by Anonymous Coward writes:
on Tuesday June 18, 2019 @10:04PM (#58785602)
Yep, I'm sure trying to destroy the video game industry will make him really popular with the kids.
Please.
What the video game industry really needs is protection from SJWs, who keep on forcing video game companies to censor their games or risk being "deplatformed" and blocked from retailers. Unions are the last the thing the industry needs.
No, but rather than actually fixing the problem by ensuring that there is decent national employment law which regulates workers environments, wellbeing, and prevents abuses that we are seeing, Bernie Sanders is suggesting that instead the answer is to force workers to pay more of their wages to a third party and introduce more conflict and friction between worker and employer. Thats not a solution, thats Thunderdome.
The US has some of the worst employment law in the western world - for fucks sake, you have the concept of an *exempt* and *non-exempt* worker, thats insane! The US concept of a union is there to fix issues that most other western countries have solved through proper governance - you need to fix the underlying issue, not introduce more conflict to the situation!!!
Im not lying at all (and you really need to look up the definition of that word, because you use it like a 5 year old hearing something they don't want to hear - but then, your entire post reads like that anyway).
Bernie Sanders solution is to involve a third party - not fix the problem, not introduce legislation, but to involve a third party. That third party is going to need paying. It's the workers that pay union dues. So to get their problems resolved, instead of the government stepping in and fixing it like a good government should do for its citizens, Bernies solution is to force workers to have to pay a third party to represent them. And that representation involves direct conflict with the employer.
So no, not lying, and my interpretation is 100% accurate.
Unions are third parties, yes, but they are the only way for independent people to gain representation and strength to stand up to their employers -- And eventually to press on legislators to show how many people oppose a given status that allows companies to abuse workers.
Except that that ruling has fuck all to do with the private video game sector and its employers and workers - its to do with public workers and freedom of speech.
It also has nothing to do with my comment at all, because if the union isn't collecting the dues from the workers, then its not representing them - if its not representing them, then Bernies solution is a non-solution, and the employee is back to "120 hour working weeks". In order for the union to represent them, the worker has to pay their dues to the union.
Bernies solution is unions. For unions to be willing to represent, they must be paid. So to gain representation, a worker is forced to pay the union.
Its quite simple, so if you don't understand the issue then I'd suggest you start switching to velcro belts, as buckle belts seem to be beyond you.
by ensuring that there is decent national employment law which regulates workers environments, wellbeing, and prevents abuses that we are seeing
And who is going to enforce and monitor that law? Who is going to make sure that despite the law, companies don't simply let people do overtime? I know first hand that even when there is such a law on paper, people will bend to the demands of the company. They will clock out - and then go back to their workplace. On paper, the maximum working time is kept.
You would need government auditors touring the country doing unannounced spot checks. Or you could have representatives within the company watching out for the well-being of the workers. Oh wait, that's exactly the idea of a union!
I have seen first hand people not saying a word about clearly illegal employer behaviour. And starting an investigation against your employer is actively discouraged in all those places. They'll tell you that it is a matter of loyalty (despite they aren't loyal to you) or that you should bring it up with HR first (despite HR not being on your side) or they will lie to you telling that their clearly illegal behaviour has been checked by the lawyers and is actually fine.
And a Union is nothing more than workers organizing. You've been had. The establishment media has demonized worker organization for decades so that you'll try to make it on your own. They've repeatedly pushed the narrative that you should be able to make it alone and that there's something wrong with you if you don't. That if you're working 120 hours/week that's your fault, and not the fault of a system designed to take advantage of you.
You are not John Galt. That's a good thing. Galt was an asshole and
"So you think a 120+ hour work week is acceptable, but you're so lazy and jobless you spend all day on/....."
You're not working 120 hour work weeks, and neither are they. I'm so lazy that after 42 years of work, I'm retired, so fuck you.
In this economy, if you're being overworked, there's no excuse for you not leaving and finding another job. Quit your whining and go welcome people to Walmart. Maybe if you had a spine, you'd log in, but we know you trolls don't.
