vote UNION: yes
Been thinking lately about lay-offs and members with new children and the ones hopful enough to buy a new home. But mostly about how inspiring the talented members are around the world. And as much humilty and deference artist in these communities show to gameplay. How large an effect their work contributes and is appreciated. And getting angry seems so pointless but what else is there? What is the positive solution that solves this pipeline problem?
So here is a five letter word to fill your ballsacks with: U n i o n
Everytime a game is in the can and the layoffs begin no one deserves to shed one fucking tear if the union discussion never happened.
Just how many ways r there to be screwed over without some kind of organisational solution and solidarity.
Or perhaps another "I got booted in a massive lay off from blah blah company X" thread in which we console the newly married member who is now trying to sell the house he just bought to settle down?
Every time I read a "Union just won't work in Game Development" article it seems to never be written by an artist. The only thing I can think of that would keep a union model from working is selfishness? I wonder if a worldwide join date was picked if a community of artists had the balls to represent for all the "layed-off threads" they showed their concern in?
So one really has to wonder why would a Union not be the solution?
And despite what the discussion might bring to light at the end should there not at least be a vote? Or a poll?
And in consideration of why a union would not work, I would submit that adopting a Hollywood model would scare me. Where creativity might be suffocated from their strict job title codes where a director can not operate editing equipment or lighting without jumping hurdles. But then not dismiss considerations where some such protections would be legitimate to game development concerns!
I am wondering, knowing just how "fair" the industry can be. Perhaps anyone wishing to support his fallen brothers with a discussion of as much, might be best served with a seperate member name to do so.
It sort of seems that the market is just so fragile and volatile ( and irresponsible at times ) That fucking you over is just an urgent necessity ( as with most economic crimes: *nothing personal* ) In such situations I find I can easily advocate for myself to save my own ass. I dunno any other way to do so in a community setting but to plead. Please just at least consider why it will or won't work and share that insight. Please.
So here is a five letter word to fill your ballsacks with: U n i o n
Everytime a game is in the can and the layoffs begin no one deserves to shed one fucking tear if the union discussion never happened.
Just how many ways r there to be screwed over without some kind of organisational solution and solidarity.
Or perhaps another "I got booted in a massive lay off from blah blah company X" thread in which we console the newly married member who is now trying to sell the house he just bought to settle down?
Every time I read a "Union just won't work in Game Development" article it seems to never be written by an artist. The only thing I can think of that would keep a union model from working is selfishness? I wonder if a worldwide join date was picked if a community of artists had the balls to represent for all the "layed-off threads" they showed their concern in?
So one really has to wonder why would a Union not be the solution?
And despite what the discussion might bring to light at the end should there not at least be a vote? Or a poll?
And in consideration of why a union would not work, I would submit that adopting a Hollywood model would scare me. Where creativity might be suffocated from their strict job title codes where a director can not operate editing equipment or lighting without jumping hurdles. But then not dismiss considerations where some such protections would be legitimate to game development concerns!
I am wondering, knowing just how "fair" the industry can be. Perhaps anyone wishing to support his fallen brothers with a discussion of as much, might be best served with a seperate member name to do so.
B A L L S
It sort of seems that the market is just so fragile and volatile ( and irresponsible at times ) That fucking you over is just an urgent necessity ( as with most economic crimes: *nothing personal* ) In such situations I find I can easily advocate for myself to save my own ass. I dunno any other way to do so in a community setting but to plead. Please just at least consider why it will or won't work and share that insight. Please.
Replies
Unions and games development are crazy. I, being a rookie, asked an acquaintance of mine about what union a graphic artist should join. He literally just left the conversation and ignored me for a week. Later found out that he just straight up hated unions.
Besides, US/Canada-based developers arguably have the most skill and experience. Imagine a game development economy where the East outsources to you.
I'm not really seeing any unionization in the industry without an attitude change.
Forming a union doesn't suddenly solve that problem, all it does is give employers more reason to not offer studio employment and instead just hire everyone on as on-site freelancers or outsource all of the work.
The only places you can really consider your employment stable are studios that have a constant ongoing stream of titles in development like Blizzard, but most studios are not like that.
