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

121–130 of 199 posts

Re: Game Workers Unite

#121

Post by petee »

sangnoir wrote: post #119
petee wrote: post #107

One of my relatives works for a large well known game developer; same employer for years. Because they decide to classify many of their devs as contract workers, they are denied rights afforded to 'full-time' employees - when she is laid off for months at a time (to prevent being called a full-time) she can't collect unemployment. No health care, no benefits whatsoever. And due to contracts, can't work for a rival ei…

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.

There are almost always loopholes and gray areas. I'm pretty sure its illegal, but here is one example: I hire you to rebuild my kitchen; I eventually 'run out of money' and lay you off. 3 months later I rehire you to finish the kitchen. Are you really a full-time employee? Am I responsible for your healthcare? Or are you still just a contractor? In this example, i'll bet most would say no, you're just a contractor. But that is also just at your house, not some mega-corporation...gray area, right?

I believe its the use of layoff and such terminology, that gets them around laws

Re: Game Workers Unite

#122

Post by microcolonel »

Spooky23 wrote: post #92
microcolonel wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forming a union is no big deal, but if others don't have the right not to negotiate with or support that union by virtue of the type of work they're doing, it may as well be a government restriction on your right to pursue employment.

Why should you have a right to work at a particular place? The workers with a democratic process negotiated with the management. You’re not special. Why should your unwillingness to participate impact the rights of others who freely entered into an agreement?

> Why should you have a right to work at a particular place?

Well, that's not what I said though. I said a right to pursue employment. That is, to be free to negotiate for an agreement with no forcible terms, to exchange something you have for something you want more than what you're exchanging.

Re: Game Workers Unite

#123

Post by maxk42 »

adamsea wrote: post #64
Meph504 wrote: post #49

I see a lot of people arguing about how unions protect workers, and in some cases that is true, but in my experience many have been corrupted. You only have to look at the coal workers, steel workers, and several other unions, that's leadership has been corrupted, and serve their own interest at the expense of everyone else. Additionally, things like agency fees, where even if you work somewhere with a Union, and you…

Yeah but the United Mine Workers Association (a coal union) got us the eight hour workday - before that, they just exploited the shit out of you. "Back when the government first tracked workers' hours in 1890, full-time manufacturing employees worked a backbreaking 100 hours each week. Years of pressure from laborer organizers, along with changes from companies like Ford Motor, reformed working conditions in the U.S.…

The problem is I want to work ten hours a day.

But my employer can't legally do that without paying massive penalties. So I have to take a part-time job on the side for much less money per hour.

Re: Game Workers Unite

#124

Post by snuxoll »

petee wrote: post #106
zanny wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody can force you to join a union. The scenario you describe only applies if Itch or Steam agree to only take game submissions from union members, which would just prompt non-union alternatives.

Its called 'right to work' and its a disgusting anti-union effort, where a worker will not pay dues, but be afforded all the protections and benefits the union gets it's members. And then assume they deserve those benefits without contributing to the organization that does the actual fighting. It was found recently that right-to-work states have a far higher worker injury & death rate than non-RTW, and lower wages. I…

It's not surprising, as right-to-work legislation was intended to be a "starve the beast" method of union busting. Can't make unions illegal without an uproar (probably unconstitutional to do so as well, right of free association), but you can deprive them of funding by removing mandatory membership from employee contracts.

Re: Game Workers Unite

#125

Post by snuxoll »

rbobby wrote: post #102
tvanantwerp wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depending on your industry/employer, yes, you can be forced to join a union, or at least pay dues to it even if you're not a member.

There's a case in front the US supreme court on this now. Basically union dues are currently split between an administrative category and a political category (my terms, can't recall what they're actually called). Administrative covers the costs arising from actual contract negotiation and enforcement. Political covers anything dealing with lobbying or advertising etc (eg. vote Bill Murray because he supports unions)…

> If the SC decides the admin fees are not mandatory then unions are going to have a tough time. If enough idiots opt out of membership the union will not be able to afford a solid contract negotiating team or even an enforcement team. This will let companies strike contracts that are much more in their favor. And presumably the employee's will blame the union and more will opt out... until the union is no longer financially viable.

