5 ms·

I wonder why they need a union. Is something currently not working in their favor?

by quest88 7y ago

monadic2 7y ago
Probably management if I were to guess.
- quest88 7y ago
  Lol well there are a lot of compelling guesses but I'd like the article to concretely say why.
eganist 7y ago
I can't tell if there's a trace of sarcasm in the comment, so for the avoidance of doubt, I'll link to a pretty good lay read on issues in the game industry. https://time.com/5603329/e3-video-game-creators-union/ https://time.com/5603329/e3-video-game-creators-union/
- quest88 7y ago
  That's the game industry. I want to know about this specific company. The original article doesn't say why.
- quest88 7y ago
  As a side note on the gaming industry: That industry seems notoriously bad so I wonder why people keep joining it. It also seems competitive to get in. So, to me, it seems like people know what they're getting themselves into before joining.
  - dblohm7 7y ago
    > That industry seems notoriously bad so I wonder why people keep joining it. Because kids romanticize it and think that their job will involve playing video games all day.
  - richdougherty 7y ago
    People want to work on computer games for non financial reasons so they'll take lower pay and accept worse conditions. Similar examples are the film or music industries.
  - mattsfrey 7y ago
    Game development is exceptionally fun and engaging as far as software goes, so the supply/demand ratio is much more skewed. I would agree people are likely aware of the worse working conditions and pay etc, but are just passionate about it enough to do it anyway. I was an amateur game developer that always imagined a career in game dev but after learning about the economics of it went with more general commercial software as a career, but I still envy game devs for the work they get to do and their overall satisfaction with that work. --EDIT: It's also worth noting that if you are on the digital content side of game dev like modeling and mapping there's not a ton of alternative options for practicing those skillsets professionally, unlike programming.
  - manfredo 7y ago
    Making games is a lot of people's passion. This inflates the supply of labor for game development, which reduces cost (as well as lowering expectations for stability, work life balance, etc.) It's hard to negotiate for good work life balance and wages, when people are enamored with game development and willing to tolerate crunch time and cyclical labor demand.
- stickfigure 7y ago
  You're probably confusing Glitch (the company that used to be Fog Creek) with Glitch (the video game that led to the creation of Slack). Different company, different industry.
- Grimm1 7y ago
  The game industry treats people horribly and there is obvious collusion to keep wages suppressed I would expect attempts to form unions there. I'm still however not sold on the idea that tech in general needs unions, but am open to the idea that it may be a variable need company to company for certain groups of people. Just don't make me have to join one, because I am fairly convinced it's not in my best personal interest and same for a lot of other tech workers like me.
- pdkl95 7y ago
  In addition to this article, a very good video discussing unions in the game industry that includes an interview with Game Workers Unite and testimonials from people working in the industry. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TSB5YQqDiY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TSB5YQqDiY
wolco 7y ago
Why not join together and bargain as a team? Glitch isn't a startup. It's a 20 year old company with probably rigid rules.
- quest88 7y ago
  Why not doesn't answer why. Do they need to join together because things are bad? Sub-optimal? Good?
  - mplewis 7y ago
    If you don't have C-level salary and ownership, things can always be better.
- manfredo 7y ago
  It is a 20 year old company, but according to what I can find it's still between 11 and 50 employees.
- ughitsaaron 7y ago
  > Why not join together and bargain as a team? "Bargain as a team" is called "collective bargaining" is called a "union". Just avoid the indirection and call the thing by its name.
  - fiter 7y ago
    I believe the commentator that you're replying to was referring to the fact that they just brought in a union with 700,000 other employees[0]. That significantly alters their team. [0] Communications Workers of America (CWA) is the largest communications and media labor union in the United States, representing about 700,000 members in both the private and public sectors (also in Canada and Puerto Rico).
throwaway10018 7y ago
Throwaway account because duh. Note that I am not a current Glitch employee, but am well-connected to Glitch née Fog Creek. Management was basically incredibly incompetent, for a long time, and were so unfair to employees at the company that they felt this was the only option. There is a Tweet stream a couple months ago from someone who left the company who highlighted the amazing degree to which they were unfairly reviewed and unfairly criticized, alongside how much work product they were expected to produce (which was unreasonable). I have enough corroboration to say that the tweet stream as written is fairly unbiased, and that their experience was common. My understanding is the employees felt backed into a corner. I think unions can be very, very valuable, but I think needing one at a small company that took a series A round quite recently speaks more to management failure than anything else. I'm happy that they unionized, because it sounds like they needed to, but I am so fucking disappointed that it was necessary.
- fnbr 7y ago
  Can you link to the tweet stream?
  - throwaway10018 7y ago
    I knew people would ask and I'm trying to find it. I promise to edit this comment or post under it once I do. EDIT: Medium, not Twitter; sorry. https://medium.com/@scientiffic/on-the-aftermath-of-quitting-b778f56a549 https://medium.com/@scientiffic/on-the-aftermath-of-quitting...
- pkaye 7y ago
  I remember Fog Creek used to be a well liked company years back...
- quest88 7y ago
  Thanks for the report, exactly what I was looking for! This is something I wish had been in the article. Even something vague, like "Employees reported they were unhappy with management and the performance evaluation system. The union with CWA will work with management to blah blah blah". Agree that it sounds like a management failure. Thanks!
rideontime 7y ago
Maybe they would just like a union :)
NullInvictus 7y ago
A myth Americans believe is that you only need to form unions when there is an existing problem. That's like wanting medical coverage only after you get sick. You will not have the resources and voice if you wait until a crisis to organize. The employers relationship with unions is only antagonistic because of this waiting until crisis. on a secondary note, there is nothing wrong with living in a democracy and wanting representation in your community. Our work is a part of our community as much as any other space, especially since we spend so much time there and center our lives around it.
- kodablah 7y ago
  > A myth Americans believe is that you only need to form unions when there is an existing problem. I don't think this is true. Rather, they don't buy the myth that unions have no downsides. Therefore you choose not to willingly accept such downsides until necessary. Arguably medical coverage is always necessary and is a poor comparison.
- throwaway894345 7y ago
  I keep an open mind about unions. I hear they work well in many places (usually in Europe, for whatever reason), but many of us from blue collar American backgrounds only have experience with them protecting laggards and creating ridiculously inefficient working restrictions[^1][^2] which (presumably?) drive jobs overseas. I guess my questions for union proponents are: "Why do unions seem to work so poorly in the United States?" and "How do we make sure these proposed software unions don't suffer similarly?". How do we get the good without the bad? [^1]: A particularly egregious example from the factory where my dad works as a maintenance person: they have a machine that cuts cardboard; to service the blade, they need 3 people: one to remove the bolts holding the blade in place, another to remove the blade, and yet another to service it (and then the first two must replace the blade and the bolts, respectively). There must be three distinct people (IIRC because they're from different unions or something similarly silly) by contract (not because removing the bolts or the blade requires special training), which generally involves a lot of waiting for each person to be available--something that could take half an hour often spans multiple days. [^2]: Another particularly egregious example from my father-in-law's IT office (he has since retired): employees generally laze about doing little; they aren't allowed to browse the Internet or play games, but some bring in books and one woman literally sits staring vacantly at her black-screen monitor for hours on end. No idea why electronic idleness is okay, but reading, etc are okay.