Um, no. It was something to do with crappy mob run unions that I grew up around. Ever heard of Jimmy Hoffa? It was all seniority based, not about skill. You could make triple time wages on holidays. If the assembly line broke down, you could go home at full pay...and it broke down...on purpose sometimes. If you knew the right people, you could order a new car with no options and have it delivered fully loaded. Yes, the companies shared the blame, along with the politicians too. So, why do you suppos
Sooooo, I write software for a living and have a pretty good familiarity with the general industry and the more niche game development section. I've looked into the positions and have colleagues that came from/went to work in game development. Personally, I absolutely REFUSE to work in game development as it stands in spite of the fact that I love gaming and think I would like doing that type of work. Want to know why I refuse? Because why in the fuck would I go work for a game development company not even making six figures (even at my experience level, and I was working as a team lead/senior developer 3 years out of college) putting in regular 70 hour weeks and 120+ crunch time?
I work in business software development and automation, make way more than I could in game development and work basically zero overtime. Even my first job out of college at a mid size company, I worked maybe 60 hour weeks during heavy load times (which was a few weeks a year typically) and I got comp time for those hours. I knew the financials of my first company and know the micro financials for my current company (publicly traded anyway), and they were both turning a very solid and steady profit. What the hell makes you think these companies putting out fucking video games can't do the same?
A union for them would not destroy anything other than the outrageous profits and bonuses of the top brass. Most of the people working in the industry are specifically doing it because they love video games just that much, and the people on top are just exploiting that. I don't give a shit if they are willingly doing it, it doesn't give the executives an excuse to abuse that. Not to mention, there is a large portion of that workforce that are not formally trained software developers. Many of the people working those crazy ass work weeks are people that went into a trade program for game development not fully understanding the horrible work conditions expected of them.
Finally, the last thing I'd like to point out is just some basic math. Lets say someone working at an EA studio at a mid-level position is pulling 80k a year. Respectable for sure, but think about the hourly equivalent. At 40 hours a week (assuming paid vacations, etc.) you're looking at around 38.46 an hour. Lets amp that up to what most of them are actually working regularly (I've known 4 different people that worked at an EA studio and it was all the same) which is a minimum of 70 hour weeks. Suddenly that hourly plummets to 21.97 without factoring in that they effectively aren't getting vacations. If we then take the average with the truly insane time of 120 hours a week and average it out to lets say 85 or 90 a week, they get 18.10 an hour. You are aware that many states are requiring 15 an hour to flip burgers now right?
Are unions the fix for that? I'm not convinced. In my mind, that's like preventing forest fires by plowing it under. Bam! No more forest fires at least.
I wonder if a better approach is that of education; I suspect these kids coming straight out of college are hopelessly naive and are "chasing their dreams" ( because that's the kind of nonsense you get in school ). If, instead, part of their degree was learning how to take care of themselves AND learning about the normal conditions in their field, then
Unaccoutability of people in power and naive people is the problem not the unions. With ability of people in power to play games in hidden you get what you describe. Fact is without a representation single worker is screwed against the collective of employers.
I would want to be absolutely sure we aren't creating an even bigger problem.
In my mind, that's like preventing forest fires by plowing it under. Bam! No more forest fires at least.
If the only way the industry can survive is by worker exploitation, then perhaps it's better that the industry in its present form not exist.
This reminds me of a similar debate about 40 years ago going after child labour in clothing production. And no, in the absence of a large pool of cheap exploitable labour, the industry *did* eventually collapse. Should we have wept?
I think the age of the population group we're discussing makes a difference, wouldn't you? These are adults we're talking about here, who are free to work where they will. Point of fact, introducing a "union" to the equation will inevitably lead to the loss of freedom for the adults in question, not greater freedom.
So is it worth it? I don't know, but I have a deep mistrust of unions in general and absent compelling evidence I would say no.
Depends on the union, but usually you are at least forced to join the union in some capacity or another, and lose pay because of it. Some industries require their host companies to hire exclusively from union employees as well, so hiring becomes highly regulated.
Beyond that, however, there are other fiscal pressures placed on employees. Have you ever had your union go on strike? Your choices are work and be a "scab", or lose income.
In any case, unions are a bad solution which usually end up being a bigge
These are adults we're talking about here, who are free to work where they will.
