, then it seems clear to me that there is no possible set of workers who will not be *always* eligible for more intervention on their behalf.

If this argument was a general one observing that salaried workers generally are being taken advantage of in the US because of the exemption made for them not being required to be paid OT, then I am right with you. I think that is bad policy for a variety of reasons. But software engineers being the case study for salaried professionals not being able to leave their job if they don't like it? That is just ludicrous.

Quote from: Berkut on October 30, 2017, 12:57:52 PM

Quote from: Jacob on October 30, 2017, 12:53:57 PM

Quote from: Berkut on October 30, 2017, 12:02:06 PM
His claim was that this exclusion was specific to the gaming industry.

Even though the language suggests otherwise, it is in fact specific to the gaming industry in the case of BC - it was brought in on behest of the gaming industry and is pretty much only used by the gaming industry (and adjacent FX and animation industries).

A, so specific to the gaming industry, except for the other industries that are not gaming that it applies to?

Gotcha.

Berkut, I still have no idea what point you are trying to make.  The exemption includes employees in the gaming industry.  The question is whether or not it should.  Are you making a substantive point or is this just a game of silly semantics.

So, if a work regimen implemented as company policy, leads to health issues, or free labor, it should be if no concern if a) the pay is high enough, and b) employees are deemed capable of easily finding employment elsewhere?

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 30, 2017, 01:47:56 PM

Quote from: Berkut on October 30, 2017, 12:57:52 PM

Quote from: Jacob on October 30, 2017, 12:53:57 PM

Quote from: Berkut on October 30, 2017, 12:02:06 PM
His claim was that this exclusion was specific to the gaming industry.

Even though the language suggests otherwise, it is in fact specific to the gaming industry in the case of BC - it was brought in on behest of the gaming industry and is pretty much only used by the gaming industry (and adjacent FX and animation industries).

A, so specific to the gaming industry, except for the other industries that are not gaming that it applies to?

Gotcha.

Berkut, I still have no idea what point you are trying to make.  The exemption includes employees in the gaming industry.  The question is whether or not it should.  Are you making a substantive point or is this just a game of silly semantics.

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.

There is an exemption for people who are salaried, which I imagine many people in the video game industry are, but probably many are not.

Hence the entire argument stands or falls on facts or points that have nothing to do with the video game industry in particular, but rather with people who are salaried, and hence exempt.

So no, it is not just an argument about semantics, it is a rejection of a specific claim made by you over and over again even after it has been shown to be factually untrue. I guess rather than just admitting you were wrong and adjusting your argument you can claim it is "just semantics" instead. If that makes you feel better somehow.

Quote from: Oexmelin on October 30, 2017, 01:49:58 PM
So, if a work regimen implemented as company policy, leads to health issues, or free labor, it should be if no concern if a) the pay is high enough, and b) employees are deemed capable of easily finding employment elsewhere?

The argument for government intervention is not strong if you can show that the people involved are quite capable of resolving the situation themselves, or that the market is working as intended to redress the issues.

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.

So the existence of "health issues" does not by itself make an argument for intervention - all jobs can lead to "health issues".

Of course, if you favor intervention as a political ideology, you will find ANY piece of data to justify more nanny state.

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.

Quote from: Oexmelin on October 30, 2017, 02:11:23 PM
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.

So, a union, then?

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".

Quote from: Berkut on October 30, 2017, 02:37:25 PM
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. :huh:

Quote from: Oexmelin on October 30, 2017, 02:33:07 PM
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?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2017, 02:42:31 PM

Quote from: Oexmelin on October 30, 2017, 02:33:07 PM
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?

Quote from: Berkut on October 30, 2017, 01:52:01 PM
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.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2017, 02:24:28 PM

Quote from: Oexmelin on October 30, 2017, 02:11:23 PM
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.

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.

Quote from: Berkut on October 30, 2017, 01:55:46 PM
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.

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 30, 2017, 12:37:21 PM

Quote from: Berkut on October 30, 2017, 12:02:06 PM

Quote from: Jacob on October 30, 2017, 11:54:21 AM

Quote from: Berkut on October 30, 2017, 10:34:40 AM
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

QuoteThe 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.

Quote from: dps on October 30, 2017, 05:26:52 PM
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.

Quote
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".

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.

Quote from: Razgovory on October 30, 2017, 07:37:46 PM
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.

I can tell you projectionists don't get overtime. :)

I do

Quote from: katmai on October 30, 2017, 07:56:45 PM
I can tell you projectionists don't get overtime. :)

That's surprising.

Quote from: katmai on October 30, 2017, 07:56:45 PM
I can tell you projectionists don't get overtime. :)

They get a free movie.

