4 ms·

> Their working conditions and pay are much better than they would be without the unions. This is true, but those are gig jobs, not full-time jobs. A show migh

by trimbo 8y ago

> Their working conditions and pay are much better than they would be without the unions. This is true, but those are gig jobs, not full-time jobs. A show might last 8-12 weeks. The crew need the union just to carry over health care and retirement benefits, and it's less about higher pay. In games, the art department might need these kinds of unions, since many of those people are hired on contracts for a game. (Though a lot of art creation has gone overseas already.) I don't really see a union being necessary for engineers or game designers for now, for the same reasons it's not needed at tech companies (engineers are hard to hire/retain).

CydeWeys 8y ago
The working conditions are horrible. That's why unions are necessary, and it's been the main driver of unionization over the centuries. Ancillary benefits don't drive unionization nearly as much as core horrible working conditions and bad pay.
- wutbrodo 8y ago
  The labor movement's utility in improving horrible working conditions was based on the fact that laborers were considered to be coerced into these conditions by the threat of starving to death (or the modern-developed-country equivalent of standard-of-living resource constraints). I don't know much about game development, but aren't the majority of the relevant skills for most roles quite transferable? If the working conditions are miserable enough that unions are necessary, what is keeping people from switching to a similar role in an industry without substandard conditions? Is it the broader problem that these roles aren't well-treated in any industry? (certainly not the case for developers, but that's just one role). These aren't rhetorical questions trying to make a point, I'm genuinely curious.
  - jplayer01 8y ago
    There is no "similar" role. There's no other industry that is involved in making games. That's why it's the video game industry. That's what they do. If you leave that industry, you're not making games anymore. And that's what people want to do. And before you or anybody else argues, that isn't reason enough for shitty work hours, ridiculous amounts of crunch, complete lack of life balance, etc. to be acceptable. The same way it's not okay to pay teachers or nurses or firefighters so much less just because they might be fulfilling a passion in helping other people. I'm not sure why one should need to leave the industry one wants to work in before one is afforded a job that doesn't guide one directly towards burnout within 5 years. And even if these people leave, there's plenty of young blood who'll gladly work in these conditions because they want to make video games, so nothing changes.
    - why_only_15 8y ago
      The thing is that if you fire a teacher, they must find another job _as a teacher_ because they have no other skills because it isn't transferrable. As a game dev, programming is programming and if you can program a game you can program other things. You won't starve or even have a serious problem if you get laid off and need to change fields.
      - jacobush 8y ago
        But most involved in game making are not programmers.
      - ido 8y ago
        Programmers are not the only employees in game companies, nor even the majority or biggest plurality (the latter are probably graphic artists). Programmers are indeed the ones in the best position & probably why they are generally the best paid segment.
      - jplayer01 8y ago
        I already addressed this. Why are we okay with an entire industry having shitty work conditions, regardless of circumstances? Why should a game developer have to work 80-100 hour weeks for months on end just because he wants to make games? The issue of skills transference is just distracting from this issue.
        baud147258 8y ago
        > The issue of skills transference The issue of skill transferance is that nobody is forcing them to work in such companies; it means they can leave and try to find another job.
        jplayer01 8y ago
        That's what they do after a few years, but I'm not sure how that excuses it.
      - 8y ago
yyyymmddhhmmss 8y ago
>I don't really see a union being necessary for engineers or game designers for now Unless you have a stick in the fire, I can’t imagine where this could come from. Where do we begin? “Not necessary” is a line straight out of classic anti-union propoganda.

by trimbo 8y ago

CydeWeys 8y ago

The working conditions are horrible. That's why unions are necessary, and it's been the main driver of unionization over the centuries. Ancillary benefits don't drive unionization nearly as much as core horrible working conditions and bad pay.

wutbrodo 8y ago
The labor movement's utility in improving horrible working conditions was based on the fact that laborers were considered to be coerced into these conditions by the threat of starving to death (or the modern-developed-country equivalent of standard-of-living resource constraints). I don't know much about game development, but aren't the majority of the relevant skills for most roles quite transferable? If the working conditions are miserable enough that unions are necessary, what is keeping people from switching to a similar role in an industry without substandard conditions? Is it the broader problem that these roles aren't well-treated in any industry? (certainly not the case for developers, but that's just one role). These aren't rhetorical questions trying to make a point, I'm genuinely curious.
- jplayer01 8y ago
  There is no "similar" role. There's no other industry that is involved in making games. That's why it's the video game industry. That's what they do. If you leave that industry, you're not making games anymore. And that's what people want to do. And before you or anybody else argues, that isn't reason enough for shitty work hours, ridiculous amounts of crunch, complete lack of life balance, etc. to be acceptable. The same way it's not okay to pay teachers or nurses or firefighters so much less just because they might be fulfilling a passion in helping other people. I'm not sure why one should need to leave the industry one wants to work in before one is afforded a job that doesn't guide one directly towards burnout within 5 years. And even if these people leave, there's plenty of young blood who'll gladly work in these conditions because they want to make video games, so nothing changes.
  - why_only_15 8y ago
    The thing is that if you fire a teacher, they must find another job _as a teacher_ because they have no other skills because it isn't transferrable. As a game dev, programming is programming and if you can program a game you can program other things. You won't starve or even have a serious problem if you get laid off and need to change fields.
    - jacobush 8y ago
      But most involved in game making are not programmers.
    - ido 8y ago
      Programmers are not the only employees in game companies, nor even the majority or biggest plurality (the latter are probably graphic artists). Programmers are indeed the ones in the best position & probably why they are generally the best paid segment.
    - jplayer01 8y ago
      I already addressed this. Why are we okay with an entire industry having shitty work conditions, regardless of circumstances? Why should a game developer have to work 80-100 hour weeks for months on end just because he wants to make games? The issue of skills transference is just distracting from this issue.
      - baud147258 8y ago
        > The issue of skills transference The issue of skill transferance is that nobody is forcing them to work in such companies; it means they can leave and try to find another job.
        jplayer01 8y ago
        That's what they do after a few years, but I'm not sure how that excuses it.
    - 8y ago

yyyymmddhhmmss 8y ago

>I don't really see a union being necessary for engineers or game designers for now Unless you have a stick in the fire, I can’t imagine where this could come from. Where do we begin? “Not necessary” is a line straight out of classic anti-union propoganda.