I hope your friend doesn't watch or purchase movies then.
Really the regular tales of game dev, incredibly long hours, and low pay relative to similarly skilled individuals in other industries are the kind of issues that essentially breed unions.
I do think a lot of if it would, or would not work, lies in how the hypothetical union was organized, and exactly how it impacted studios and publishers.
Blind siding people is not right. It's highly disrespectful and in no way should we treat people that we work with this way.
But then again...that is just me hoping for better work environments.
I wonder when people will wake up smarten up to these sort of things. I guess those people are at the top for a reason, because they are smarter at manipulating.
Do it, get as many members as you can, let it go from there, eventually the rest of the retards will join up or die or quit.
What, me?
I'm really undecided on this, I wont be able to start a good polycount drama on this material.
In sweden we have quite a widespread use of unions, there's no specific game-designer or game-artist union though, and from what I recon they're not like the US type unions. There are some good benefits, like being able to pay a premium to have a type of insurance if you were to lose the job they'll pay your salary until you get back on your feet, which is a really good thing to have in this industry.
I'm probably wrong on the details though.
i personally think that with the work conditions being what they are in this industry, a strong union has long been necessary.
Actors and Directors names HAVE to be on the movie posters, they HAVE to be credited (unlike many games), and they basically pushed the star power of the actors as a 'brand'.
In the 40's/50's when you went to see a 'Paramount Movie', or a '20th Century Fox Movie' there was absolutely no mention of who the actors were, because the marketing and studio executives felt it was irrelevant.
It wasn't until guys like Buster Keaton, Charlie Chaplin, and Walt Disney went indy/went on strike, did they truly feel the effects of how important their talent actually was.
What happened was, the talent started getting marketing, and started making a LOT more money, and more and more people notices and started watching movies because of who worked on it.
But then there is the down side.
I also think it would make getting into the industry way harder than it already is. Studios would be much much muuuch more hesitant to hire people. Game cycles would be way longer because of that. Teams would be smaller because studios know they might not have work right after a project is done. Games would be released with even more bugs than they already are (if thats possible?), because they would be thinking about money.
Now, if you`re in a union, can you get layed off because your company legit doesnt have money? A game flops, you get laid off cause they ran out of money, not just because they want to save a few bucks in the between phases of a game? Like I said, i dunno much about them.
All other jobs usually give a 2 week notice..the game industry should really follow the same business motto.
That would've been nice with my job at Cryptic. I seriously thought I was going to talk with the art director because it was my turn to give feedback on our project leads, and was told "sorry, we're going to have to let you go for 'x' reasons" (which I was later told by other folks were bs reasons). I was quickly made to get my shit together and get booted out the door.
As to movie stars getting recognition, I can't be the only one who's quite annoyed that it's always producers and leads who get all the limelight for games while the artists and coders are the ones actually slaving away on a project.
http://libcom.org/history/1941-disney-cartoonists-strike
Or we a profession?
Compared to what? who isn't a professional?
If we wern't it would be illeagal to not pay overtime!
http://www.aflcio.org/issues/jobseconomy/workersrights/overtime.cfm
This looks like a promising start: ( not sure for folks outside of LA ) http://animationguild.org/organizing/
I found some precedent for something that might be similar?: that link:
http://www.fxguide.com/fxguidetv/fxguidetv_049/
The other fxguide goes into the history of collective bargaining as well ( the Tom Sito interview below)
How is "good faith" bargaining determined?
Collective bargaining is a protected right:
http://www.nlrb.gov/rights-we-protect/employerunion-rights-obligations
Iv'e been mulling over three scenarios and how it might make an impact ( if not completely succeed )
I am guessing the least disruptive possibility would take the most commitment, work and consensus:
1> A strategic Document. ( AN outline describing agreed upon principles of fair employer practices which without would necessitate forming a union. If nothing else we could agree the conditions where enough is enough )
And a Preemptive organization and discussion drafting firstly:
- under what circumstances would injury be so egregious that failure to mobilize would be economically and morally irresponsible.