I wonder why they need a union. Is something currently not working in their favor?

monadic2 7y ago

Probably management if I were to guess.

quest88 7y ago
Lol well there are a lot of compelling guesses but I'd like the article to concretely say why.

eganist 7y ago

I can't tell if there's a trace of sarcasm in the comment, so for the avoidance of doubt, I'll link to a pretty good lay read on issues in the game industry. https://time.com/5603329/e3-video-game-creators-union/ https://time.com/5603329/e3-video-game-creators-union/

quest88 7y ago
That's the game industry. I want to know about this specific company. The original article doesn't say why.
quest88 7y ago
As a side note on the gaming industry: That industry seems notoriously bad so I wonder why people keep joining it. It also seems competitive to get in. So, to me, it seems like people know what they're getting themselves into before joining.
- dblohm7 7y ago
  > That industry seems notoriously bad so I wonder why people keep joining it. Because kids romanticize it and think that their job will involve playing video games all day.
- richdougherty 7y ago
  People want to work on computer games for non financial reasons so they'll take lower pay and accept worse conditions. Similar examples are the film or music industries.
- mattsfrey 7y ago
  Game development is exceptionally fun and engaging as far as software goes, so the supply/demand ratio is much more skewed. I would agree people are likely aware of the worse working conditions and pay etc, but are just passionate about it enough to do it anyway. I was an amateur game developer that always imagined a career in game dev but after learning about the economics of it went with more general commercial software as a career, but I still envy game devs for the work they get to do and their overall satisfaction with that work. --EDIT: It's also worth noting that if you are on the digital content side of game dev like modeling and mapping there's not a ton of alternative options for practicing those skillsets professionally, unlike programming.
- manfredo 7y ago
  Making games is a lot of people's passion. This inflates the supply of labor for game development, which reduces cost (as well as lowering expectations for stability, work life balance, etc.) It's hard to negotiate for good work life balance and wages, when people are enamored with game development and willing to tolerate crunch time and cyclical labor demand.
stickfigure 7y ago
You're probably confusing Glitch (the company that used to be Fog Creek) with Glitch (the video game that led to the creation of Slack). Different company, different industry.
Grimm1 7y ago
The game industry treats people horribly and there is obvious collusion to keep wages suppressed I would expect attempts to form unions there. I'm still however not sold on the idea that tech in general needs unions, but am open to the idea that it may be a variable need company to company for certain groups of people. Just don't make me have to join one, because I am fairly convinced it's not in my best personal interest and same for a lot of other tech workers like me.
pdkl95 7y ago
In addition to this article, a very good video discussing unions in the game industry that includes an interview with Game Workers Unite and testimonials from people working in the industry. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TSB5YQqDiY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TSB5YQqDiY

wolco 7y ago

Why not join together and bargain as a team? Glitch isn't a startup. It's a 20 year old company with probably rigid rules.

