🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 14:30:51 GMT, "Bill" <mrspamnobillo@nospam.bom>
wrote:

>Just more reasons not to by Anything from EA
>
>http://www.livejournal.com/users/ea_spouse/
>
>http://www.igda.org/qol/open_letter.php 

I would love to start boycotting EA because of their poor treatment of
staff, but I am already boycotting them for making so many crap games
they are actually damaging the industry and our art.

Umm..if you don't like your job - LEAVE. Simple as that.


Bill wrote:
> Just more reasons not to by Anything from EA
> 
> http://www.livejournal.com/users/ea_spouse/
> 
> http://www.igda.org/qol/open_letter.php 
> 
> 

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 15:45:53 GMT, Destroy <a...@meplease.com> wrote:

>Umm..if you don't like your job - LEAVE. Simple as that.

Not when you have a family to feed and bills to pay. It's easy to get
trapped in a job.

"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!

"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

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
>
>
>

"Bill" <mrspamnobillo@nospam.bom> wrote in message
news:vE1od.297559$%k.36542@pd7tw2no...
> Just more reasons not to by Anything from EA
>
> http://www.livejournal.com/users/ea_spouse/
>
> http://www.igda.org/qol/open_letter.php

I'm sorry that they are treating you so badly, but since this is the USA
your partner is  free to quit and find another job that is more to your
liking. I don't buy EA products since the generally put out crap (and now I
see why if all their projects are run like the one your partner is working
on).

Try boycotting their payroll dept by quitting and see how much you would
rather your partner work to death instead of both of you starving.
>
>

Destroy wrote:
> Umm..if you don't like your job - LEAVE. Simple as that.
> 
> 
Not that easy... I on that road after being sort of in such a labor trap 
(things like that can happen outside the US as well)
then being 4 months unemployed is not fun, gladly I did not have wife 
and kids, it is easier to leave if you are in my situation, but it is 
hard if the life of others depend on you.

I thought I was trapped into a job, too, but it really is that 
simple.....get another one! Now I manage a company, my hours are short, and 
my pay is decent, around 80k. If your BH doesn't have time to look, you must 
have the time to help, as you have time to gripe about it here.
PS If your OH helped write AA, pass this on...IT SUCKS!!!!!!!!
Very poor single person gameplay! 

koorb <ko...@raidrs.co.uk> skrev i meddelelsen 
news:luc1q0pq89k487...@4ax.com:

> I would love to start boycotting EA because of their poor treatment of
> staff, but I am already boycotting them for making so many crap games
> they are actually damaging the industry and our art.

Subscribe!

-- 
Arcana Dragon -==(UDIC)==-
d++e++N++T+++Om-KAWML!34567'!S'!8!9!u+uC+uF+++uG-u
LB®----uAnC+nH++nP+nI----nPT-nS+++nT----o---oE---xz
http://www.phyton.dk/games.htm

It's not about leaving and finding another job, it's about slavery having
been abolished in the US.  Obviously business regrets that decision and the
government agrees with them, hence the offshoring of so many American jobs.





"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.
>
>
> Bill wrote:
> > Just more reasons not to by Anything from EA
> >
> > http://www.livejournal.com/users/ea_spouse/
> >
> > http://www.igda.org/qol/open_letter.php
> >
> >
>

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.

<erimess> wrote in message
news:4jf2q05r6jdjevi4h4m5grvrimqsqq1fb4@4ax.com...
> 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.)

I hail from comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (I've read a couple of other groups
this thread is going to... but not in a loooooooong time)

As for my post...

First off, what started this whole thread was that we had somebody come in
and say "I read this article about the horror of working for EA!!!  We
should boycott their product based on this one article!"

Now, I'm not saying what was in the article is either true or false...
nobody will really know for sure, since not only is the article posted
anonymously (which takes away some of its credibility) but its also posted
by somebody other than the complaintant (posted by the wife or husband of an
EA employee, which takes away even more of its credibility)

I hearken this to something like when a couple gets divorced...  in most
cases the friends of the wife side with her and hate and despise the
husband... and the friends of the husband side with him and hate and despise
the wife.  This happens almost every time and its because the friends
involved only hear one side of the story, which casts their friend (either
the husband or wife) in the best possible light and with as much
embellishment of the truth as he/she wants to paint the other as the bad
guy/gal.

That might sound like a stretch, but realistically thats what the OP to this
thread was doing... coming in here and saying "Here is a story about life at
Electronic Arts of which you will hear only a limited and brief recap of
events from only one side of story of one person... because of this we
should hate EA!"

And thats where the whole "2 women I worked with at the Government of
British Columbia" tale I recounted came from...  the point there was that
with the proper spin doctoring you could make that job look like "a dream
job come true" or "a real horror show where any and all should pity the poor
employees who work there"

But either way, this is one person's story... even if its the absolute truth
its abit of a stretch to ask people to boycott a company because of it.

