Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Game Workers Unite

gameworkersunite.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 199 posts

Re: Game Workers Unite

#151

Post by realusername »

SamReidHughes wrote: post #126
gt_ wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To claim that unions "will solve nothing" is to deny the long and well-documented history of their success. The end of collective bargaining is the end of the free market. It's very easy to understand the negative realities of unions, but nobody starts a union for fun. It's risky business. Industries are classically given plenty of chances to adjust. Sometimes they even do. That's why it's called bargaining . Small b…

Game development is a global market.

It's still concentrated in big studios, big titles are requiring a massive amount of labour and experience. It's difficult to recreate that from nowhere.

Re: Game Workers Unite

#152

Post by watwut »

gnarbarian wrote: post #141
sangnoir wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm amazed that this is legal in a first world country- it would be illegal to do this in a couple of third-world countries I'm personally familiar with: the laws state that if you're a on contract for more than a certain number of months, you automatically become a permanent employee. Firing and rehiring for the same position as a contractor is straight-up illegal.

For decades gaming has been the programmer equivalent of the waiter-actor/waitress-actress in Hollywood trying for their big break. The competitiveness and desire to work there is what drives these insane working conditions. The big difference is this: If you have the skills to work in the gaming industry, you also have the skills to work in another software industry that will compensate you appropriately. Nobody nee…

Majority of workers in game industry are artists, not programmers. And programmers are not the ones having "big breaks" or ability to influence what the game is going to be like.

Re: Game Workers Unite

#153

Post by ryanobjc »

hueving wrote: post #146
door3 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every person under capitalism has to sell their labor in order to survive. This means that the employee and employer are not on equal footing - I cannot reasonably refuse to work and live a comfortable lifestyle, which means I have to make certain sacrifices (ie, working 40 hours a week in order to survive). This is all fine if I feel like I am treated well and compensated fairly, but if I feel like I am not, as an i…

This comment seems to ignore the large portion of people that operate as small businesses. They make money by selling products they create or services they provide, not raw labor to customers. You certainly can choose not to work for any given company (or even industry). You just might take a pay cut or might have to take on some personal financial risks to start your own business, which isn't palatable to some peopl…

And rightfully so - the world can’t all be small businesses of 1-2 persons.

There are things worth doing that require a large team working closely. More closely than a bunch of mercurial small businesses.

Re: Game Workers Unite

#154

Post by xstartup »

I think partly this has to do with "the struggle" factor.

Once, I had this guy who owns a big gaming company and I asked him the same question, why do you treat these employees, unlike other software companies?

He said, there was a time when he no one would apply for open job listings at his company because they had less money or they were not very hot. And that he understands, he can push the people around as he has earned it. So, it seems there is some revenge and ability to justify worse at work here.

What can you do? There aren't that many successful companies and the even if there are, they aren't growing as fast as your SV startup, so they do not need increasing supply of labor.

Re: Game Workers Unite

#155

Post by EliRivers »

microcolonel wrote: post #82
canthonytucci wrote: post #7

Why only game workers? Why not software workers/codewriters in general? I'd prefer something closer to SAG than the auto workers union personally.

I would never join or pay into such a union. I'm so happy to be able to make employment agreements freely, and if anyone threatens that, I will criticize them. If developers in the game industry want to take crappy employment agreements because they're infatuated with video games, that is their right. The skillset is portable, and the instability of standard game dev positions is well known, game developers in genera…

Many unions don't interfere with the ability of their members to enter into employment agreements freely. So with that new knowledge in your head, what's your next objection to such a union?

Re: Game Workers Unite

#156

Post by EliRivers »

cabaalis wrote: post #70

I see no problem with game workers unionizing, but when I want to release my indie game on itch or steam and I am stopped because I have to pay dues to the union, we'll have a very real and unfriendly discussion.

Many unions don't demand dues from other people just to work in the same industry.

A lot of people here (not you particularly; just that I might as well say it somewhere) have a very stereotyped view of what a union does, seeing it as some kind of compulsory enforcer that ties its members hands and goes around stopping outsiders working. I can't speak for everywhere, but my experience of unions in the UK is very different. Maybe this union could be modeled on that kind of approach. There's also the German Betriebsräte style which looks really interesting.