And yet we as a society have recognized that even adults involved in voluntary employment can be exploited and have drafted a raft of workplace regulation (including minimum wage, health and safety regs, etc.) to prevent that exploitation. We're okay with simply killing industries that aren't viable unless their workers are in danger or are paid almost nothing.
So agree or not, the will of the people is pretty unequivocal. Eve
I'm afraid you are about a century behind the times, which is approximately when we first decided that society itself has an interest in the voluntary relationship between employer and employee.
You are, of course, free to work on reversing this trend, but I wouldn't count on immediate success...
I've worked in the games industry for 13 years (and 10 years in other industries before that.) I believe the horror stories of prolonged crunch, misogynistic environments, and just bad management is what fuel the desire for unions. I also believe those stories are not indicative of the entire industry, just a handful of bad studios. From talking with colleagues it's likely less than a quarter of the studios that can be categorized as a bad actor and may even be less than 10%. A lot of the stories may be of a bad manager rather than studio culture and it needs to be looked at more because there is a real chance that the amazing studios out there will be hurt by the rules, collective bargaining, and other aspects that come with Unionization.
When I made the transition I gave up a job making $70/hr for a games industry job with salary about 1/3 as much and for a contractor on an EA project, right around the time the "EA Spouse" story occurred. There was crunch and leadership was excellent at managing limiting it; only allowing us to put in those extra hours every other week and with well defined milestones so the crunch wouldn't persist for months and months. We shipped a great product that I'm still proud of today. I understand stories like these aren't told as frequently as they aren't as interesting, but colleagues in the industry agree, this experience of mine is par for the course and not the exception.
Pro-unionization of the games industry alone would lose my vote; I'm sad to hear he's taking that stance and hope he changes his mind.
I'm not refuting anything you've said, but it's worth noting that most development and in fact most of the worst crunch is not done in EA's offices or Ubisoft's offices. Unionisation may fix that, I can't really see all the angles to be sure.
No, most development is done by small studios who are contracted to big publishers. These small studios are started by passionate people who were burned by the industry and used their savings and whatever finance they can get to start their own company, staffed with oth
I can name about 200 unionized companies that exist very well, many of which I worked for in a non-union capacity, and they don't fail like the never-innovating fucktards in the auto industry.
For once, you've lost some respect from me. A poorly managed city which foolishly threw all of its cards into one fucking industry is not equal to the hundreds of other companies which properly utilize unionization. All you wanted to do was dig on the commie. Too bad half the shit you spout on this site is just as com
Interesting. I was unaware that the only industry in the United States with a union was the auto industry. So, what exactly has UPS and Fedex been dealing with all these years? Guess United/American/Southwest/etc. have been negotiating with thin air. Could you also tell me what the NFLPA, NHLPA, NBAPA, etc. stand for? It really is just baffling.
None of those companies have ever turned a profit right? All of them have just run into the ground repeatedly and kept coming back with some endless pit of money from [insert your least favorite political group here]? Couldn't be that the big 3 in Detroit horribly mismanaged their companies and wastefully blew money all the time instead of actually trying to keep their company in the black (pretty bad optics when they showed up to their first hearings begging for a bailout on private jets reserved for executive usage only).
I'm pretty sure the video game industry destroyed itself quite some time back.
Games keep coming out. AAA games, puzzle games, indie games, protest games... they just keep appearing, from my perspective. It seems to me like the rumors of the destruction of the video game industry are highly exaggerated.
by Anonymous Coward writes:
on Wednesday June 19, 2019 @01:58AM (#58786340)
I don't know why many Americans seem to be against unions.
Here in Denmark unions fairly works well: almost all blue color workers are unionized, giving high minimum wages and good working conditions. We have no minimum wage by law, the unions ensure that.
And Danish companies do compete well enough internationally.
For engineers we have unions, but they have no power: you can't get engineers into collective strikes and in the end that is the only power unions have. The blue color unions very rarely use that weapon but the only treat is there to get a better deal.
Case in point: Hostess went belly up because they were not in a position to give in to the demands of the Baker's union and were told as much. The result? The Baker's union went on strike anyway and Hostess went bankrupt, a lot of people lost their jobs and so began the great twinkie hoarding.