- And secondly a description of the actual organizational body and what legitimate interests deserving of recognition and respect should define it.
Where such a document provides for immediate mobilization of an executive council voted on beforehand. Whose duties would be to:- represent grievances. ( "That same line in the sand that was crossed" setting in motion such an organization )
- To engage in collective bargaining.
- To organize protection for it's community by organizing votes for actions, demands, ammendments and compromise.
- By representing a political lobby for support of all bodies of Govt.
- To authorize just legal representation.
- Setting forth these "reasonable" principles... In an industry composed of some of the best and brightest humanity has to offer! Such a document could be an invitation for measured shared sacrifice based on professional respect. An invitation where a work rules agreement provides an easy and hopefully very much appreciated roadmap that allows management to suceed. A document that managment can embrace as proof of it's workplace commitment. That would hopefully render the chore of organizing an actual UNION pointless!
All powers, all motions and the list constituting under what violations such a Union would commence would be publicly decided andvoted on beforehand. And In final form would be MANIFEST!
1a > If all UNIONS were pure perfect organizations such a document could just be photo-copied from a previous successful story.
That no such pure history exists does not necessarily mean we are incapable of a fair and just collective representation. You
already are a UNION or most certainly a GUILD with fine guildhalls like POLYCOUNT.
If instead we suppose that all UNIONS are actually conspicuous?
Then perhaps all that is needed is such a document agreed upon as just and fair where your voice can be heard as reasonable.
And perhaps most importantly a shared Document is at least a positive action.
1b > Significant Consensus...
Is the main reason a document must be fair and thoroughly judged to be representative of a humane expectation for a fair workplace agreement.
Especially any man that defines himself by his work. Deserves to be treated fair, and free from abuse and allowed some pride in the result?
In what way then could a document not deserve consensus?
Despite what some may consider their work's value ( and it's fragility compared to the price of Chinese wages ) The majority of talent is not replaceable when consensus is factored in to the equation. ( to a point? )
But even then. I would like to think that we would want everyone with talent in China to be able to provide for theirs as much as
our local neighbors? If not feasible on an organizational level then at least a "spirit of solidarity"? It makes one depressed to
read that there are peers in the UK lamenting over the lack of character modeling jobs and it was terrifying waiting for Japanese
members to sign back in after the Quake?
Consider even a poor showing of 25% Consensus. 25% of the amazing talent in this multi-Billion Dollar Industry is a GIANT! That
kind of consensus would be the power behind the document. It would be a tangible line in the sand. Clearly outlined would be the
unjust circumstances constituting a glaring breach of principles deemed to be fair and humane. Therin lies the rub! "The event"
that would set in motion the formal declaration of labor organization is the responsibility of whatever body violates those fair
principles. In which case such a no nonsense maverick company would be "putting" us in our proper place.
At best consensus would mean if one development house felt obliged to form a UNION then nationwide as many possible should show solidarity by organising under the same or likeminded banner.
1c > There is no explicit UNION oraganisation with this path. From what I understand Even if you were staunchly anti-labor, such a
strategy at it's core only empowers the community with the huge shadow of a UNION?
And in it's best light would only put forth a guidline for fair work rules authored by your community with concerns special to your industry.
Empowering your collective with a voice.
Personally... I have pretty much been a staunch conservative most my life. And I think running family buisnesses before finishing high school started me off with an opposite perspective on the labor issue.
Where years of struggling against intrusive laws and minimum wage increases were so destructive to a small business to the point of feeling ass-raped by my own
employees. ( and it's hard to not take it personally when you feel you are being targetted by govt agencies or are forced to sweat out a tape recorded hearing or fear a lawsuit from employees you considered friends ).
But on the otherhand, that same perspective only strengthens my feelings for self advocacy. Because after having the tables turned on myself it becomes clear enough how selfish, self absorbed and vicious the unthinking monster of "The Bottom Line" can be.
And to feel powerless and defeated...
being witness to my brother's involvment with our city's Police Labor victories has been very inspiring and very illuminating ( organizing viral press events before the evening news with a handful of calls and a couple facebook posts )
That I know absolutely zilch about buisness side of things and exactly how much harm could be done ( either way )
I would assume that such a strategy in the end would not look anything like what I outlined. If complete garbage than I hope there is enough garbage for a complete picture of why as much wouldn't work.