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 30, 2017, 03:57:59 PM

Quote from: Berkut on October 30, 2017, 01:52:01 PM
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.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2017, 02:24:28 PM

Quote from: Oexmelin on October 30, 2017, 02:11:23 PM
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).

Quote from: 11B4V on October 30, 2017, 07:51:24 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on October 30, 2017, 07:37:46 PM
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.

Quote from: Razgovory on October 30, 2017, 07:37:46 PM
They both operate in a creative field: The film industry.  They both appear to moonlight as projectors.

:lol:

Berkuts an IT guy on weekdays.

Quote from: katmai on October 30, 2017, 07:56:45 PM
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.

Quote from: Jacob on October 30, 2017, 04:14:07 PM

Quote from: Berkut on October 30, 2017, 01:55:46 PM
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. :P

Quote from: Tamas on October 31, 2017, 01:38:54 AM
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. :P

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. :P

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...

Quote from: Berkut on October 31, 2017, 07:22:05 AM
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.

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.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 31, 2017, 08:33:14 AM
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.

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

Quote from: dps on October 30, 2017, 08:26:27 PM
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.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 31, 2017, 08:33:14 AM
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.

Quote from: Tyr on October 31, 2017, 09:00:56 AM
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.

Quote from: grumbler on October 31, 2017, 09:33:10 AM

Quote from: Tyr on October 31, 2017, 09:00:56 AM
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.

Quote from: grumbler on October 31, 2017, 09:33:10 AM

Quote from: Tyr on October 31, 2017, 09:00:56 AM
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.

Quote from: Jacob on October 30, 2017, 04:14:07 PM
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.

Quote from: Tyr on October 31, 2017, 09:42:43 AM
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?

Quote from: Tyr on October 31, 2017, 09:42:43 AM

Quote from: grumbler on October 31, 2017, 09:33:10 AM

Quote from: Tyr on October 31, 2017, 09:00:56 AM
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

Quote from: Tyr on October 31, 2017, 09:42:43 AM
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.

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

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? 

Quote from: Monoriu on October 31, 2017, 09:36:31 PM
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.

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.

Quote from: dps on October 31, 2017, 09:30:08 PM
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.

Quote from: grumbler on October 31, 2017, 12:52:44 PM

Quote from: Tyr on October 31, 2017, 09:42:43 AM
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

Quote from: Tyr on November 01, 2017, 06:52:19 AM

Quote from: grumbler on October 31, 2017, 12:52:44 PM
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

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).

Merely showing us that you really don't know how to google ("more hours" is a shitty search term) is not persuasive.

What the fuck are you even talking about?
You realise that splitting hairs about whether the cut off point is 36,40,48 or whatever is completely missing the point right?
Pretty sure Minsky just said 40 as it's a nice round number.

Quote from: Tyr on November 01, 2017, 08:55:04 AM
What the fuck are you even talking about?
You realise that splitting hairs about whether the cut off point is 36,40,48 or whatever is completely missing the point right?
Pretty sure Minsky just said 40 as it's a nice round number.

What the fuck?  You are the one who said that "The down side of paying more for over 40 hours of work is that it is incentivising the unhealthy option." (my bold) If you didn't fucking mean that, why the fuck did you say it?

Pretty sure Minsky said that "Solution - presumption of 1.5x pay for work beyond 40 hrs per week" - a solution you disagreed with.  How can you now cite what you are "pretty sure Minsky said" as the final authority for anything, given that you disagree with him? (and, btw, it was dps, not Minsky, who agreed with my observation about your silliness in choosing 40 hours as the difference between healthy and unhealthy).

Language!  :angry:

Quote from: derspiess on November 01, 2017, 09:29:55 AM
Language!  :angry:

I'm trying to speak a language Tyr understands.  It's difficult, since I am not as fluent in gibberish as he is.

Okay.

:bleeding:

1: . It's called discussion. Its what humans do. You can note the potential draw backs of an idea without totally opposing it.
2: It was Minsky who brought up 40 hours. Given the number of hours wasn't the point of what he was saying getting hung up on it is rather mad.
3: Your logic doesn't make sense. Drinking one glass of wine is perfectly healthy. Laws still disincentivise all drinking. Given the impossibility of mapping exactly when every person reaches the level of too much work it's pretty stupid to expect a line can be drawn there. Would you even want the line drawn right on the danger point? Again that's dumb.

Nobody ever bitches how employers can cap hours at 37.5 a week in order to intentionally avoid providing full-time benefits.  I guess suckers like nurses should've learned coding.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 01, 2017, 09:47:52 AM
Nobody ever bitches how employers can cap hours at 37.5 a week in order to intentionally avoid providing full-time benefits. 