Case in point: Hostess went belly up because they were not in a position to give in to the demands of the Baker's union and were told as much. The result? The Baker's union went on strike anyway and Hostess went bankrupt, a lot of people lost their jobs and so began the great twinkie hoarding.
Hostess went belly up because they couldn't manage themselves and after the workers and unions had already agreed to several pay and other cuts, the executives were still giving themselves bonuses.
and they've spent decades pushing a narrative that if you rely on Unions you're weak. We prize individuality so they preyed on that. They also ran stories about corrupt Union bosses (which does happen).
Our establishment media has a slight left wing bias on some social issues (guns, abortion, gay rights) and a hard right wing bias on economic issues, but the establishment media has spun that into a "Left Wing Media Bias". That makes people distrustful when any media pushes for pro-worker issues since pro
Because in the US they have a history of being corrupt and in some older cases, run by organized crime. In some cases, they've done good work, but in many they've been no value added, and so skilled workers feel that they can negotiate better wages instead of being stuck with what is typically a seniority based system set up by the unions. It's also nearly impossible to get rid of a shitty union worker (nearly as hard as it is to get rid of a government employee). That should never be the case.
So now he wants to destroy the video game industry (Score:0, Flamebait)
Yep, I'm sure trying to destroy the video game industry will make him really popular with the kids.
Please.
What the video game industry really needs is protection from SJWs, who keep on forcing video game companies to censor their games or risk being "deplatformed" and blocked from retailers. Unions are the last the thing the industry needs.
Re: Why not? (Score:2)
Re:ATTENTION ILLITERATE REPUBLICAN FAGGOTS : (Score:5, Insightful)
So you think a 120+ hour work week is acceptable
No, but rather than actually fixing the problem by ensuring that there is decent national employment law which regulates workers environments, wellbeing, and prevents abuses that we are seeing, Bernie Sanders is suggesting that instead the answer is to force workers to pay more of their wages to a third party and introduce more conflict and friction between worker and employer. Thats not a solution, thats Thunderdome.
The US has some of the worst employment law in the western world - for fucks sake, you have the concept of an *exempt* and *non-exempt* worker, thats insane! The US concept of a union is there to fix issues that most other western countries have solved through proper governance - you need to fix the underlying issue, not introduce more conflict to the situation!!!
Re:No, he didn't say "force" lol? (Score:5, Informative)
Im not lying at all (and you really need to look up the definition of that word, because you use it like a 5 year old hearing something they don't want to hear - but then, your entire post reads like that anyway).
Bernie Sanders solution is to involve a third party - not fix the problem, not introduce legislation, but to involve a third party. That third party is going to need paying. It's the workers that pay union dues. So to get their problems resolved, instead of the government stepping in and fixing it like a good government should do for its citizens, Bernies solution is to force workers to have to pay a third party to represent them. And that representation involves direct conflict with the employer.
So no, not lying, and my interpretation is 100% accurate.
Re: (Score:3)
Unions are third parties, yes, but they are the only way for independent people to gain representation and strength to stand up to their employers -- And eventually to press on legislators to show how many people oppose a given status that allows companies to abuse workers.
Re:You're uneducated. (Score:5, Interesting)
Except that that ruling has fuck all to do with the private video game sector and its employers and workers - its to do with public workers and freedom of speech.
It also has nothing to do with my comment at all, because if the union isn't collecting the dues from the workers, then its not representing them - if its not representing them, then Bernies solution is a non-solution, and the employee is back to "120 hour working weeks". In order for the union to represent them, the worker has to pay their dues to the union.
Bernies solution is unions. For unions to be willing to represent, they must be paid. So to gain representation, a worker is forced to pay the union.
Its quite simple, so if you don't understand the issue then I'd suggest you start switching to velcro belts, as buckle belts seem to be beyond you.
Re:ATTENTION ILLITERATE REPUBLICAN FAGGOTS : (Score:4, Insightful)
by ensuring that there is decent national employment law which regulates workers environments, wellbeing, and prevents abuses that we are seeing
And who is going to enforce and monitor that law? Who is going to make sure that despite the law, companies don't simply let people do overtime? I know first hand that even when there is such a law on paper, people will bend to the demands of the company. They will clock out - and then go back to their workplace. On paper, the maximum working time is kept.
