More Videogames Developers Consider Unionization - Some Spurred By Changes to Remote Work Policies (aftermath.site) 129
Developers for several top videogames have joined unions under the Communication Workers of America — including Call of Duty, Fallout, Overwatch, Diablo and World of Warcraft. Last month workers on the online game Magic: The Gathering Arena team announced their own CWA union.
The gaming news site Aftermath shares some interesting details: Owner Hasbro and Wizards of the Coast could have voluntarily agreed to the union, but instead the issue is going to an official vote with the National Labor Relations Board in June... [O]ne Arena developer shared on Bluesky that one of the reasons they were inspired to organize was because Wizards changed its remote work policy, requiring them to move across the country or to a more expensive state to remain employed. (Changes to remote work have been one of the big drivers of unionization and union action among video game developers.) If the union is successful, the company wouldn't be able to unilaterally change working conditions like remote work; it would have to negotiate with the union over the decision. There's no guarantee unionized employees would get what they want, but they'd have more of a say, and the opportunity to directly influence their work situation, than they would without a union.
The gaming news site Aftermath shares some interesting details: Owner Hasbro and Wizards of the Coast could have voluntarily agreed to the union, but instead the issue is going to an official vote with the National Labor Relations Board in June... [O]ne Arena developer shared on Bluesky that one of the reasons they were inspired to organize was because Wizards changed its remote work policy, requiring them to move across the country or to a more expensive state to remain employed. (Changes to remote work have been one of the big drivers of unionization and union action among video game developers.) If the union is successful, the company wouldn't be able to unilaterally change working conditions like remote work; it would have to negotiate with the union over the decision. There's no guarantee unionized employees would get what they want, but they'd have more of a say, and the opportunity to directly influence their work situation, than they would without a union.
Game Dev and Remote Work (Score:4, Insightful)
For most roles in the process, WFH should be very desirable to an employer, so long as the employee signs an appropriate contract indicating that they're obligated to come to the office should their home setup be inadequate for supporting WFH, including mandatory local installations of whatever communications and collaboration tool you decide to employ.
Maybe you require them to attend a certain number of in-person meetings or team building exercises (but not 3/week, I'm talking monthly or less).
It saves on office space and related expenses. Throw up a suitable server farm and have employees remote in - all the horsepower, storage, and data security of a data center, it's potentially more secure than a cubicle farm.
Forcing RTO is just a way to fire people without having to admit you replaced them with a lower quality but much less expensive AI.
Re: Game Dev and Remote Work (Score:3)
>forcing rtoâ¦
Is really about the real estate. Vacant space is a liability. Sometimes useful as such, sometimes not. In most orgs right now, not that many folks are actually doing the work. CSR, some front end developers. Most of the rest are shuffling papers and having meetings and âoenetworking.â Occupancy and real estate development are largely investment games.
Weâ(TM)ve known at least since the 1950s that industries like insurance (not the same as utilizing the economics of r
Re: Game Dev and Remote Work (Score:5, Interesting)
I provide IT support to insurance brokerages - you may or not be surprised to find that since COVID, they're continuing to convert to WFO.
Especially for the boutique shops, I doubt an RTO office can compete financially with one structured under a WFH model.
Re: (Score:2)
Damnit. WFH.
I knew what I meant!
Re: (Score:2)
I knew what I meant!
We haven't even perfected the "do what I say" interface, and I don't think we'll have the "do what I mean" interface in our lifetimes.
Not this decade (Score:3)
I would be happy to be incorrect here, but I think this is doomed to fail in the near future. Historically developers have been willing to put up with a lot rather grueling work standards for the prestige of working on a major video game. While some of these measures, like "crunch time" have become high profile enough that pushback has reined in their use, there are still a lot more young developers that want to work in the industry than senior folks with the credentials to demand better treatment. Combined with a lot of major studios eyeing AI for the non-creative work of game development and I don't see where the devs have a strong foundation to negotiate from.
Re: (Score:2)
These are my thoughts as well. With the advent of AI (for developers, for designers, for graphics artists), there's a strong chance that there could be a surplus of labor relative to demand, and they won't have much leverage. In fact, since all of the production of a video game is necessarily digital, these jobs could just be pushed overseas.