But I imagine scenario 2 and 3 would even if complete garbage, shake things up pretty much.
2. > Outside commie agitators ( or experienced viewpoints. or osmosis )
http://animationguild.org/
If not joining the most powerful union for animation is not whats for the best.
perhaps advice from these guy for experience sake?
Tom Sito wants u to know despite knee jerk reactionary naysaying, the Animator's Union is not a teachers union: ( interesting podcast )
http://media.blubrry.com/fxpodcast/media.fxguide.com/fxpodcast/fxg-110208-TomSito.mp3 The animation guild's organizing pages:
http://animationguild.org/organizing/
If you were unionized and years later were asked to support fellow members down on their luck. Do you think the thousands of game artisans out there could fortify the defenses? not sure how effective these guys are: http://www.mptvfund.org/ 3: > form a union
http://www.nlrb.gov/rights-we-protect/employerunion-rights-obligations http://www.iuoe.org/WhyJoinIUOE/YourRightsFormingaUnion/tabid/88/Default.aspx
also includes Organizing a Union in Canada
Last but not least... The Labor Relations Process seems like a good read for a wider view
Disney animation gals in 1941 were yummy!
I am a member of the IBEW and I see people laid off regularly. Being in a union doesn't mean you won't get laid off. It just means that when you are laid off, you don't lose your healthcare, pension, and other benefits.
This is 100% the fault of artists. We need to seriously start promoting ourselves and realize that hiding in the shadows is costing us huge amounts of money.
Self promotion can be tacky if done the wrong way, but we create the artwork that consumers crave.
A big part of a movie stars job is to PROMOTE the movie they are appearing in. If they didn't want to do interviews and promote the movie, they would never be hired. That is their job, and it should be part of our job too.
So you guys are saying I can be like Brad Pitt? Do I get an Angelina Jolie too? If so, where do I sign up?
I already worship the ground a lot of you guys tread on. My inspiration collection is as sacred to me as the best musical or literary minds any day of the week.
It's a free market now and that's how it should be. I don't want to be forced to join an organization just to work in this industry.
Talented artists that get laid off will find another job if they are talented. There are lots of people here that have been through this. Relocation is always tough, but if you don't want to relocate, you probably shouldn't be in this industry.
Insurance and benefits are a whole other mess, and are largely affected by which country you are in.
I'm all for this kind of thing
A union that does not even exist yet isn't persecuting the far more talented to be fed upon by the untalented proletariat hack masses at studio B. That should be pretty easy to agree upon?
For Instance...
Even after reforming The NFLPA and coming to a collective bargaining agreement, I do not believe that the earnings of NFL star atheletes are anywhere near what rookie players earn. Even though the star power of those players may be responsible for increasing the minmum wage of rookie players and establishing a fund for retired players. ( which I suppose is how organized support should work ). And the salary caps that were suffered by those star players were obviously brought about by pressure from the owners. Even so the new collective bargaining agreement seems like an overall win for those star players as well?
-Could recommend schools that actually train students properly for the industry.
-Set a starting minimum wage or salary
-Force studios to pay overtime and limit crunches, which would hopefully cause better planning
-Less turn over, more people may stay in the industry, have stable jobs, move around less.
Cons
-Unions are normally strongly based off seniority, so young talent may suffer.
-Studios that can't manage crunch time would go under quicker.
-Harder to start up a new studio
-Harder to break in.
-Studios may send more jobs over seas.
-Freelance artists-
How would that work?
Unions can have a seniority system, but that is pretty rare in my experience. Skilled trades are usually divided into apprentice and journeyman. It takes about four or five years to become a journeyman.
Unions typically have a minimum wage for each level of apprenticeship, but there is nothing saying an employer can't offer more. The minimum wage is based on market conditions in each local. Vancouver has a different minimum wage than Edmonton which has a different minimum wage than Toronto.
Young talent would benefit from having an apprenticeship system instead of being thrown into the sink-or-swim system.