You would need government auditors touring the country doing unannounced spot checks. Or you could have representatives within the company watching out for the well-being of the workers. Oh wait, that's exactly the idea of a union!
Re: (Score:2)
pure theory.
I have seen first hand people not saying a word about clearly illegal employer behaviour. And starting an investigation against your employer is actively discouraged in all those places. They'll tell you that it is a matter of loyalty (despite they aren't loyal to you) or that you should bring it up with HR first (despite HR not being on your side) or they will lie to you telling that their clearly illegal behaviour has been checked by the lawyers and is actually fine.
There's a big difference be
Re: (Score:1)
You can't fix the laws without organization (Score:3)
You are not John Galt. That's a good thing. Galt was an asshole and
Good governance (Score:2)
That good governance didn't just appear, workers got together to demand it.
Re: ATTENTION ILLITERATE REPUBLICAN FAGGOTS : (Score:1)
A standardized game industry sounds dull dull dull.
Will Bernie and the congresscritters appoint a standards comittee? Will games become grey bureaucrat-controlled dullworlds?
Re: (Score:2)
"So you think a 120+ hour work week is acceptable, but you're so lazy and jobless you spend all day on /....."
You're not working 120 hour work weeks, and neither are they. I'm so lazy that after 42 years of work, I'm retired, so fuck you.
In this economy, if you're being overworked, there's no excuse for you not leaving and finding another job. Quit your whining and go welcome people to Walmart. Maybe if you had a spine, you'd log in, but we know you trolls don't.
Re:ATTENTION ILLITERATE REPUBLICAN FAGGOTS : (Score:5, Insightful)
Detroit just called and said "o rly".
Hmm, maybe it has something to do with the big 3 making crappy cars that are worse than the competition.
Or maybe GM firing staff who point out dangerous flaws in their vehicles instead of just ignoring them.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, no. It was something to do with crappy mob run unions that I grew up around. Ever heard of Jimmy Hoffa? It was all seniority based, not about skill. You could make triple time wages on holidays. If the assembly line broke down, you could go home at full pay...and it broke down...on purpose sometimes. If you knew the right people, you could order a new car with no options and have it delivered fully loaded. Yes, the companies shared the blame, along with the politicians too. So, why do you suppos
What the hell are you talking about? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sooooo, I write software for a living and have a pretty good familiarity with the general industry and the more niche game development section. I've looked into the positions and have colleagues that came from/went to work in game development. Personally, I absolutely REFUSE to work in game development as it stands in spite of the fact that I love gaming and think I would like doing that type of work. Want to know why I refuse? Because why in the fuck would I go work for a game development company not even making six figures (even at my experience level, and I was working as a team lead/senior developer 3 years out of college) putting in regular 70 hour weeks and 120+ crunch time?
I work in business software development and automation, make way more than I could in game development and work basically zero overtime. Even my first job out of college at a mid size company, I worked maybe 60 hour weeks during heavy load times (which was a few weeks a year typically) and I got comp time for those hours. I knew the financials of my first company and know the micro financials for my current company (publicly traded anyway), and they were both turning a very solid and steady profit. What the hell makes you think these companies putting out fucking video games can't do the same?
A union for them would not destroy anything other than the outrageous profits and bonuses of the top brass. Most of the people working in the industry are specifically doing it because they love video games just that much, and the people on top are just exploiting that. I don't give a shit if they are willingly doing it, it doesn't give the executives an excuse to abuse that. Not to mention, there is a large portion of that workforce that are not formally trained software developers. Many of the people working those crazy ass work weeks are people that went into a trade program for game development not fully understanding the horrible work conditions expected of them.
Finally, the last thing I'd like to point out is just some basic math. Lets say someone working at an EA studio at a mid-level position is pulling 80k a year. Respectable for sure, but think about the hourly equivalent. At 40 hours a week (assuming paid vacations, etc.) you're looking at around 38.46 an hour. Lets amp that up to what most of them are actually working regularly (I've known 4 different people that worked at an EA studio and it was all the same) which is a minimum of 70 hour weeks. Suddenly that hourly plummets to 21.97 without factoring in that they effectively aren't getting vacations. If we then take the average with the truly insane time of 120 hours a week and average it out to lets say 85 or 90 a week, they get 18.10 an hour. You are aware that many states are requiring 15 an hour to flip burgers now right?