There's also a factor about competition: There have been a number of games over the past few years (Valheim, Vampire Survivors, Megabonk) made by just a few devel
Re: (Score:2)
Proven ability from a list of game credits goes a long way in the industry. The job is more to do with knowing how to get stuff done effectively, and dealing with collaboration issues, than about raw talent.
Re: (Score:2)
The job is more to do with knowing how to get stuff done effectively, and dealing with collaboration issues, than about raw talent.
This rings true to me regarding most jobs.
Also you can't really threaten to fire people (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
you can't really offshore anything that you haven't already offshored because at some point you need people to make art that resonates with the locals.
Well, it seems many western video game companies had no intention of "resonating with the locals", but instead became openly hostile towards their former customers (like the Ubisoft CEO telling his now former customers to "get used to not owning their games"). Which resulted in some epic flops from the west (like "Concord" etc.), while some far east productions (like "Black Myth Wukong" or "Crimson Desert") "resonated with the locals" enough to make them big successes. And that was not because those Asian c
So, when you need ... (Score:2)
What are you negotiating? (Score:2)
If it includes salaries, that's where it'll trip up. The difference between mediocrity and excellence is so pronounced that it's almost impossible to agree. The best won't agree, and will move on if it is implemented in any of the usual tiered structures.
You need to be able to pay for talent, and often that's antithetical to union philosophy.
Re: (Score:2)
My father worked in the retail grocery industry in LA in the '50s and '60s. Always in union shops, and once he'd established himself the never worked for scale. He always negotiated a higher rate and his bosses will willing to negotiate because his reputation was that good. Eventually, he moved up into management, but he kept his union membership for the medical and pension benefits. I might add that as he was no
maybe not the 1794 idea (Score:2)
The corporation will abuse the hell out of you if you don't impose limits
But the classic "union" is most likely a socialist scammer leader and his crones demanding money from you to "protect your rights".
However, we're in the future, we have chats, we have anonymous chats. you can very well create a leaderless, peerless, mostly anonymous movement that coordinate actions to improve the working conditions.
It's the ol "power corrupts" thing.
Office workers part of the precariat now too (Score:2)
Re:Game Devs are DEI and Marxist. Unions are Marxi (Score:4, Informative)
Seek help.
Re:Game Devs are DEI and Marxist. Unions are Marxi (Score:5, Informative)
Unions are the new National Socialists, basically, same as 1939. Note: National SOCIALISTS were socialist. And, don't bother trying to persuade me they were somehow right wing.
The National Socialists in 1930s-40s Germany called themselves "socialists" for branding purposes. They wanted to appeal to the working class. And it worked. But they were anything but socialists.
North Korea calls itself the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Does that mean it's a democratic country?
Re: (Score:2)
The National Socialists in 1930s-40s Germany called themselves "socialists" for branding purposes. They wanted to appeal to the working class. And it worked. But they were anything but socialists.
That is not quite true. The nazis absolutely embraced ideas from the political left, as they embraced ideas from the political right. The nazis were opportunistic in that way, they would embrace any idea if it furthered their ability to attain or retain power. We tend to misunderstand them because we try to map them on our one dimensional lett-right political map. But the nazis thought of themselves as neither left nor right, they thought of themselves are a 3rd way. An enemy of both liberalism and conserva
Re: Game Devs are DEI and Marxist. Unions are Marx (Score:2)
Side note I wouldn't map "liberalism Vs conservatism" to "left Vs right" (and I'm not certain that you did), especially given how "liberalism" doesn't have a unique definition, depending on where and when it is used. Some concepts valued by some liberals are seen as problematic by some leftists, for example private property. Where and when I grew up, "liberal" was used as synonym for "centre right".
Re: (Score:2)
The broader concept of "western liberalism" is something the US political left, center, and right had much agreement with.
Re: (Score:2)
In the USA a "political liberal" is center left. Although there has been a stretching towards the deeper left in recent years.
The broader concept of "western liberalism" is something the US political left, center, and right had much agreement with.
No it isn't.
