🚀 go-pugleaf

amen!

As long as the employees sticks to the conditions nothing will improve.
Employers usually improves the working conditions when employees *starts
leaving* their company - not before. Though it is a little late for the
employee though ...

Rikard


"Augustus" <Imperia...@Rome.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:30c6giF2ufrakU1@uni-berlin.de...
>
> "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 h
er
> 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
>
>
>