THANKS OBAMACARE

Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 01, 2017, 09:47:52 AM
Nobody ever bitches how employers can cap hours at 37.5 a week in order to intentionally avoid providing full-time benefits.  I guess suckers like nurses should've learned coding.

Nurses should not work for employers who do that.

Quote from: derspiess on November 01, 2017, 09:56:47 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 01, 2017, 09:47:52 AM
Nobody ever bitches how employers can cap hours at 37.5 a week in order to intentionally avoid providing full-time benefits. 

THANKS OBAMACARE

I'm sure the neighborhood trick-or-treaters appreciated all those wire hangers you handed out last night, coonhating anti-cuntite.

Quote from: Berkut on November 01, 2017, 09:58:07 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 01, 2017, 09:47:52 AM
Nobody ever bitches how employers can cap hours at 37.5 a week in order to intentionally avoid providing full-time benefits.  I guess suckers like nurses should've learned coding.

Nurses should not work for employers who do that.

I'm sure someone will get that memo to them.

Quote from: dps on October 31, 2017, 09:30:08 PM
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 think people could reasonably do 60-hours on a consistent basis. But 16+ per day will ruin your health in the long run. Hell in the short run.

Quote from: Valmy on November 01, 2017, 10:38:41 AM

Quote from: dps on October 31, 2017, 09:30:08 PM
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 think people could reasonably do 60-hours on a consistent basis.

The medical research suggests otherwise.

QuoteThe largest study conducted on the issue, carried out in three continents and led by scientists at University College London, found that those who work more than 55 hours a week have a 33% increased risk of stroke compared with those who work a 35- to 40-hour week. They also have a 13% increased risk of coronary heart disease.

The findings will confirm the assumptions of many that a long-hours culture, in which people work from early in the morning until well into the evening, with work also intruding into weekends, is potentially harmful to health.

The researchers, publishing their findings in the Lancet medical journal, say they cannot state categorically that long hours cause people to have strokes – but their study shows that there is a link, and it gets stronger as the hours people put in get longer.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/aug/20/working-longer-hours-increases-stroke-risk

:bleeding:

It is you who got hung up on the specific hours, and me who pointed out the stupidity of that position.  You cannot now claim my position now that you have realized how moronic your position was.  I got to the smart answer first.

Quote from: grumbler on November 01, 2017, 11:05:46 AM
I got to the smart answer first.

I'm tempted to put this in my sig.  I think it perfectly captures the whiny petulance of Grumbler's posting style.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 01, 2017, 10:03:11 AM

Quote from: derspiess on November 01, 2017, 09:56:47 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 01, 2017, 09:47:52 AM
Nobody ever bitches how employers can cap hours at 37.5 a week in order to intentionally avoid providing full-time benefits. 

THANKS OBAMACARE

I'm sure the neighborhood trick-or-treaters appreciated all those wire hangers you handed out last night, coonhating anti-cuntite.

Pocket constitutions and Chick-fil-A coupons went out in my goodie bags  ^_^

Quote from: derspiess on November 01, 2017, 11:25:19 AM
Pocket constitutions and Chick-fil-A coupons went out in my goodie bags  ^_^

Very perceptive of you to recognize that Trump supporters need a gentle reminder about the Constitution - nice move sliding it in with their comfort food.

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 01, 2017, 11:33:21 AM

Quote from: derspiess on November 01, 2017, 11:25:19 AM
Pocket constitutions and Chick-fil-A coupons went out in my goodie bags  ^_^

Very perceptive of you to recognize that Trump supporters need a gentle reminder about the Constitution - nice move sliding it in with their comfort food.

And a tacit endorsement of blue laws.  Next time, just hand out pocket New Testaments.

DON'T TEMPT ME SUCKA

Quote from: Habbaku on October 31, 2017, 11:38:58 PM

Quote from: dps on October 31, 2017, 09:30:08 PM
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.

"Deliberate" and "arbitrary" aren't antonyms.

Quote from: dps on November 01, 2017, 02:56:40 PM

Quote from: Habbaku on October 31, 2017, 11:38:58 PM

Quote from: dps on October 31, 2017, 09:30:08 PM
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.

"Deliberate" and "arbitrary" aren't antonyms.

I think you are right that this is just the amount of hours that was the compromise to over a century of political pressure from workers' rights groups and unions.  The 40 hour work week has been the standard for a long time and so all our labour laws and regulations adopt that standard.   

Yeah, I think it comes from "8 hours work, 8 hours sleep, 8 hours leisure" multiplied out by the number of work days.

