🚀 go-pugleaf

"Grackle" <nos...@lalaland.com> wrote in message
news:FV3od.10129$Le1.86859@news20.bellglobal.com...
> "Destroy" <a...@meplease.com> wrote in message
> news:RK2od.50957$ye4.42996@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> > Umm..if you don't like your job - LEAVE. Simple as that.
> >
> Ignorant statement of the week award!

Maybe in the way he worded it... but what he said effectivly rings true:  If
you don't like your job, be it this one or another, then quit or look for
something else to do.

I say this because:

First, this is the way of life in most companies, not just game companies,
where they have strict deadlines... and people going to work for these
companies should have an idea of that.  Then compound that with the need to
keep the price down for end user consumption... it makes it hard for the
company to hire on a slew of extra employees to come in and help meet the
deadline and still keep the product at its target price.

Secondly, they can count themselves lucky that theirs are not jobs that have
been offshored yet.  Its a tough thing to say, but in todays day and age its
true: alot more companies are going overseas for cheap workers... sadly,
North American workers do have to put up with abit more nowadays because
there is always that fear that they could lose their job to somebody in SE
Asia or India.

Then there are questions one can ask about the article...

First: Is this problem, the big crunch time, the result of EA and its
management?  Or is it the result of the people working before the crunch
time?  Case in point: My own company.  I've had a few times in the past 2
years where we've had a big crunch time at the end to meet a deadline (where
everybody is working 15-18 hours a day, 7 days a week, for a month) and in
every case it was because someone down the line was slacking off and wound
up delaying the project for a couple of weeks where everybody had no choice
but to sit around for 3 or 4 weeks waiting for him to catch up with the rest
of us... and then we had to put in all the overtime to get back on schedule.

Second: Is this standard, or 'worst case scenario'?  I know 3 people who
work for the EA offices in British Columbia... one is a project manager, the
other is voice talent and the third is a playtester.  The first two have
nothing bad to say about the company and work pretty much long hours now and
then, but they aren't totally imprisoned by work and aren't working 80-90
hours a week. The third guy (playtester) does work long hours, upwards of
60-80 hours a week... but to him it balances out: he might work 0 hours for
the first 2 weeks and then 60-90 hours the next 2 weeks, in all he is still
working about the same hours per month that a full time worker has (maybe
abit more) but it all balances out in the long run.

There are other questions you could ask...

Like: How truthful is the account?  Is the person taking their worst
possible time at the company and making it sound like it happens all the
time?  Or embelishing the story a little?   I think back to when I worked
for the government of British Columbia in "Mainframe Operations".  There was
16 of us in the department and we worked 12 hours a day for 12 days a month
for $90,000 a year.  Like I say, there was 16 of us... if you asked 14 of us
we would tell you that we loved the job for the pay, what we had to do
(mostly nothing) and and how much free time it gave us (we usually worked 3
days in a row, but once a month you had to do 4 days in a row... between
shifts we would get 3, 4 or 7 days off).  But thats only 14 of the 16 that
would say that... we had two women up there who if you asked them would tell
you how much they hated the job and wished they could move on... their
complaints were usually:  sometimes they had to work weekends, it was cold
(we worked in a data center, the main server rooms were cold but sometimes
it would trickle into our workarea), four 12 hour shifts in a row was
tiring, when they work a 12hr day there isn't much else you can do before or
after work (we worked 7am to 7pm), sometimes the job was really boring, they
couldn't use MSN Messenger from work...

I'm sure with the right spin you could make it sound like the job was a real
horror show...

work on weekends = "They make me work weekends, 12 hours a day! I don't get
to spend time with my kids" (which is true! But everybody has to work 1, and
only 1, weekend a month)

its cold = "I have to work in a room thats kept at a constant 5 celsius!"
(which is true! But we only go in there 2-3 times a shift for at the most 5
minutes at a time)

four 12 hour shifts in a row = "They make me work 48 hours in 4 days!"
(which is true! But it doesn't mention that every 4 days in a row shift you
get 7-10 days off in a row)

job is boring = "The job is repetitive and not mentally challenging" (which
is true! But what do you expect when the job description is "monitor CPIC",
"monitor bank communications lines", "monitor transaction activity"...
somebody who would say that are probably the same people that could complain
when something goes wrong and suddenly there is a flurry of life)

can't use Messenger from work = "They don't let me talk to my family during
the day!" (This one is actually not true... you can't use Messenger from
work, but of the two I am talking about who hate the job 1 goes for a 10
minute cigarette break each hour and spends it outside smoking and chatting
on the phone... the other spends atleast 5 hours of her 12 hour shift on her
cellphone chatting with her kids and/or husband from work)


Going back to the original posting/article... you could also ask: Does
everybody feel the same as the person who posted the article?
A legitimate question... because to some being able to work 50, 60, 70 or
80+ hours in a week might be a good thing about the job (a perk) because
they can save up more and when they do get their time off they can go on
better vacations, spend more during the holidays, etc.
Again, thinking back to personal experience:  I had a job as a retail store
manager I worked during the day and went to school 2-3 nights a week.  For 5
years I worked a minimum 60 hours a week and up to 90 per week, with the
yearly average probably being 75 hrs a week... it was great for me because
the job paid only a little over minimum wage but I made so much extra
working so many hours that I was able to afford expensive night school
courses and when I took my vacation each year I had a few thousand bucks
saved up for it.


In all this... this isn't the only job on the planet, and there are alot
more people out there that are worse off.  Another reply to the above post
said "its easy to get trapped in a job" and that is very true!  But that
really only applies to low income/minimum wage jobs where you make so little
that you are unable to save up any money to be able to afford to quit or do
a proper job search (I was there as well at a point in my life years ago...
where after I got paid for the month and paid my rent and bills off and
bought basic groceries I had about $50 leftover.  In order to save up so I
could quit my job and go work somewhere else it would take me years if I was
only able to save $50 a month (and thats presuming I didn't spend it on
something else) but even then you can still atleast send out resumes and
with voicemail get back in touch with people calling you up with job
prospects)  but the article posted suggests that the posters significant
other is a programmer/developer and they probably make enough that after 3
or 4 months of that job at EA (working 85+ hrs per week) they should have
enough bankrolled to be able to afford a few months off work to go find a
new job.

So I really gotta go with what "Destroy" said: If you don't like, quit and
find another job.

Clint