Re: (Score:3)
Are unions the fix for that? I'm not convinced. In my mind, that's like preventing forest fires by plowing it under. Bam! No more forest fires at least.
I wonder if a better approach is that of education; I suspect these kids coming straight out of college are hopelessly naive and are "chasing their dreams" ( because that's the kind of nonsense you get in school ). If, instead, part of their degree was learning how to take care of themselves AND learning about the normal conditions in their field, then
Re: (Score:1)
Unaccoutability of people in power and naive people is the problem not the unions. With ability of people in power to play games in hidden you get what you describe. Fact is without a representation single worker is screwed against the collective of employers.
I would want to be absolutely sure we aren't creating an even bigger problem.
If you want a guarantee, buy a toaster.
Re: (Score:3)
In my mind, that's like preventing forest fires by plowing it under. Bam! No more forest fires at least.
If the only way the industry can survive is by worker exploitation, then perhaps it's better that the industry in its present form not exist.
This reminds me of a similar debate about 40 years ago going after child labour in clothing production. And no, in the absence of a large pool of cheap exploitable labour, the industry *did* eventually collapse. Should we have wept?
Now granted, the people going int
Re: (Score:2)
I think the age of the population group we're discussing makes a difference, wouldn't you? These are adults we're talking about here, who are free to work where they will. Point of fact, introducing a "union" to the equation will inevitably lead to the loss of freedom for the adults in question, not greater freedom.
So is it worth it? I don't know, but I have a deep mistrust of unions in general and absent compelling evidence I would say no.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on the union, but usually you are at least forced to join the union in some capacity or another, and lose pay because of it. Some industries require their host companies to hire exclusively from union employees as well, so hiring becomes highly regulated.
Beyond that, however, there are other fiscal pressures placed on employees. Have you ever had your union go on strike? Your choices are work and be a "scab", or lose income.
In any case, unions are a bad solution which usually end up being a bigge
Re: (Score:2)
These are adults we're talking about here, who are free to work where they will.
And yet we as a society have recognized that even adults involved in voluntary employment can be exploited and have drafted a raft of workplace regulation (including minimum wage, health and safety regs, etc.) to prevent that exploitation. We're okay with simply killing industries that aren't viable unless their workers are in danger or are paid almost nothing.
So agree or not, the will of the people is pretty unequivocal. Eve
Re: (Score:2)
I'm afraid you are about a century behind the times, which is approximately when we first decided that society itself has an interest in the voluntary relationship between employer and employee.
You are, of course, free to work on reversing this trend, but I wouldn't count on immediate success...
Re:What the hell are you talking about? (Score:5, Interesting)
I've worked in the games industry for 13 years (and 10 years in other industries before that.) I believe the horror stories of prolonged crunch, misogynistic environments, and just bad management is what fuel the desire for unions. I also believe those stories are not indicative of the entire industry, just a handful of bad studios. From talking with colleagues it's likely less than a quarter of the studios that can be categorized as a bad actor and may even be less than 10%. A lot of the stories may be of a bad manager rather than studio culture and it needs to be looked at more because there is a real chance that the amazing studios out there will be hurt by the rules, collective bargaining, and other aspects that come with Unionization.
When I made the transition I gave up a job making $70/hr for a games industry job with salary about 1/3 as much and for a contractor on an EA project, right around the time the "EA Spouse" story occurred. There was crunch and leadership was excellent at managing limiting it; only allowing us to put in those extra hours every other week and with well defined milestones so the crunch wouldn't persist for months and months. We shipped a great product that I'm still proud of today. I understand stories like these aren't told as frequently as they aren't as interesting, but colleagues in the industry agree, this experience of mine is par for the course and not the exception.
