9 ms·

Politely - You're management/executive at this point. It is obviously in your interest to be anti-union. It is also the case that unions serve the interests o

Politely - You're management/executive at this point. It is obviously in your interest to be anti-union. It is also the case that unions serve the interests of those who are not "rock star developers" more than those who are.

AimForTheBushes 8y ago
Working with toxic or under performing employees is just as bad as having them work for you.
- hesdeadjim 8y ago
  Absolutely. And it's morale poison for the rest of the team. I speak from experience.
- xapata 8y ago
  Then don't let them into the union? Or, alternatively, fire them from the union. A modern union is not restricted to follow the same practices as ones for different times and industries.
- pnathan 8y ago
  Then the rules for firing toxic and under performing employees can be written into the union contract and how the union conducts its business... This isn't an unreasonable ask, no one is going to want to be saddled with a toxic person they can't get rid of.
hesdeadjim 8y ago
I've been an employee for 80% of my career and from a moral standpoint I believe in treating people fairly. The current unionization efforts provide almost no details on their goals beyond "everything will be better for everyone". On either end of the employee/employer relationship I have a hard time seeing how anyone can support such a generic effort. A hard stance on working conditions and compensation is a starting point for a real conversation. The majority of employees would have no problem supporting this, and since I already value work/life balance and fair compensation, my motives and interests would align.
- tracker1 8y ago
  I'm not a fan of unions either. That said, I won't work more than 40 hours in a week more than a handful of weeks out of the year. I'm 44yo now, and when I took my current job, I stated I only have about 1 crunch week a quarter in me. If I have to do more than one 40-50+ hour week a quarter, then it's not me that is the problem. I don't work in gaming though. I would love to, but the pay for business development is frankly better with a lot less stress. I wouldn't mind seeing a push legislating that any salaried worker in a week must be granted an extra paid day off at 45 hours and each 5 hours above in a single week. That would stop, or at least compensate, the abuse.
  - hesdeadjim 8y ago
    I'm with you on the crunch limit, few weeks a year at most and even then anything beyond 50 hours is pointless from a productivity point of view. Addressing overwork at the legislative level would get my support if there were a way to trade pain now for benefit later (e.g. your extra time off suggestion).
    - chottocharaii 8y ago
      and how do you get such things addressed at a legislative level? Maybe unions can be useful after all!
      - tracker1 8y ago
        Are you suggesting that a significant portion of legislation is because of unions? Maybe a part of it, and probably so at the state level. As it stands, I shouldn't have to be in support of a union in order to support legislation.
- anth_anm 8y ago
  But you will do absolutely nothing to actually push the conversation that way, and will advocate against any movement until they pull a manifesto out of thin air?
- 8y ago
kodablah 8y ago
As someone on the employee side (not games), I too want my company to be able to fire bad employees at will. Having been at companies that do and don't, I very much prefer the ones that do lest the workplace become bloated with low quality. > It is also the case that unions serve the interests of those who are not "rock star developers" more than those who are. I'm not convinced in the current market that those interests need serving to the detriment of the better devs. Were the employers in a more favorable position I could see a different view. But right now any half-way capable dev (i.e. not "rock star") has plenty of current advantages sans union.
- anth_anm 8y ago
  I think making these arguments at this point shows just how effective the decades long campaign of anti-union propaganda has been. How great did those rockstar employees do when google and other massive companies engaged in anti-poaching agreements to drive salaries down? How good do they do when they end up divorced and miserable after putting in yet another 2 months of 100 hour work weeks?
  - kodablah 8y ago
    I think not recognizing the arguments as built instead of propaganda-fed shows how effective the anti-corporate narrative has become. Unionization doesn't stop illegal collusion, prosecution stops illegal collusion. What is with all the appeal to emotion with divorced, miserable, 100 hour work weeks, etc? Most employees did just fine anyways. Every single job would get value out of a union if the justification is simply saying "but tell that to the employee that was divorced, overworked, blah blah emotional language". At a macro level there are practical concerns.
    - tivert 8y ago
      > Unionization doesn't stop illegal collusion, prosecution stops illegal collusion. You could make that same argument against the concept of defense lawyers. How would you feel if you had to defend yourself against criminal charges without a lawyer? Do you think justice would be served if you had to go it alone against a well-funded, experienced team of prosecutors who want to convict? Yes, defense lawyers aren't perfect and can't stop all prosecutorial misconduct, but they still help a lot. Ditto with unions.