Its just that some people in the US have gone so far to the right... Also they tend to call anything they don't like "left", even when it's other right wing concepts they just don't find right wing enough.
Re: Game Devs are DEI and Marxist. Unions are Marx (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Nazis said whatever they could to get into power.
Yes and no. The nazis genuinely believed in some of the idea from the left.
Remember that Trump isn't a Democrat or a Republican either.. he just went with the party that could get him to the top.
That's what many do, left and right. The demographics of the territory they wish to represent dictates their party affiliation.
Re: (Score:2)
The nazis genuinely believed in some of the idea from the left.
"Genuinely believed in?" Hell no. More like "strategically employed."
The Nazis implemented social welfare programs, but only for the "racially pure" and in a way that rewarded loyalty to Hitler.
They preached anti-capitalism early on in their history, but soon switched to supporting industrialists and crushing unions.
They pushed for state control of the economy and mobilized the population, but in service to war-postured nationalism (i.e., fascism), not a dismantling of class structures.
In short, the Nazis w
Re: (Score:2)
That's it, I'm done. Enjoy your rabbit-hole. I'm tired of falling into it with you.
Re: Game Devs are DEI and Marxist. Unions are Mar (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
North Korea's name give me examples of two of my rules. First, I strongly believe that any nation that calls itself a "People's Republic" cares nothing about their citizens and second that any nation that feels the need to tell the world that it's democratic isn't. And, from what I've seen over the years about North Korea gives me no reason to change my mind.
Re: (Score:2)
Correct, as anyone can see by looking at who they rounded up.
"Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist "
Re: (Score:2)
Unions are the new National Socialists, basically, same as 1939. Note: National SOCIALISTS were socialist. And, don't bother trying to persuade me they were somehow right wing.
The National Socialists in 1930s-40s Germany called themselves "socialists" for branding purposes. They wanted to appeal to the working class. And it worked. But they were anything but socialists.
North Korea calls itself the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Does that mean it's a democratic country?
You're right for the most part, here's some additional context. One of the core tenants of fascism is the redefinition and reshaping of the language, Hitler wanted to reform the German language, one of the biggest things was trying to expunge any French words from the German language, because he believed that if you changed the language you could control the way people think.
Socialism was one of these words. They wanted to, in Hitler's own words, "take back the word [Socialism] from the Bolsheviks", Obv
Re: (Score:2)
The National Socialists in 1930s-40s Germany called themselves "socialists" for branding purposes. ... But they were anything but socialists.
OP is probably mentally ill, but he's not entirely wrong. If you look at the legislation Hitler passed before the war, there's a lot of worker friendly left wing stuff. It's very much socialist.
No, he's wrong. Hitler and the Nazis were no friends to the left. Shortly after they came to power, they banned all left wing parties: socialist, communist, and social democrat. Then they started arresting, imprisoning, and executing the members of those parties.
So what if they enacted legislation that benefitted workers? A fascist state needs workers to fulfill its nationalistic aspirations.
And the Nazis were textbook fascists. Not socialists. Their very core principles ran counter to socialistic principle
Re: (Score:2)
Marxists hate unions. Just ask Lech Walesa.
https://youtu.be/NxsNU7ZZAlU?t... [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:2)
A.H. himself, in his autobiography told us repeatedly
Thanks for posting your reading list in its entirety.
Re: WFH again? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: WFH again? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And what I'm saying is that social skills should have nothing to do with the hiring process. If it makes a difference at your company then you will just end up wasting all your energy on it. It's not worth working there.
What an ignorant comment. There is work that requires social skills, and your worldview is so limited that you think that skills have nothing to do with it.
There are people who might be able to do the best possible work, yet have no social skills. Those people need to work from home because they are unpleasant to work around, indeed cause problems. I think you might be one of those - it is not a flex, no matter what you might think.
No matter the stalkers modding down my posts to -1 - ironically, provi
Re: WFH again? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok well we are technical here so I was assuming technical jobs. Sure if you are a bartender that requires social skills.
Look at that privilege. If you are in leadership, you need social skills, and not your drinking and trying to make people like you.