Can anyone other than grumbler explain to me what the fuck grumbler's point is (whether you personally agree with it or not)?  I'm trying to follow this thread as I find it interesting, but for the love of me I can't figure out what insights were attempted to be added to the discussion.

Quote from: DGuller on November 01, 2017, 06:38:53 PM
Can anyone other than grumbler explain to me what the fuck grumbler's point is (whether you personally agree with it or not)?  I'm trying to follow this thread as I find it interesting, but for the love of me I can't figure out what insights were attempted to be added to the discussion.

I doubt it.  We have some pretty talented writers here, but, talented enough to make this simple enough for you to understand?  Not likely.

Quote from: grumbler on November 01, 2017, 06:44:15 PM

Quote from: DGuller on November 01, 2017, 06:38:53 PM
Can anyone other than grumbler explain to me what the fuck grumbler's point is (whether you personally agree with it or not)?  I'm trying to follow this thread as I find it interesting, but for the love of me I can't figure out what insights were attempted to be added to the discussion.

I doubt it.  We have some pretty talented writers here, but, talented enough to make this simple enough for you to understand?  Not likely.

Apparently we have some highly talented comedians here as well.

Quote from: DGuller on November 01, 2017, 06:45:40 PM
Apparently we have some highly talented comedians here as well.

And, between you and Rain Man, two prolific trolls.

Well this thread took the traditional languish trajectory. :lol:

Quote from: 11B4V on November 01, 2017, 07:17:14 PM
Well this thread took the traditional languish trajectory. :lol:

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.telegraph.co.uk%2Fmultimedia%2Farchive%2F03366%2Fwile_3366650b.jpg&hash=794b2128a7096918f21665ad2521d48aa6c76ca6)

Quote from: 11B4V on November 01, 2017, 07:17:14 PM
Well this thread took the traditional languish trajectory. :lol:

When you start out the discussion with an Op-Ed with a headline like "Video Games Are Destroying the People Who Make Them," you can't expect a whole lot.  I thought the discussion was interesting for a while, but then it devolved into "we gotta pass a law against this," and things always turn silly when people start proposing laws.

Quote from: grumbler on November 01, 2017, 07:37:06 PM

Quote from: 11B4V on November 01, 2017, 07:17:14 PM
Well this thread took the traditional languish trajectory. :lol:

When you start out the discussion with an Op-Ed with a headline like "Video Games Are Destroying the People Who Make Them," you can't expect a whole lot.  I thought the discussion was interesting for a while, but then it devolved into "we gotta pass a law against this," and things always turn silly when people start proposing laws.

I didn't say it doesn't entertain the shit outta me. ;)

Quote from: grumbler on November 01, 2017, 06:44:15 PM

Quote from: DGuller on November 01, 2017, 06:38:53 PM
Can anyone other than grumbler explain to me what the fuck grumbler's point is (whether you personally agree with it or not)?  I'm trying to follow this thread as I find it interesting, but for the love of me I can't figure out what insights were attempted to be added to the discussion.

I doubt it.  We have some pretty talented writers here, but, talented enough to make this simple enough for you to understand?  Not likely.

You really screwed this up.  The only way to fail the task DGuller asked for was for someone with the screen name "Grumbler" to answer.

Quote from: Razgovory on November 01, 2017, 07:39:59 PM

Quote from: grumbler on November 01, 2017, 06:44:15 PM

Quote from: DGuller on November 01, 2017, 06:38:53 PM
Can anyone other than grumbler explain to me what the fuck grumbler's point is (whether you personally agree with it or not)?  I'm trying to follow this thread as I find it interesting, but for the love of me I can't figure out what insights were attempted to be added to the discussion.

I doubt it.  We have some pretty talented writers here, but, talented enough to make this simple enough for you to understand?  Not likely.

You really screwed this up.  The only way to fail the task DGuller asked for was for someone with the screen name "Grumbler" to answer.

To be fair, he didn't attempt to explain the point he was making here.  Nor anywhere else, for that matter.

Quote from: dps on November 01, 2017, 02:56:40 PM

Quote from: Habbaku on October 31, 2017, 11:38:58 PM

Quote from: dps on October 31, 2017, 09:30:08 PM
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.

"Deliberate" and "arbitrary" aren't antonyms.

I would love to know what definition of arbitrary you're intending to use.

Quote from: DGuller on November 01, 2017, 06:45:40 PM
Apparently we have some highly talented comedians here as well.

Names?

Yeah, I'm sure they've got names.

Quote from: Eddie Teach on November 02, 2017, 12:07:26 AM

Quote from: DGuller on November 01, 2017, 06:45:40 PM
Apparently we have some highly talented comedians here as well.

Names?

That wouldn't be modest.