AimForTheBushes 8y ago

Working with toxic or under performing employees is just as bad as having them work for you.

hesdeadjim 8y ago
Absolutely. And it's morale poison for the rest of the team. I speak from experience.
xapata 8y ago
Then don't let them into the union? Or, alternatively, fire them from the union. A modern union is not restricted to follow the same practices as ones for different times and industries.
pnathan 8y ago
Then the rules for firing toxic and under performing employees can be written into the union contract and how the union conducts its business... This isn't an unreasonable ask, no one is going to want to be saddled with a toxic person they can't get rid of.

hesdeadjim 8y ago

I've been an employee for 80% of my career and from a moral standpoint I believe in treating people fairly. The current unionization efforts provide almost no details on their goals beyond "everything will be better for everyone". On either end of the employee/employer relationship I have a hard time seeing how anyone can support such a generic effort. A hard stance on working conditions and compensation is a starting point for a real conversation. The majority of employees would have no problem supporting this, and since I already value work/life balance and fair compensation, my motives and interests would align.

tracker1 8y ago
I'm not a fan of unions either. That said, I won't work more than 40 hours in a week more than a handful of weeks out of the year. I'm 44yo now, and when I took my current job, I stated I only have about 1 crunch week a quarter in me. If I have to do more than one 40-50+ hour week a quarter, then it's not me that is the problem. I don't work in gaming though. I would love to, but the pay for business development is frankly better with a lot less stress. I wouldn't mind seeing a push legislating that any salaried worker in a week must be granted an extra paid day off at 45 hours and each 5 hours above in a single week. That would stop, or at least compensate, the abuse.
- hesdeadjim 8y ago
  I'm with you on the crunch limit, few weeks a year at most and even then anything beyond 50 hours is pointless from a productivity point of view. Addressing overwork at the legislative level would get my support if there were a way to trade pain now for benefit later (e.g. your extra time off suggestion).
  - chottocharaii 8y ago
    and how do you get such things addressed at a legislative level? Maybe unions can be useful after all!
    - tracker1 8y ago
      Are you suggesting that a significant portion of legislation is because of unions? Maybe a part of it, and probably so at the state level. As it stands, I shouldn't have to be in support of a union in order to support legislation.
anth_anm 8y ago
But you will do absolutely nothing to actually push the conversation that way, and will advocate against any movement until they pull a manifesto out of thin air?
8y ago

kodablah 8y ago

As someone on the employee side (not games), I too want my company to be able to fire bad employees at will. Having been at companies that do and don't, I very much prefer the ones that do lest the workplace become bloated with low quality. > It is also the case that unions serve the interests of those who are not "rock star developers" more than those who are. I'm not convinced in the current market that those interests need serving to the detriment of the better devs. Were the employers in a more favorable position I could see a different view. But right now any half-way capable dev (i.e. not "rock star") has plenty of current advantages sans union.

anth_anm 8y ago
I think making these arguments at this point shows just how effective the decades long campaign of anti-union propaganda has been. How great did those rockstar employees do when google and other massive companies engaged in anti-poaching agreements to drive salaries down? How good do they do when they end up divorced and miserable after putting in yet another 2 months of 100 hour work weeks?
- kodablah 8y ago
  I think not recognizing the arguments as built instead of propaganda-fed shows how effective the anti-corporate narrative has become. Unionization doesn't stop illegal collusion, prosecution stops illegal collusion. What is with all the appeal to emotion with divorced, miserable, 100 hour work weeks, etc? Most employees did just fine anyways. Every single job would get value out of a union if the justification is simply saying "but tell that to the employee that was divorced, overworked, blah blah emotional language". At a macro level there are practical concerns.
  - tivert 8y ago
    > Unionization doesn't stop illegal collusion, prosecution stops illegal collusion. You could make that same argument against the concept of defense lawyers. How would you feel if you had to defend yourself against criminal charges without a lawyer? Do you think justice would be served if you had to go it alone against a well-funded, experienced team of prosecutors who want to convict? Yes, defense lawyers aren't perfect and can't stop all prosecutorial misconduct, but they still help a lot. Ditto with unions.