🚀 go-pugleaf

Hi, while it sounds like you and I think alike on many issues, I do
want to address some things.  You seem to be coming from the point of
view that the two women you discussed, who appeared to be lazy butt's
who wanted to IM their spouses all day, are the norm for anyone who
complains about their job.  This may not be what you are attempting to
do, or it may be this is your only experience and therefore the only
side you see (doesn't sound like it) ... I don't know.  You may just
be presenting it as a possible option, and are well aware that
something else could exist.  I just wanted to make sure that other
side was well presented also.  Besides, you sound like a reasonable
person and I enjoy conversations with reasonable people.  (What group
are you on anyway - don't recognize the name.)

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 10:54:00 -0800, "Augustus"
<Imperia...@Rome.com> wrote:

>
>"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 half agree and half don't.  We all have the right to quit our jobs
and go look for something else.  But it's still not always as simple
as that.  I left a job a good year and a half ago because it was ready
to give me a heart attack.  (Which not only wouldn't be much fun, but
I didn't have insurance and the hospital bills would've put me in much
worse position than I'm in right now. :-))  I had two part-time jobs
and this job was the majority of my income.  I had intended on
increasing the other job to full-time, as already discussed with my
boss, until a certain governor who shall remain nameless (since I
voted for him) made a whole lot of weirdo budget cuts and essentially
cut me out of increasing this job to full-time.  (Even though the
demand is there.)  I was then screwed of doing that, have managed to
pick up a little other part-time work, but for the most part have been
working only part-time for a year and a half.  So really, not always
so easy.  I, however, sometimes like to put my health first and am
willing to take such risks, don't have a family to support, and
between savings and my dad giving us muchos amounts of money last
Christmas, and my brilliant ability to live low-budget, I've been OK.

>
>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.

I agree with this to some point.  The following:
"When asked for specifics about what "working long hours" meant, the
interviewers coughed and glossed on to the next question; now we know
why."
... tells me these people should've had a clue that something was
fishy here.  It shows a bit of ignorance.

>  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.

Don't know enough, between the rumors, to agree or disagree.  One
rumor says they have plenty to spare.  I dunno - haven't looked at
their books.  At the same time, I really don't wanna pay more for
games.  Nor do I want the employees getting screwed.  A good example
for those who don't understand that the economy is a big circle and
what affects one of us affects us all.  (That is, it's not some
self-contained little world where you can only worry about yourself.)

>
>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.

Fear of something being worse doesn't make it better.

>
>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.

This happens a lot, I agree.  My brother is a programmer on some
defense R&D projects, and I knew another guy who did similar, and I
hear this all the time.  (The other guy worked with a lady who put
together all the "presentational" material after the fact, and had a
sign on her door that said something like "Delays on your part do not
create emergencies on mine." :-))  However, this isn't always the
case.  If the article that lady wrote is assumed to be truthful and
representive of the situation, this doesn't sound like the case.

>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?

No way to know that without talking to everyone and getting to the
truth of the matter.  (And remembering that human nature is to
complain when things are bad and say nothing when things are good.)
The only problem I have is that you're presenting an example that
makes it sound like this might not be truthful, accurate, normal,
unembellished, etc.  Again, I don't know if this is what you meant to
do.

>
>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)

Personally, I would start losing my cookies doing 12 hour shifts four
days in a row, and it wouldn't matter about the time off in between,
especially if this were the norm.  I'd rather even it out a bit more,
though I wouldn't mind some longer shifts here and there compensating
with some time off.  But this is me.  Point being though - for some
people this really *is* a problem.

>
>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)

Personally speaking, I cannot tolerate that kind of boredom.  It's
like shear torture.  Some people don't mind it.  I can't handle it.  I
once had a job years ago where I came home every night literally in
tears because I was, quite literally, bored to tears.  A friend of
mine thought I was totally nuts - but she was bored most of the time
anyway because she had no interests, so she may as well have gotten
paid for her boredom.  I think this is a legit complaint, assuming it
really is torturous to them.

>
>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)

Well, yeah, you got me there. :-)  I agree - this just sounds like
laziness.

>
>
>Going back to the original posting/article... you could also ask: Does
>everybody feel the same as the person who posted the article?

Good question.

>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.

My one brother who does contract work, and usually for extremely
ambitious technological R&D companies, ends up at a lot of places
where these people just love putting in 100 hours a week, for two
years straight, just for the *possible* chance at making some really
big bucks at the end.  And if it pulls off, they might never have to
work again, sure.  I don't personally think it's worth it.  (And
neither does my brother, which is why he prefers a limit of 2-3 months
on these contracting jobs.)  But I also realize there *are* people
like this.

Of course, my brother's also been in situations where he was told
there would be no overtime, and there was.  He's usually under
contract, and I recall a couple of years ago when he quit a contract
because they didn't live up to their end of it.

>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.

I couldn't hack that.

>In all this... this isn't the only job on the planet, and there are alot
>more people out there that are worse off.

A) Other people being worse off isn't an excuse.
B) Depends on your definition of 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 have to totally disagree here.  If you're making *really* big bucks,
sure you can have enough put away to survive for quite a long time, or
invest it and live off the investments, or whatever.  But opposites
aren't the only thing that exist - you say this like big bucks and low
income are the only two extremes that exist.  Which just isn't true.
At a medium-end job, one can probably survive for a period of time...
but first it's not fun using up your savings while searching for
another job.  And second, you can still only make it for so long.
I've only been employed part-time for a year and a half.  Sure, the
part-time income helps "hold off" running out of money, but that's
still a long time to go.  Even someone at a middle-class income can
only survive for so long.  (And even worse if you happen to run into
some major expenses or your kids happen to be in college at the time,
or whatever.)

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

Or more appropriately, look for another job and then quit.  Assuming
you have time to look for it.  Being able to job-search online
certainly helps in this respect.  However, I've noticed that in my
case searching online is about useless, except that I can get to the
ads from the local paper online, like late Sunday evening if I wish,
and then apply for most online or by sending an emailed resume.  Still
gotta get to the interview during working hours though.  And what if
you fear your current employer knowing you're looking for another job
- this can be difficult.  Although I've found that prospective
employers seem to be very understanding of these types of things and
will sometimes do after-hours interviews, etc.  

Yes, I know I sound like I'm disagreeing with myself a lot. :-)  I'm
just seeing both sides here is all.

---
erimess

My therapist told me a way to achieve 
inner peace was to finish things I had 
started. Today I finished 2 bags of potato 
chips, a lemon pie, a fifth of Jack Daniel's 
and a small box of chocolate candy. 
I feel better already.