Are their places where a person can be an utter prick, and treat co-workers and management like trash, making his statement that social skills are unneeded? No doubt - there are edge cases.
At my work, top notch technical skills are mandatory. So is the ability to get along with other and often stressed people. The people who washed out before me only had one or the other, a
Re: WFH again? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In my company the leaders have terrible social skills. It's like, take the most serious unfunniest dorkiest people in the world and put them in a position where they have to tell jokes and make everyone feel happy about work and it's a terrible result.
Oh wow - that would not be a good situation at all.
I'm a pretty funny guy, in fact I get rated funny here alot, and I think humor is important to be social and connect with people.
You are correct there. In most cases, I'm using humor. But when I get serious, everyone knows to get cracking.
But the leaders of my company are not funny. It's pretty depressing actually because everyone laughs at their jokes because they are trying to incur favour.
Yes that would be depressing. I would not work there. That's a toxic workplace.
So if the leaders of my company don't have social skills obviously it's not a requirement.
Depends on what you mean by a requirement or not a requirement. As well, there surely are toxic and miserable places to work with leaders who are toxic. Rule by intimidation eventually fails.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No those are communication skills.
A person can have excellent communication skills, yet no social skills. That is what is known as a bully.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd mod you up if I had points. Both you and Ol Olsoc are doing a good job trying to explain the value of social skills and why they are just as important as those technical skills and often times more important. Especially for a supervisor or manager.
It helps when your manager has done your job and has the technical chops but it's not strictly necessary for them to be "better" at it then myself. What is more important is for management to have the organizational and social skills to manage "people" while I
Re: WFH again? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes but that does not make those social skills. Social skills refer to the act of socializing so that proople will like you.
Your idea of social skills is very shallow. You appear to think it is schmoozing, drinking at a party with people from the marketing department and little else.
Social skills can include that, but your idea is some sort of pop culture thing.
Social skills are the ability to get along with others, to be able to read them and interact in a manner that is not belligerent or rude. It encompasses a whole range of things, even to the point of hygiene and appropriate dress.
When people socialize they don't even necessarily say how they really feel. The point is to be likable so they will give you things. It uses a totally different part of the brain than technical communications which would be the area for puzzle solving.
Sometimes "puzzle solving" goes beyo
Re: (Score:2)
I'd mod you up if I had points. Both you and Ol Olsoc are doing a good job trying to explain the value of social skills and why they are just as important as those technical skills and often times more important. Especially for a supervisor or manager.
It helps when your manager has done your job and has the technical chops but it's not strictly necessary for them to be "better" at it then myself.
Yes, having done the work is a help, early on, I noted that some leaders had employees who would run through a wall for them. When working OT, the leader was there with them. In my case, since I had experience in what we were doing, I'd shed the suit put on the blue jeans handiwork with them. That is actually social skills, and communicated a lot to them.
What is more important is for management to have the organizational and social skills to manage "people" while I can focus on managing the product, service, etc.
Yup.
Also, if you are really shy, awkward or otherwise coming across as timid, you very well may not fit in with the team and even if you have the technical skills, your total lack of social skills would only hurt the show.
I'll note that in some cases, I had to encourage the shy ones to speak up. This usually involved women, who might be intimidated by the loudmouths. It
Re: (Score:2)
Yet it would do that person and company a great disservice if they were a brilliant employee. Let's just say that social skills are *always* a bad reason to reject people, nor is it fair to them. An interviewer with any kind of social skills should get around that.
So you would hire a brilliant person who was a disruptive person, and call it a win.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And what I'm saying is that social skills should have nothing to do with the hiring process. If it makes a difference at your company then you will just end up wasting all your energy on it. It's not worth working there.
Social skills are necessary to work effectively on a team.
Social skills are necessary to work with "users" so you can discover their wants and needs and develop implementations they will be happy with.
Social skills are necessary to lead others.
Yes, Teamwork first. There are many different personalities. Some team members can be loud, perhaps impetuous. As long as they can tamp it down, and work with others, all good. Some might be a little shy, and need a little coaxing. Then there are people like me. I will sit quietly, absorbing everything, working multiple scenarios, then make a pronouncement. Sometimes that takes a bit of getting used to, especially by the loud ones, who are often ego driven.
