3 ms·

If that does happen then there was never going to be a way to fix this but no one is worse off. If that doesn't happen then the problem is at least somewhat fix

If that does happen then there was never going to be a way to fix this but no one is worse off. If that doesn't happen then the problem is at least somewhat fixed. Sounds like a good argument to give it a shot. I'm generally all for Devil's Advocate, but when it comes to giving workers reasons to _not_ demand more, I need to see some really compelling evidence of serious harm before I'm willing to tell people to reconsider.

onion2k 5y ago
I'm generally all for Devil's Advocate, but when it comes to giving workers reasons to _not_ demand more, I need to see some really compelling evidence of serious harm before I'm willing to tell people to reconsider. makeitdouble isn't saying workers shouldn't demand more; they're saying that paid overtime doesn't solve the problem of crunch time. It makes crunch time acceptable, and (potentially) gets factored into renumeration packages in the long term. If you want to solve the problem of crunch you need a solution that removes it, not one that pays people to continue doing it.
- Uehreka 5y ago
  If crunch time continues but workers are making money commensurate with the fact that they're working outside reasonable hours, then I view that as progress. If base pay is depressed to make up for this change and workers make functionally the same amount, that's a bummer. But either way: I don't necessarily view crunch time as a thing that can or will be solved. I just want the game to be more fair than it is now.
  - onion2k 5y ago
    Crunch doesn't really exist in large areas of the software industry. There's no reason why it can't be solved for gaming, especially at large, well-funded studios like CDPR.
makeitdouble 5y ago
To add to onion2k’s point, a better “let’s give it a shot” alternative is to raise the base remuneration to account for the potential overtime. That way if you’re overflown with overtime it’s in your compensation, if you manage to not do any overtime you’ll benefit from it. It’s arguably harder to negotiate, but I think it would be the best way forward. Now, if the choice is between nothing and paid overtime, yes it’s worth it getting paid overtime.
- Uehreka 5y ago
  Part of the problem though is that this needs to be phrased as a regulation or rule, it’s not something companies are just going to do, as ununionized workers have little ability to extract the real value of their labor in negotiations. Creating a regulation that says “workers in this sector get overtime pay” is probably easier than creating an industry-specific minimum wage.
1123581321 5y ago
People are worse off because those who actually can protect their time make less if overtime is needed to reach competitive pay.

onion2k 5y ago

I'm generally all for Devil's Advocate, but when it comes to giving workers reasons to _not_ demand more, I need to see some really compelling evidence of serious harm before I'm willing to tell people to reconsider. makeitdouble isn't saying workers shouldn't demand more; they're saying that paid overtime doesn't solve the problem of crunch time. It makes crunch time acceptable, and (potentially) gets factored into renumeration packages in the long term. If you want to solve the problem of crunch you need a solution that removes it, not one that pays people to continue doing it.

Uehreka 5y ago
If crunch time continues but workers are making money commensurate with the fact that they're working outside reasonable hours, then I view that as progress. If base pay is depressed to make up for this change and workers make functionally the same amount, that's a bummer. But either way: I don't necessarily view crunch time as a thing that can or will be solved. I just want the game to be more fair than it is now.
- onion2k 5y ago
  Crunch doesn't really exist in large areas of the software industry. There's no reason why it can't be solved for gaming, especially at large, well-funded studios like CDPR.

makeitdouble 5y ago

To add to onion2k’s point, a better “let’s give it a shot” alternative is to raise the base remuneration to account for the potential overtime. That way if you’re overflown with overtime it’s in your compensation, if you manage to not do any overtime you’ll benefit from it. It’s arguably harder to negotiate, but I think it would be the best way forward. Now, if the choice is between nothing and paid overtime, yes it’s worth it getting paid overtime.

Uehreka 5y ago
Part of the problem though is that this needs to be phrased as a regulation or rule, it’s not something companies are just going to do, as ununionized workers have little ability to extract the real value of their labor in negotiations. Creating a regulation that says “workers in this sector get overtime pay” is probably easier than creating an industry-specific minimum wage.

1123581321 5y ago

People are worse off because those who actually can protect their time make less if overtime is needed to reach competitive pay.