Just listened to a bit of this article on the radio, fiugured people here might find int interesting as well. Any comments too Devs?
Fascinating article. Crunch isn’t just game a dev tech thing though. Really, any tech work is “at will” which is a euphemism for disposable. Contracts are nice but in the real world, like people, they tend to get broken. So tech companies throw people into the fire as much as they wish -which is always.
I’m not sure unions are such a great idea though. I’ve been in unions before. Typically they collect my union dues and then the union rep. doesn’t do squat.
Personal anecdote: I worked for a major telecommunications company in the past and I wanted eye surgery. HR said one thing, Benefits folks said something else all the while union folks were picketing outside. My union rep. didn’t do nuthin. I left without eye surgery and am a squinty old man now. And my departure compensation was taking my last paycheck and drowning my sorrows at the local pub. So gee thanks to my former union.
With technology the hardware changes at light speed and the software devs are always trying to crunch to take advantage of hw. Indeed, the suits demand crunch whether or not they say so. Mostly mgt. says Nothing but will fire you if you aren’t perceived to be at their expected level of performance.
Human Resources struggle to meet the needs and demands of tech. Now add a union into the mix and… nuthin changes much except that now there’s politicking between mgt. and union with the workers (that’s you and me) caught between in either limbo or hell.
My experiences have led me to believe that tacking on an additional institution or concept such as a union doesn’t really help as much as money and attorneys. Get a problem and throw money at it to make it go away. Bloodsuckers are happy to fight for you… for a price.
Each company is unique and pretty much every company has flaws or loopholes which can be exploited given the right individual(s), attorneys, and money. I hate to bash the noble pursuits of happiness and unions but I ask myself When has any institution really cared about it’s labor -or unions for that matter? Only when daddy brought out the big guns.
In theory the union is supposed to be that attorney for all workers instead of each one having to fend for himself (and pay the lawyer individually) - whether they actually work that way is another matter…
Personally I don’t think crunch time should be needed, certainly not to that degree or for extended periods of time. If it is, management is not doing its job.
In bourgeous countries all unions are de-facto semi-yellow or straight yellow ones.
The problem with that is assuming that the management is caring about its workers and not just profit, as using Crunch Time (in a wide range of industries) is a very common way for getting more work done in less time, thus from a purely numbers point of view, it’s more profitable and thus becomes a deliberate part of management planning and timing.
I’ve seen this in practice, and had to work to it, in far too many industries…:furious::furious::furious:
not really, it does not assume that they care, it does however assume that caring about it is part of their job 
as using Crunch Time (in a wide range of industries) is a very common way for getting more work done in less time, thus from a purely numbers point of view, it’s more profitable and thus becomes a deliberate part of management planning and timing
it also is a good way to lose your best people fast and have a high turnover rate in general, which comes with its own costs, but I agree, it probably increases your profit if you really do only care about that… which is where laws come in. Require overtime pay and limit the work week to no more than 60 hours and allow that for maybe at most 8 weeks out of the year with hours beyond 50 per week resulting in vacation days that have to be taken, not paid out, and the whole thing stops right then and there.
This won’t happen in the US anytime soon as it has notoriously bad consumer and worker protection, but in most of the civilized world something like that is the norm, maybe not as strict, but in principle.
From the point of view of the employee, that is. The point of view of employer is if the manager can make workers do more without paying them more with whatever corporate culture shit then he’s doing his job properly.
it also is a good way to lose your best people fast and have a high turnover rate in general, which comes with its own costs, but I agree, it probably increases your profit if you really do only care about that…
Not if it’s the same across industry.
which is where laws come in. Require overtime pay and limit the work week to no more than 60 hours and allow that for maybe at most 8 weeks out of the year with hours beyond 50 per week resulting in vacation days that have to be taken, not paid out, and the whole thing stops right then and there.
Assuming that politics care more than managers.
all true I just am not convinced that managers / owners or politicians do not care about this at all or that it is this / equally bad across an entire industry - and if it is, it definitely is time to organize to change this
You might not find a place where you work 40-45 hours a week every week, but finding one where you never work 100 hours should be doable. Personally, I would never work 100 hours in any week voluntarily, let alone for several consecutive weeks.
If you really force me to, I will, but you can be damn sure I will look for a new job right then.
My voluntary crunch time is probably about 60 hours for up to 3 or 4 weeks, and I never had to exceed that, but then I am not in the games industry.
Heck, sometimes the client (and this is in the US) does not pay more than 45 hours a week, and I have the simple rule that I do not work if I do not get paid for it, so that makes crunch time impossible