quest88 7y ago
Why not doesn't answer why. Do they need to join together because things are bad? Sub-optimal? Good?
- mplewis 7y ago
  If you don't have C-level salary and ownership, things can always be better.
manfredo 7y ago
It is a 20 year old company, but according to what I can find it's still between 11 and 50 employees.
ughitsaaron 7y ago
> Why not join together and bargain as a team? "Bargain as a team" is called "collective bargaining" is called a "union". Just avoid the indirection and call the thing by its name.
- fiter 7y ago
  I believe the commentator that you're replying to was referring to the fact that they just brought in a union with 700,000 other employees[0]. That significantly alters their team. [0] Communications Workers of America (CWA) is the largest communications and media labor union in the United States, representing about 700,000 members in both the private and public sectors (also in Canada and Puerto Rico).

throwaway10018 7y ago

Throwaway account because duh. Note that I am not a current Glitch employee, but am well-connected to Glitch née Fog Creek. Management was basically incredibly incompetent, for a long time, and were so unfair to employees at the company that they felt this was the only option. There is a Tweet stream a couple months ago from someone who left the company who highlighted the amazing degree to which they were unfairly reviewed and unfairly criticized, alongside how much work product they were expected to produce (which was unreasonable). I have enough corroboration to say that the tweet stream as written is fairly unbiased, and that their experience was common. My understanding is the employees felt backed into a corner. I think unions can be very, very valuable, but I think needing one at a small company that took a series A round quite recently speaks more to management failure than anything else. I'm happy that they unionized, because it sounds like they needed to, but I am so fucking disappointed that it was necessary.

fnbr 7y ago
Can you link to the tweet stream?
- throwaway10018 7y ago
  I knew people would ask and I'm trying to find it. I promise to edit this comment or post under it once I do. EDIT: Medium, not Twitter; sorry. https://medium.com/@scientiffic/on-the-aftermath-of-quitting-b778f56a549 https://medium.com/@scientiffic/on-the-aftermath-of-quitting...
pkaye 7y ago
I remember Fog Creek used to be a well liked company years back...
quest88 7y ago
Thanks for the report, exactly what I was looking for! This is something I wish had been in the article. Even something vague, like "Employees reported they were unhappy with management and the performance evaluation system. The union with CWA will work with management to blah blah blah". Agree that it sounds like a management failure. Thanks!

rideontime 7y ago

Maybe they would just like a union :)

NullInvictus 7y ago

A myth Americans believe is that you only need to form unions when there is an existing problem. That's like wanting medical coverage only after you get sick. You will not have the resources and voice if you wait until a crisis to organize. The employers relationship with unions is only antagonistic because of this waiting until crisis. on a secondary note, there is nothing wrong with living in a democracy and wanting representation in your community. Our work is a part of our community as much as any other space, especially since we spend so much time there and center our lives around it.

kodablah 7y ago
> A myth Americans believe is that you only need to form unions when there is an existing problem. I don't think this is true. Rather, they don't buy the myth that unions have no downsides. Therefore you choose not to willingly accept such downsides until necessary. Arguably medical coverage is always necessary and is a poor comparison.
throwaway894345 7y ago
I keep an open mind about unions. I hear they work well in many places (usually in Europe, for whatever reason), but many of us from blue collar American backgrounds only have experience with them protecting laggards and creating ridiculously inefficient working restrictions[^1][^2] which (presumably?) drive jobs overseas. I guess my questions for union proponents are: "Why do unions seem to work so poorly in the United States?" and "How do we make sure these proposed software unions don't suffer similarly?". How do we get the good without the bad? [^1]: A particularly egregious example from the factory where my dad works as a maintenance person: they have a machine that cuts cardboard; to service the blade, they need 3 people: one to remove the bolts holding the blade in place, another to remove the blade, and yet another to service it (and then the first two must replace the blade and the bolts, respectively). There must be three distinct people (IIRC because they're from different unions or something similarly silly) by contract (not because removing the bolts or the blade requires special training), which generally involves a lot of waiting for each person to be available--something that could take half an hour often spans multiple days. [^2]: Another particularly egregious example from my father-in-law's IT office (he has since retired): employees generally laze about doing little; they aren't allowed to browse the Internet or play games, but some bring in books and one woman literally sits staring vacantly at her black-screen monitor for hours on end. No idea why electronic idleness is okay, but reading, etc are okay.