Most have been warned that I am a pattern weaver
Re: (Score:2)
I work hard to make certain the shy ones get their say while sometimes applying brakes on the loud ones. I suppose that might be a form of positive manipulation?
Sounds like mentoring and development, encouraging a stretch to broaden an individual's skill set. Plus as more opinions are voiced the result may be better decisions, or at least fewer surprises.
Re: (Score:2)
I work hard to make certain the shy ones get their say while sometimes applying brakes on the loud ones. I suppose that might be a form of positive manipulation?
Sounds like mentoring and development, encouraging a stretch to broaden an individual's skill set. Plus as more opinions are voiced the result may be better decisions, or at least fewer surprises.
One of the men on my team some years ago, had a thought process so different than mine that it seemed like we were destined to become enemies. After some initial head butting and me pulling his ass out of a fire, we figured out we could use those differences as synergy. Became actual friends.
The same with women. Different perspectives. And right now, the biggest issue in the workplace for women is the backfire from #metoo. Still going on. In irony, in mixed settings, the men are often a tad shy, or at lea
Re: (Score:2)
People who can only get by with networking are not worth hiring, and a company that only hires though networking is not worth working for.
You absolutely misunderstood. He said that technical ability + networking is better than technical ability alone. As the GP states, it's a known vs unknown thing. Especially so when you have positions of leadership. Projects go astray more often due to "people issues" than "technical issues".
I find these threads very interesting on a psychological level. The concept that social skills are irrelevant that technical chops are the only thing that matters - and let's face it, Fluffernutter and my stalkers are saying as much - that is woefully ignorant, or perhaps just losers spreading their hate and inability to get along with people while thinking it is somehow a flex.
You are absolutely correct about the people problems. I have been in a position of leadership for a large portion of my life. Te
Re: (Score:2)
That is why I am not against WFH at all for such people. If a person is an asshat, but adroit, having them at home and not inflicting themselves on others is a viable solution. It does not mean they "won", as they are losing a lot of other things in pursuit of their asshattery.
And if bad times come around, they are the first to go and also with the least impact on the team or management.
Re: (Score:2)
That is why I am not against WFH at all for such people. If a person is an asshat, but adroit, having them at home and not inflicting themselves on others is a viable solution. It does not mean they "won", as they are losing a lot of other things in pursuit of their asshattery.
And if bad times come around, they are the first to go and also with the least impact on the team or management.
I have been around long enough to know what you are saying is absolutely correct.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A demonstration of this is how I got my present position. It was known that I perform under pressure. It was known that I have top notch technical skills. It was known that I get along well with people. And that I do not intimidate easily.
My current position is 100% remote (because I want it to be so; a few of us are 100% WFH, but a majority of the employees are not so).
All of the things that you mention are known, and observed, about me. Even though I am 100% remote. Known and observed by my current coworkers, those who have left, and by our clients.
So yes, I have less "schmooze" networking. But plenty of the kind that matters, even though I am "just an avatar" (and would I want to work with people who care about the kind of schmoozing th
Re: WFH again? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect people who need networking that badly don't really have the skills and use socialization to manipulate people and get by.
Perhaps you think I need networking? I use networking. Then again, you didn't answer my question. Are you going to reject a known quantity for an unknown quantity? What happens if the unknown quantity is a terrible fit?
We hired a woman once, she came in looking like a up and coming hotshot. Impeccable dress and presentation. And her portfolio was impressive. (it was as an illustrator) We hired her.
She was acting. In real life she was a train wreck. Ended up getting laid off in a downturn.
In another
Re: WFH again? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's easy.. you pelt her with hard technical questions for an hour. I have interviewed technical people who have done nothing but use pipeline tools and such. We need them to know actual OS commands so I fire OS command questions at them. Only around 1/10 made it, and the people I hired years ago after still with us today and very valuable members of the team.
Your constructed worldview is a case, not a universal application.
But for someone who promotes them selves as knowing social skills are not needed, you are wrong. You would be the guy I tell to be quiet while the lady speaks, and If you can't do that, You'll be escorted out of the building by police.