Studios would definitely need to reconsider making people work excessive overtime.
It could actually be much easier to set up a new studio. If a union had a market recovery fund, the union could help startup studios compete. The union could also contribute expertise for small teams that they may not have any other way to access. More assistance for start ups = more jobs for everyone.
It could be easier to break in because the union could assist apprentices with skill assessment, portfolios, training, etc. The union could organize training events based on union members wants or needs.
I think its pretty obvious that companies are going to outsource with or without a union. That is totally up to the companies directors.
Freelance artists could join a union no problem. I'm sure many freelancers would love to have access to insurance, benefits, training, etc.
Ultimately, a union is whatever the union members want it to be. There's nothing saying that a union MUST have a seniority system, minimum wage, or anything else.
A union of games artist could be more like a kickstarter program that benefits startups and helps maintain a healthy job market.
Yeah, there is high turnover rate and poor stability.
There's also people doing this for a lot of years, at the same company, rewarded for their hard work and direct involvement in making the company successful.
A free market works both ways, and I don't see that as being broken or needing union involvement at this point.
I work at a F2P browser based company now. That's something I never imagined even two years ago. It just doesn't seem feasible to apply union ideals to an industry that evolves so rapidly.
Unions will destroy the culture and dynamics of the field and there will be no bringing it back. I don't want some professional leech - excuse me, union rep - dictating for me what my labor is worth or how much of my paycheck I have to donate to whatever political causes the union leadership feels like shmoozing with. I don't need some jackhole with 15 years of seniority getting drunk at lunch, coming back and turning out absolute crap (almost as bad as when he's sober), and being completely untouchable by my art lead who would really rather replace him with a kickass younger artist who needs the work. And most of all, I do NOT want to put my heart and soul and time and blood and sweat and tears into a project I love, be ORDERED to walk out on strike by a union rep I didn't choose or want, take an extended unpaid vacation, have all my work and passion for the project flushed down the drain when the studio yanks the plug, and have to move to a different state to find work because nobody will open new studios since they don't want to deal with the fucking union.
The ultimate insult would be having to endure all of that and then watching my job and my passion and everything I've invested my life into and the way I feed my family, packed up and shipped to a hellhole in a former Soviet republic where they work art college students in a sweatshop for pennies on the dollar per month.
Members of my family have been under union contracts with Boeing, Shell Oil, General Electric, and in healthcare. NONE of them have ever had a good experience with unions. None of my friends have. In fact, in all of the union experiences I've heard of, I have met exactly two people who have: my wife, with the local bus drivers local, which is less than 50 people, and a *former* childhood friend who was grateful the union helped him keep his job when he got caught drunk off his ass on the assembly line.
If you want to kill this industry, our culture, and our collaborative artform as we know it as fast as possible, start trying to unionize.
If you want to fix the flaws that exist without killing the works, push for changes to the funding and publishing model, to pull it away from risk-averse regurgitated mega-projects like Modern Warfare and put scheduling and creative control back in the hands of the production team, instead of having a corporate boardroom design next year's mega-title via committee. Steam is a huge move in that direction. So are mobile apps and proof that independent games like Minecraft can make eye-watering returns on investment.
All a union is going to do is completely and permanently move production to, oh, Azerbaijan and Romania and Vietnam.
Basically: "Disney, if you want animators we've got you by the balls, lets talk".
I see some of the parallels that you're drawing as far as creatives striking over some of the same issues, but game artists face a unique situations, the most haunting of which is a diffused workforce spread around the world and imbedded in thousands of companies.
Unions are only successful when they corner the labor market and that really isn't going to happen in this case unless the workers organize in some way outside of the companies they work for. For those people who aren't treated like total crap their loyalty might lay with the person who signs their checks. For those looking for work it won't be with the union unless the union is the only way to secure a job.
About the two weeks notice thing.
2 weeks is a long time to cause a lot of damage.
If they're humane they'll make sure to pay you at least for those 2 weeks and you can use that time to look for another job instead of working for an employer that no longer wants you there.
We tried it, it was very awkward, for everyone.