Right-to-work legislation in a nutshell, and it worked.

Re: Game Workers Unite

#126

Post by SamReidHughes »

gt_ wrote: post #90
Paul_S wrote: post #67

A union will solve nothing other than leeching off some money from the workers (yay!). If you want to solve the problem you have to educate the credible little children who think working in gamedev is a privilege and are willing to work for free because "games!". Currently and for decades there has been an infinite supply of these, hence all the junior and mid roles pay less than half than any other industry.

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.

Re: Game Workers Unite

#127

Post by snuxoll »

cardplayer wrote: post #76
Paul_S wrote: post #67

A union will solve nothing other than leeching off some money from the workers (yay!). If you want to solve the problem you have to educate the credible little children who think working in gamedev is a privilege and are willing to work for free because "games!". Currently and for decades there has been an infinite supply of these, hence all the junior and mid roles pay less than half than any other industry.

You gotta love the uncaring, cynical dev with more interest in his own pocket than the effects of automation and the well-being of his technical and non-technical co-workers. Apparently, he only believes that innovation is possible everywhere else besides unions and collective bargaining. Be positive my friend, I’m sure we’re capable of creating a new type of union in 2018.

> You gotta love the uncaring, cynical dev with more interest in his own pocket than the effects of automation and the well-being of his technical and non-technical co-workers.

As someone who eats, sleeps and breathes automation projects you (probably) won't find somebody more worried about the human costs of automation than me. 90% of our job as an internal development team is to reduce labor costs by automating various tasks, and while we continue to grow staffing because we have continued to grow our list of contracted facilities there will be a day (even if it's a decade or more away) that REDUCTION in workforce is a possibility - I fear that day, and I can only hope by that time our civilization is prepared for it.

> Be positive my friend, I’m sure we’re capable of creating a new type of union in 2018.

We've always been capable, unions people complain about are almost always a direct result of poor participation by members - if you want things to change make your voice heard and vote on union issues, it's no different from politics in that fashion.

Re: Game Workers Unite

#128

Post by toomuchtodo »

driverdan wrote: post #11
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.

Why do "software workers/codewriters" need a union? It's an employee's market.

Only until the next recession, which will come.

Re: Game Workers Unite

#129

Post by [deleted] »

snuxoll wrote: post #125
rbobby wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a case in front the US supreme court on this now. Basically union dues are currently split between an administrative category and a political category (my terms, can't recall what they're actually called). Administrative covers the costs arising from actual contract negotiation and enforcement. Political covers anything dealing with lobbying or advertising etc (eg. vote Bill Murray because he supports unions)…

> If the SC decides the admin fees are not mandatory then unions are going to have a tough time. If enough idiots opt out of membership the union will not be able to afford a solid contract negotiating team or even an enforcement team. This will let companies strike contracts that are much more in their favor. And presumably the employee's will blame the union and more will opt out... until the union is no longer fin…

[deleted]

Re: Game Workers Unite

#130

Post by Spooky23 »

microcolonel wrote: post #122
Spooky23 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should you have a right to work at a particular place? The workers with a democratic process negotiated with the management. You’re not special. Why should your unwillingness to participate impact the rights of others who freely entered into an agreement?

> Why should you have a right to work at a particular place? Well, that's not what I said though. I said a right to pursue employment. That is, to be free to negotiate for an agreement with no forcible terms, to exchange something you have for something you want more than what you're exchanging.

You have that. You can take a job in a union shop and you’re able to pursue negotiations as part of the democratic process in the union. My colleague in a former job is in the middle of that right now, running for union office. Or you can go somewhere else.

Whatever you’re negotiating yourself, 9/10 times you’re still an at will employee and really have no bargaining power. Individual negotiations for jobs are like buying a car — every dude is telling you how they beat the dealer. I’ve hired many many software people over the years and almost never leave a fairly narrow salary band — maybe 5% of cases. Offering a few percent over average is usually enough.

Post reply on HN