For an industry full of people that spout about disruption and how things are different and what new technology can do to empower people, there seems to be this picture of "unions" stuck inside people's heads that involves Jimmy Hoffa sending some thugs round to smash up your workshop because you sold product without going through the union, and large mafioso "encouraging" workers to join. At risk of massively generalising, that picture seems strongest inside the heads of our US colleagues; is the anti-union propaganda particularly effective there, or are the unions particularly stuck in that stereotypical Jimmy Hoffa style?

Re: Game Workers Unite

#157

Post by DanBC »

EliRivers wrote: post #156
cabaalis wrote: post #70

I see no problem with game workers unionizing, but when I want to release my indie game on itch or steam and I am stopped because I have to pay dues to the union, we'll have a very real and unfriendly discussion.

Many unions don't demand dues from other people just to work in the same industry. A lot of people here (not you particularly; just that I might as well say it somewhere) have a very stereotyped view of what a union does, seeing it as some kind of compulsory enforcer that ties its members hands and goes around stopping outsiders working. I can't speak for everywhere, but my experience of unions in the UK is very diff…

To be fair the UK had to introduce law to stop "closed shop" unions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_shop#United_Kingdom

> All forms of closed shops in the UK are illegal following the introduction of the Employment Act 1990. They were further curtailed under section 137(1)(a) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (c. 52)[7] passed by the Conservative government at the time. The Labour Party, then in opposition, had supported closed shops until December 1989, when it abandoned the policy in accordance with European legislation.[8] However, Labour shadow arts minister Thangam Debbonaire announced to an Equity conference in May 2016 that she favoured the introduction of a "limited" closed shop for actors, as part of Jeremy Corbyn's pledge to strengthen and introduce a new package of employment rights beneficial to employees.[9] Equity was one of the last trade unions in the United Kingdom to offer a pre-entry closed shop until the 1990 act.[9]

Re: Game Workers Unite

#158

Post by EliRivers »

DanBC wrote: post #157
EliRivers wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many unions don't demand dues from other people just to work in the same industry. A lot of people here (not you particularly; just that I might as well say it somewhere) have a very stereotyped view of what a union does, seeing it as some kind of compulsory enforcer that ties its members hands and goes around stopping outsiders working. I can't speak for everywhere, but my experience of unions in the UK is very diff…

To be fair the UK had to introduce law to stop "closed shop" unions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_shop#United_Kingdom > All forms of closed shops in the UK are illegal following the introduction of the Employment Act 1990. They were further curtailed under section 137(1)(a) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (c. 52)[7] passed by the Conservative government at the time. The Labour…

Indeed; that's certainly how it was, but now we can have something better. That's the old way, which I certainly agree had to go, although even that didn't stop someone else working in the same industry.

1990 is well before my experience, but soon enough I expect to be telling people how I was there for the crash of September 2000, before they were born.

Re: Game Workers Unite

#159

Post by pjc50 »

microcolonel wrote: post #86
49531 wrote: post #61

I am so glad to see this happening! There are a lot of reasons why game workers need to organize, but it doesn't have to stop there. Tech workers in general can make the lives of their teammates a lot better by banding together. We can also fight for the rights of others, why couldn't Amazon employees fight for the rights of Amazon's warehouse workers? Also, things like discrimination and abuse are combated by organi…

> No individual worker is going to negotiate with a company on equal footing. Equal footing how? If the "worker" and the company could be on truly equal footing, then there would be no point in having companies at all. The whole point of a company is for the company to have more resources than any one person is entitled to or capable of retaining. If you mean equal footing relative other employees , why would they ha…

The question of "why are there companies rather than adhoc clouds of independent contractors" is an interesting one - see the work of Ronald Coase.

Re: Game Workers Unite

#160

Post by xstartup »

mLuby wrote: post #94
microcolonel wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Alice is at $90k (because she's a woman?) Any evidence of this in practice? > After unionizing, you'd get $110 and Alice would get $110. Or maybe you'd both get $100, or maybe one of you would never be hired. You've got your hypotheticals, I've got mine.

1. Evidence of women being underpaid (in tech)? Definitely got evidence, both anecdotal and US-wide. 2. You didn't answer my hypothetical, but I'll answer yours: If my salary doesn't change but Alice gets a raise, good for her, doesn't bother me. If I never got hired I don't care about Alice's salary, likewise if she never got hired. Anyway, the parent comment complained "why would I want my salary to be the same as…

A department gets X budget, low-value employees making more money = high-value employee making less.

2. I am bothered if co-workers make more than me even when I am more important for the project and do more.

Post reply on HN