What do you say when you're getting coffee and the "dead man walking" comes in the room? Mostly everyone stops talking and the friendships you had, die a little more.
What do you do when need someone to participate in a meeting or contribute to the project, but they just had their soul crushed by horrifically bad news? Or are per-occupied with more important things, like building a fortress (or future residence) out of office supplies. Or raiding the snack shack in preparation for the impending hunger. Or finding a job and working on not being homeless. I think its safe to say the person would want to hang around, to pillage the servers for portfolio fodder (there might be a legal case for that) and to make the transition less painful but honestly I think its better if people get to spend that time at home.
Anyway, I can see a case for fair pay after a separation, but being allowed to stay on the premisses is weird and potentially damaging.
Free market, where there's no market pressure of the company's but all the pressure is on the employee.
Do you know in the west we dont actually have a totally free market it has tons of checks and balances. Some are official laws some are not.
How is a supply and demand pressure put on companys when, whenever they provide a job someone takes it and is happy to put up with whatever they are given(if not they just leave), but then someone else quickly takes it up(so all the jobs they advertise are quickly and easily filled).
There is no market pressure for the company to increase wages, or have better hours and all the other things employees get in other industries.
There is no impetuous for them to change anything as there changeable employees are perfectly happy with the status quo.
Yes, the pressure is on the employee to perform the job as well as he/she can because there's always some waiting to take that job. You're right.
That's just the way it is.
Companies do have an incentive to reward employees that are doing well with higher pay or else they will likely walk.
Can you elaborate more on the checks and balances that hinder the market in the UK? I'm not familiar with that stuff.
While you can't randomly fire people in sweden; during layoffs this does happen, people get their notice and can actually keep on working even if the situation is grim, if the company feel the employee would damage the company in any way they could be relieved of work with the full pay during that time.
In any case, it's there to ensure that the employee is ready for what is going to happen, so that he isn't suddenly kicked out on the street one day.
What if they dont walk or care if they walk. And what if they dont require staff that are doing the best, they just require staff that do things adequately for the cheapest amount.
The employee has to perform the best they can. The company doesnt, it can suffer corruption, ineptitude, there is no recourse to mistreatment for the employee. I cant see how that can be a good thing.
With this system their is no automatic course correction the market will not and cannot correct itself into a place where the staff are treated better.
The checks and balances are the minimum wage, OFCOM, Trading Standards, laws to do with employee rights(laws in general). The media. The Government. Being a small country(those higher up cant avoid the people so easily).
These things will step in usually when things arent working right(although they dont always work, like the rail network, and energy suppliers).
I'd imagine some kind of 'ability based' payscale, and stability, while securing a decent pension health benefits etc.
Does anyone firmly believe they'll be working in games until they retire (when they're 75+?). I'm really not sure where I stand with unions to be honest.
It would be so much easier if the government just did their job, and protected employees from unscrupulous actions, but it never seems to work that way.
The issues I have against unionizing, are exemplified with the GBA pixel artists I met not too long ago. They absolutely refused under any circumstances to learn any 3D program. Even when offered the opportunity at a studio to LEARN 3DS Max on the job, they refused. They were rightfully laid off, and happily accepted the EI and severance to form their own startups.
Unions would potentially protect individuals who refuse to change in a rapidly evolving tech field.
Honestly, the guild mostly negotiates wage minimums (floors, not ceilings) and benefits (residuals get paid directly into a badass health plan) and makes sure employees are treated fairly -- serving as legal representation in case of unfair hours/OT when no one wants to speak out. It doesn't strike, and it even fights companies that are doing shady shit like the Employer of Record scheme that screws over artists in LA and NYC. And magically all the LA animation jobs haven't disappeared overseas.
I'm not a union apologist, and the challenges of creating a nationwide games union are immense and probably impractical, but I wish people would accept that not all unions are the same. Generalizations are a sloppy way to live one's life, and the only way we're going to improve conditions is if we can have open conversations about possible solutions.
A guild is an entirely different beast and far more suited to a creative skilled trade. We have far more in common with blacksmiths, woodcarvers, and tailors than we do with automotive assembly line workers or teamsters.