And that's the thing. People with social skills and position often have a certain amount of power. What their skills teach them is to only use it at risk. Your idea that we are all sitting around sipping m
Re: (Score:2)
Or they're like me, and have Schizoid Personality Disorder. We work well on our own and can't "schmooze" like normal people. Or at least, we don't tolerate all that dramatic office bullshit.
But yeah... weird people who do well in remote settings are "manipulative". Form my perspective, it's the exact opposite. It's a normal part of the human condition to manipulate the feelings of others... for better or for worse. Some of us don't care about your feelings and just want to get the job done.
Yeah, go ahe
Re: WFH again? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or they're like me, and have Schizoid Personality Disorder. We work well on our own and can't "schmooze" like normal people. Or at least, we don't tolerate all that dramatic office bullshit.
Schizoids. Here's my take on that. I don't consider it a personality disorder. As long as you do not see your outlook as an issue, if it causes you no angst, then it is you being you. The conditions that may have impacted you cannot be changed. I've had similar experiences as a youth, that might have turned me Schizoid, but only turned me into a pattern weaver.
I've worked with a couple schizoids. We got along pretty well. Maybe understanding on my part, maybe because I was interested in getting the job done
Re: (Score:2)
I think I got confused by what you meant by "networking". Networking, as in social networking in the workplace, not computer networking as in working from home.
I apologize for that.
I still find it hard to understand why people are dumping all over Ol Olsoc. He's not wrong. Whether we like it or not, people are social beings, and if you lack those skills, you're going to have a really hard time getting by in life. Companies will always favor people with good social skills even if they're not good at doin
Re: WFH again? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No people who are intelligent and express themselves well get jobs all the time. I'm not even sure how you use 'social skills' in a job interview. Invite them to the bar after? Hold a party in their honor?
How to use social skills in a job interview? Fluffernutter, I've been using my skills to analyze every post you make. The conclusions are illuminating.
1. You define social skills as people at parties, schmoozing each other in an attempt to get others to like them. That is about the smallest part of social skills, and hardly what I'm talking about
2. You have a distorted view of human interactions, expressed as your repetitions of social skills as irrelevant.
3. You do not realize that you are being read.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A demonstration of this is how I got my present position. It was known that I perform under pressure. It was known that I have top notch technical skills. It was known that I get along well with people. And that I do not intimidate easily.
My current position is 100% remote (because I want it to be so; a few of us are 100% WFH, but a majority of the employees are not so).
All of the things that you mention are known, and observed, about me. Even though I am 100% remote. Known and observed by my current coworkers, those who have left, and by our clients.
So yes, I have less "schmooze" networking. But plenty of the kind that matters, even though I am "just an avatar" (and would I want to work with people who care about the kind of schmoozing that shouldn't matter?). Well worth the tradeoffs for me.
Then I am happy for you. I'm not saying that people shouldn't work from home - full time if they can get a job where they do not ever have to be. around co-workers. What is your projected career trajectory? Are you satisfied to be in your position until retirement? Also, how do you do professional development? All from home?
I point out some advantages of onsite work - and those points tend to be very unpopular in here. Especially when I mention going out for socialization with fellow employees. And I go
Re: WFH again? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They are unpopular because why go to school if you are going to just schmooze your way through? You are taking advantage of weak interviewers and will end up working under weak management
Because it is not a digital situation. I have top notch technical skills in my area, and top notch social skills. And if your thesis is that only social skills are needed, you aren't paying attention, and yes, I'd notice your poor attitude in an interview.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think that thinking your technical skills are top notch almost certainly means you are getting by on social skills.
8^)
There is no "top notch" in technology because there is always something else to learn. I will say what i know but I will never assume I am "top notch". The fact that you do just means you are playing people, looking for someone who will believe it.
Oh homie, know "thyself" is always a good touchstone. I was a lifelong learner before it became a buzzword. So I have the technical chops and keep them updated.
What is more "top notch" is more than technical skills. My University experience and inclusion in many different teams from different disciplines, and my curious nature have turned me into what many people consider a polymath. I'm that person who read the encyclopedia for entertainment when I was a kid.