Pro-unionization of the games industry alone would lose my vote; I'm sad to hear he's taking that stance and hope he changes his mind.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not refuting anything you've said, but it's worth noting that most development and in fact most of the worst crunch is not done in EA's offices or Ubisoft's offices. Unionisation may fix that, I can't really see all the angles to be sure.
No, most development is done by small studios who are contracted to big publishers. These small studios are started by passionate people who were burned by the industry and used their savings and whatever finance they can get to start their own company, staffed with oth
Re: ATTENTION ILLITERATE REPUBLICAN FAGGOTS : (Score:2)
Wolfsburg just called and said get a clue.
Not my subject line (Score:2)
Apologies for the offence
Re: Unions destroy businesses (Score:2, Informative)
Volkswagen seem to be doing ok despite unions "destroying" them.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh?
https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/15... [cnn.com]
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.wsj.com/articles/u... [wsj.com]
Re: (Score:1)
So all of the auto industry's problems = Unions, got it.
Idiot lol. That's why unions have killed all the industries they still operate in, right dipshit?
#Back to COLLAGE, KEN DOLL? NO WONDER you can't get a job!
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I can name about 200 unionized companies that exist very well, many of which I worked for in a non-union capacity, and they don't fail like the never-innovating fucktards in the auto industry.
For once, you've lost some respect from me. A poorly managed city which foolishly threw all of its cards into one fucking industry is not equal to the hundreds of other companies which properly utilize unionization. All you wanted to do was dig on the commie. Too bad half the shit you spout on this site is just as com
Re:ATTENTION ILLITERATE REPUBLICAN FAGGOTS : (Score:5, Informative)
Interesting. I was unaware that the only industry in the United States with a union was the auto industry. So, what exactly has UPS and Fedex been dealing with all these years? Guess United/American/Southwest/etc. have been negotiating with thin air. Could you also tell me what the NFLPA, NHLPA, NBAPA, etc. stand for? It really is just baffling.
None of those companies have ever turned a profit right? All of them have just run into the ground repeatedly and kept coming back with some endless pit of money from [insert your least favorite political group here]? Couldn't be that the big 3 in Detroit horribly mismanaged their companies and wastefully blew money all the time instead of actually trying to keep their company in the black (pretty bad optics when they showed up to their first hearings begging for a bailout on private jets reserved for executive usage only).
FoxNews : Fair and Balanced (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure the video game industry destroyed itself quite some time back.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure the video game industry destroyed itself quite some time back.
Games keep coming out. AAA games, puzzle games, indie games, protest games... they just keep appearing, from my perspective. It seems to me like the rumors of the destruction of the video game industry are highly exaggerated.
Re: So now he wants to destroy the video game indu (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know why many Americans seem to be against unions.
Here in Denmark unions fairly works well: almost all blue color workers are unionized, giving high minimum wages and good working conditions. We have no minimum wage by law, the unions ensure that.
And Danish companies do compete well enough internationally.
For engineers we have unions, but they have no power: you can't get engineers into collective strikes and in the end that is the only power unions have. The blue color unions very rarely use that weapon but the only treat is there to get a better deal.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: So now he wants to destroy the video game indu (Score:4, Informative)
Case in point: Hostess went belly up because they were not in a position to give in to the demands of the Baker's union and were told as much. The result? The Baker's union went on strike anyway and Hostess went bankrupt, a lot of people lost their jobs and so began the great twinkie hoarding.
Hostess went belly up because they couldn't manage themselves and after the workers and unions had already agreed to several pay and other cuts, the executives were still giving themselves bonuses.
Our media is owned by billionaires (Score:2)
Our establishment media has a slight left wing bias on some social issues (guns, abortion, gay rights) and a hard right wing bias on economic issues, but the establishment media has spun that into a "Left Wing Media Bias". That makes people distrustful when any media pushes for pro-worker issues since pro
Re: (Score:2)
Because in the US they have a history of being corrupt and in some older cases, run by organized crime. In some cases, they've done good work, but in many they've been no value added, and so skilled workers feel that they can negotiate better wages instead of being stuck with what is typically a seniority based system set up by the unions. It's also nearly impossible to get rid of a shitty union worker (nearly as hard as it is to get rid of a government employee). That should never be the case.
Re: (Score:1)