That's, uh, not really the government's job. Not even vaguely close. At least in America, by Constitutional law.
Illegal / unlawful actions, yes. Unscrupulous, no. Not by a long shot. That is a civil tort between the employee and employer.
I know I'm probably in the ideological minority with my viewpoints, but given the catastrophic, spectacular failures of the federal government's attempts at regulation in a number of other domestic fields (FDA, Dept. Agriculture, Housing & Urban Development, BATFE [spit]), not to mention their hard-on for trying to federalize game ratings and censorship, I would really, really rather not have them sticking their nose in our world even for what might seem to be well-intentioned reasons at the beginning.
Once they get a foothold, it stops being about beneficial involvement and starts being solely about justifying bureaucracy, budget, and jurisdiction. No gov employee is going to voluntarily reduce or eliminate their job in the Dept. of Creative Labor Relations - but what they will do is push hard for more regulations and rules to oversee and enforce, because that justifies their existence and means they get a bigger piece of the federal budget pie.
On top of that, I can guarantee you that once game studios and publishers start having to deal with a federal bureaucracy to make games, they will pack their shit up in the blink of an eye and everything will be cranked out in China by year's end. Game art and game dev is simply too easy to move overseas for it to survive unionization in this country.
Oh, and unionization would also destroy the heart and soul of Valve as we know it.
They have no defined creative hierarchy and it has given us repeated masterpieces and gaming touchstones. Lots of new studios are trying to mimic that structure because Valve has show it can work and work amazingly well. Force unionization on them and require them by force of law to adopt standardized union rates, ranks, and seniority, and you will snuff out one of the single brightest creative flames in our subculture.
Then I would say the illegal actions which have become commonplace.
There is no 'software developer-Overtime' clause in Canadian Law, and I don't believe there is one outside of California.
'Crunch', unpaid overtime, Vacation blackouts lasting a year, then mass layoff of all staff before bonuses are paid (just to re-advertise an available position in a few months). I still have no idea how Non-Compete clauses are even upheld.
There are many illegal actions in many of the lower tier game studios. And yeah, I'm very much on the fence about unionizing our industry, in fear of what it might do for studios such as Valve, Epic, Etc.
However... that's not always a good idea.
The Screen Actors guild will however blacklist the fuck out of you for not joining and then George Lucas is allowed to direct movies and we all know how that turned out.
I just honestly feel like unions would get in the way of my games career rather than aide it. I have the power to shape my career the way I see fit. I don't need union support to get better pay or better benefits.
To Jacque's point, I don't think I'm going to be doing this until I retire. I'm just going to enjoy the ride and bow out when it's time.
Maybe that's reckless, but I've been in the business almost ten years. Things just move too fast to start organizing pensions and benefits for a large portion of the workforce when most companies don't even know how to put out a product consistently and efficiently.
Pensions and benefits through unions be nice to have; no doubt. But unless government gets involved, there's no way companies like Activision and EA will start those talks.
Most of the horror stories against unions are based on a worker exploiting some kind of loophole, e.g. refusing to learn new software. That loophole is a huge mistake on part of the employer, who didn't ensure it was a clause in the union contract. The solution: Cover your bases when making the contract.
A union contract binds employees to a set of rules and standards just as much as it does the employer. If an employee does not adhere to the contract, it's usually grounds for termination. A good union contract will also allow a member benefits based on the circumstance of their unemployment. Were they let go or fired? And for what reason(s)?
The downside to any rule set is that it doesn't always work in your favor. Employers might have to offer better severance packages under a union contract. Convexly, an employee might not be allowed to work that ten extra hours of over time. Deadlines may feel tighter and your paycheck will be lower because of it. However, the employer has legal means for ensuring skilled employees, and the employee can have a life outside of the studio without fear of losing their job.
Collective bargaining agreements (union contracts) and the negotiations that produce them are HEAVILY weighted against employers, especially smaller companies. Even massive corporations such as General Motors and Boeing have great difficulty holding ground in those negotiations, for one simple reason:
Federal labor relations law - not just custom or culture or standard practice, but the actual goddamn law - is heavily biased against them. Incredibly so, in some ways. Punitive and vindictive wouldn't even be unreasonable descriptors.