Drive - I have drive that some consider c
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect you are not young anymore. You've had at least a decade or two to really establish yourself and your work history very likely supports this. You probably aren't really trying to climb that ladder and are more likely in a role that fits you well and hopefully compensates you appropriately.
For much younger folks, they might have some of those technical skills but if they don't have the social skills and face time with seasoned employees, they will struggle to grow. Some may do fine WFH but there is
Re: WFH again? (Score:2)
Re:WFH again? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not everyone lives to work. If you're saving enough, the life improvements from working from home far outweigh the promotion and networking 'opportunities'.
If you were fully remote you could have moved to a lower cost of living area, closer to friends/family, or to a part of the country you preferred. The savings from that can drastically reduce the amount of years before retirement or improve your social life with the people you actually care about.
If your employees can't listen to their boss then they should be fired. Being only an avatar shouldn't matter. Everyone's supposed to be adults working towards a common goal. Granted I know real life isn't always like that, but that's what you should be working towards.
Re: (Score:2)
Granted I know real life isn't always like that
Exactly!
WFH has it's place and it's probably fine for those who are set in their career, don't want to move up and are happy with where they are at financially, etc.
This sounds like a 40+ mentality and that's fine. The same advice for kids, ahem, sorry, 22 year old adults, isn't the same you give to the person with decades of work experience.
I imagine hybrid work would be a good fit for a lot of companies. Productive WFH days and bullshit meeting days in the office. Each job is different of course.
Re: WFH again? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not everyone lives to work. If you're saving enough, the life improvements from working from home far outweigh the promotion and networking 'opportunities'.
Especially if you hate that sort of thing. Your scare quotes around "networking show that. You do you homie. You see, I'm not saying that if you don't want to network, want to live in Eagle Pass Texas, or maybe a compound in Idaho, that's okay by me. Social skills and networking are not considered a deal breaker for many of us. I enjoy it.
If you were fully remote you could have moved to a lower cost of living area, closer to friends/family, or to a part of the country you preferred.
I take it that you refuse to work anywhere unless it is 100 percent remote? There are a hella lot of jobs and careers that can't do remote only. Like mine. We tried, and
Re: (Score:2)
I do like my WFH time, less distractions, my home office is really nice, and most of the time, I'm super productive. But without the in-person time, it wouldn't work anywhere near as well. The networking is kinda critical, especially since I have to issue orders, and who is going to pay instant attention to someone that is only an avatar?
I've done it for most of my career, probably 20 of 35 years, including the near-decade I was a manager -- and I was WFH full-time, not half-time (1000 miles from the office). I did try to get onsite for a week every couple of months. Making it work requires a lot of overcommunication, but it can be done.
Re: (Score:2)
I do like my WFH time, less distractions, my home office is really nice, and most of the time, I'm super productive. But without the in-person time, it wouldn't work anywhere near as well. The networking is kinda critical, especially since I have to issue orders, and who is going to pay instant attention to someone that is only an avatar?
I've done it for most of my career, probably 20 of 35 years, including the near-decade I was a manager -- and I was WFH full-time, not half-time (1000 miles from the office). I did try to get onsite for a week every couple of months. Making it work requires a lot of overcommunication, but it can be done.
That does sound like an individual case. I have no choice but to be onsite. My duties are time immediate. We even tried WFH full time once. That was a disaster, and a lesson learned. Think of it like launching a rocket, but every time something went really wrong, you had to call the flight director at home. tell him the problem, and he has to troubleshoot it from there. Meanwhile, the rocket performs an unplanned rapid disassembly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
However.
More recently, the track record for unions has been pretty dismal for a solid 50 years. Teachers unions are particularly bad. I’m in one. During COVID, the teachers unions were a big re
Re: (Score:2)
But in the next state over, the next company will also treat you as badly as they can get away with.
The natural model for a programmer's union is the Screen Actor's Guild. That's another field with a wide range of talent. SAG members can get the best pay their agents can negotiate, lots for stars. But everyone is protected from exploitation.
Re: Modern unions are not like the old unions (Score:2)
their goals are mostly enshrined in law not just union contracts
I'm sorry but this either isn't true, or the old unins were pussies.