Unions have Federal Labor Relations representatives on their side in any negotiations or proceedings. Employers may absolutely want to cover their bases and include rational, important clauses such as learning new software or conduct / productivity requirements, but actually managing to get them included in the CBA is a significant feat. Often, requirements placed upon union members by contract eventually require even larger concessions from employers such as cadillac benefits, impractical or business-destructive layoff immunity, and other sacrifices to the self-anointed gods of the Labor Relations board.
Federal (and most state) union labor laws are written to be extremely favorable to semi-skilled labor and non-creative industry workers, where someone who is turning a wrench or stocking a freezer can be replaced inside of a few days with basically any warm body. They are focused on standardization, uniformity, and zero-tolerance response to any employment threat against a member, warranted or not, as a herd defense strategy. They are simply not a good fit for the dynamics of our industry, or really ANY creative-based industry.
Trying to shoehorn ourselves into that one-size-fits-or-else mould with the fantasy notion that somehow it'll end crunch time and dick moves by poorly-managed studios and all the other woes and give us great benefits and all these other things... it's just not true. It will end in the misery of meticulously-enforced mediocrity and blandness, because that is exactly what union laws are designed to do (besides funnel money from the membership's paychecks to union-friendly politicians via campaigns).
Seems like even more of a reason to have protections established by an empowered agreement! An agreement should be smart enough to require employers to include fair compensation in cases like a Team Bondi ass fuck?
I imagine established Publishers would have the most incentive to play fair but even with a less permanent situation it isn't as if the game Industry is the only creative industry with similar complexity?
Fer instance...
Aren't most multi million dollar movie productions ( or at least the actual shooting crews? ) a temporary start up?
Where the team could be built in any given state ( having to navigate many federal and state laws )??
There are some creative concerns with Hollywood Unions that should not be adopted. But consider instead the logistics and temporary nature of "A Movie"...
Despite such complexity and despite being historically pro-union, that profitable machine is a Billion dollar success!
I do not see why we can not rise up to the same challenge given that most of this industry's projects are not nearly as fleeting? ( comparatively )
That there could be such parallel comparisons...
perhaps their unions have "relavent" collective bargaining precedents?
I wonder? How did their union members achieve this?
How did they leverage fair and respectful treatment/compensation when they are seemingly working from location to location and still unite in enough numbers and have the industry agree to treat them fairly despite working in disparate productions?
A discussion about Unions would be worthless if negatives were not brought to light.
But presenting all these valid concerns as some kind of "inevitable future" that we can not possibly navigate before we have even attempted to draft that map? is not a positive way to contibute what might be a valid concern.
That someone would argue that they are "in it for themselves" and that they do not want any unions getting in the way of their booty before they are ready for their "big getaway"...
is not a positive contribution. For the most part we are all "in it for ourseleves" but I certainly care about most of my peers also. And if the right thing to do will empower them to be treated fairly then I would consider it a responsibility even if it was a burden?
That is, if it is the right thing to do.
I am wondering if the first discussion shouldn't be about that level of fairness? ( depending on what you are allowed to say contractually. Unless it's bad enough to be protected under whistle-blowing laws? In which case that would be protected under law I imagine? )
Is it really true? "IS THE LEVEL OF UNFAIR TREATMENT SO HIGH AND PERVASIVE THAT WE HAVE COME TO THIS POINT?"
Perhaps these stories are just overblown?
I would like to hear how others would answer that question.
For myself, I have knowingly swam with sheisty buisnessmen and feel I deserve a lot of my bad experiences. ( I knowingly knew what I was getting into )
Anyone else? Is the industry a fair workplace where its employees do not need a voice?
Did I miss that vote? The one which allows us to finally feed off of Valve's juicy juicy lifeforce?
If seniority scares you as an abuse, why not just suggest that there should not be any such abuses? and so on?
Why is it so easy to equate things to an organization that does not even exist?
If the IGDA went any farther into Union territory I'm sure it would collapse from the sudden vacuum formed from every studio head withdrawing support.