Because US labor law is, by a larg margin, the most crappy of any civilized country, and in close comoetion for the same title without any restriction of "civilized":
- zero mandarory holidays
- no protection agaunst getting randonly fired
- healthcare tied ro employment
- a "writeup" system that's a joke
- zero sick days...
What exactly is there "enshrined in law" of US workers rights that's worth even the paper it's written on, able to comoete
Re: (Score:2)
their goals are mostly enshrined in law not just union contracts
I'm sorry but this either isn't true, or the old unins were pussies.
Quite the opposite. Child labor, unsafe working condition, 40-hour week, right to organize, minimum wages, compensation/insurance for on-the-job injuries, etc. And the retaliation they suffered was far greater than what today's activists face.
Re: Modern unions are not like the old unions (Score:2)
Child labor is legal in the US [wikipedia.org].
Federal.minimum wage isbat $7.25 IIRC. That's $15k per year. Hardly enough to cover food, let alone housing or healthcare.
Re: Modern unions are not like the old unions (Score:2)
"Exemptions in labor laws allowing children as young as 12 to work legally on commercial farms for unlimited hours remain in place."
Hm... not sure which value "highly regulated" has in thia case.
My point is not that unions didn't achieve things back then, it's that the worker's rights are close to nonexistent. If one chooses to attribute goof work to unions of the past, then it must be the "enshrined in law" part that is such obvious bullshit. Or the rights that unions of the past achieved weren't particula
The need for Cunts (Score:3)
Modern unions are not the same as the old unions.
Maybe they have to be as big a bunch of cunts as the cunts they go up against. Last time I checked cunts were ruling the world. We're seeing leaders with psychopathic characteristics, you're probably going to have to be a cunt just to go up against a more cunty set of cunts or the cunts will walk right over you.
The old unions fought the important battles, and their goals are mostly enshrined in law not just union contracts.
They died as well, for workers rights and human right and were used and deceived by another bunch of cunts. Some here have fought against unionization without the consideration that maybe, just m
Re: (Score:2)
Modern unions are not the same as the old unions.
Maybe they have to be as big a bunch of cunts as the cunts they go up against.
Not the way you think. Its not going up against, its going into partnership with. Big management, big labor, its just a game where they both skim a percentage and play polical power games.
Re: Modern unions are not like the old unions (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's easy to say the budget should be balanced. Not so easy to actually do it without making life worse for everyone. Generally what wealthy people envision is replacing government services with something they can pay for, but that leaves 80% of the population without. You can't make people pay if there are no jobs that make those payments affordable.
Quite the contrary. It's the one-size-fits-all gov't solutions that typically make things worse. The conservatives tend to want to focus on smaller solutions that address those in trouble, not remake an entire system that is working well for many. Plus, some problems has a highly localized component, so solutions need to be more local in nature. In other words, if some are falling through the cracks address those people, not the entire system.
While a balanced budget is important, DOGE's goal was to shine
Re: Modern unions are not like the old unions (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't require a monopoly. It just requires collective action. If employees across different studios organize under the same union, a collective strike could be effective leverage. But the asks of the union need to be less painful for the studios than it would be to have to hire and train hundreds of new workers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Penalties are light and unlikely enough in many jurisdictions for employers to consider it a cost of doing business though. See what Amazon's been doing in their warehouses in Quebec and BC for examples. Coincidentally, guess which Canadian provinces have the most videogame dev studios...
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon doesn't fire their employees and replace them. Amazon shuts down the entire FC and moves out of town.
Re:Just fire them (Score:4, Informative)
They actually do both, they're known to use their Manna-clone system that orders warehouse workers around to "find problems" with the performance of anyone involved in unionizing and fire them as an early line of defense. They've done this with unionization attempts in the US before (at least one of those warehouses did successfully unionize despite that). Shutting down the FC and moving out of town is their nuke-it-from-orbit option when all else has failed.
Re: (Score:2)
They can't be fired, not outright. At least not without suffering penalties under the NLRA. Also it's still a revenue-positive business, so Arena devs aren't leeches.
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't make any sense.