And then if you actually read the full article... it has these magic words:
"EA salaried employees"

Which comes from:
"for the honor of this treatment EA salaried employees receive a) no
overtime; b) no compensation time! ('comp' time is the equalization of time
off for overtime -- any hours spent during a crunch accrue into days off
after the product has shipped); c) no additional sick or vacation leave."

IMPORTANT: This is not just an EA policy...  this is pretty much the norm
for salaried employees throughout the US (Doesn't the US Dept of Labor
actually have a list of regulations about what salaried employees are and
are not entitled to?)

This is one of the most clear cut cases of "If you don't like the job,
QUIT!".    In the interview he/she was told it was going to be long hours,
especially at crunch time...  they know its a salaried position, so they
should have known what benefits they were and were not entitled to...  If
short hours and OT and Comp Time were so important to them, they shouldn't
have even taken the job in the first place

But thats just my 2 cents...

Clint

All this time, and noone's pointed out that you misspelled "customer's".
Tch.


-- 
Hong Ooi                              | "COUNTERSRTIKE IS AN REAL-TIME
ho...@zipworld.com.au                  |  STRATEGY GAME!!!"
http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/ |    -- RR
Sydney, Australia                     |

I'd like to point out that you mispelled "no-one".




"Hong Ooi" <ho...@zipworld.com.au> wrote in message
news:u7i3q0l9qgi9ef0kck782jn8rsj2b9j156@4ax.com...
> All this time, and noone's pointed out that you misspelled "customer's".
> Tch.
>
>
> -- 
> Hong Ooi                              | "COUNTERSRTIKE IS AN REAL-TIME
> ho...@zipworld.com.au                  |  STRATEGY GAME!!!"
> http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/ |    -- RR
> Sydney, Australia                     |

"Augustus" <Imperia...@Rome.com> wrote:

> 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"... 

90 grand a year for *that* kind of job???

~T.

"Thomas Adams" <thomas....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95A9DBD7C1511thomasoadamsgmailcom@127.0.0.1...
> "Augustus" <Imperia...@Rome.com> wrote:
>
> > 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"...
>
> 90 grand a year for *that* kind of job???

If you looked at the overall job description, it would probably be something
like:
- Monitor CPIC, banking, attorney general and insurance computer
systems/networks
- Provide second tier helpdesk support
- Empty and refill line printers
- Backup web servers
- Reboot fax servers
- Backup Sun servers
- Backup mainframe computers
- Load 9 track tapes into tape drives per system requests
- Correct JCL on failed batch jobs

Most of the time I wound up just working in the tape room... on a standard
shift I'd spend most of the time in the tape room (a small room with 90,000
tapes and 10 tape drives) and the machine would tell me what tapes they
wanted me to load.  Monday mornings saw a flurry of tape activity as we
would send 20,000 tapes to Chicago for archiving (So the printer would spit
out a list of 20,000 tapes in a specific order and I would have to go find
those tapes and then box them up in order)

The job paid well because the skill set you needed to work there was very
specialised... you needed to know the basics of mainframe operations, JCL
coding, MVS and JES2 (operating system languages), OS/400, OS/390, OS2,
Unix, working with databases like DB2, Oracle and MS SQL, etc.

So yeah, most of the time was spent staring at 24 computer screens and
watching for problems... or answering the phone and hearing about
problems... or walking around with a checklist and performing server
backups... or sitting in the tape room and loading tapes... or walking
around and checking the air conditioners were running... but when things
happened you had to be "on the ball" and able to fix any problems with the
system.

Zaghadka <zagh...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:qkb3q09dg8lt61...@4ax.com: 

> If it's so easy, you quit your job. Shouldn't affect you at all, right?
> Did it ever occur to you that quitting (no unemployment benefits, BTW)
> is just as bad a choice as staying?
I would think that having to work 80 hour work week would qualify as 
quitting with a cause and being entitled to unemployment benefits. Isn't it 
so in US?

In any case he could find another job first. Careful reading of the 
referred article produces "... the salary was right and the benefits were 
good...", which I suppose is the culprit. Very often that kind of companies 
[that make employees work long hours] will offer better benefits and higher 
salary than the company where people work usual hours. This makes it hard 
to find "better" job [as in being paid more] and to change the job one 
would have to take 10-20% pay cut. Though, considering 40 vs 80 hour work 
week, it's not pay cut at all. However, it's still psychologically hard to 
take pay cut and that's probably what those companies are counting on.

Alex.

"Bill" <mrspamnobillo@nospam.bom> wrote:

>Just more reasons not to by Anything from EA

NY Times is chiming in on this too. Turing into a PR disaster for EA,
and deservedly so:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/21/business/yourmoney/21digi.html?ex=1258693200&en=40a60cc6d7971ab2&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland

Joe

"Augustus" <Imperia...@Rome.com> wrote:

>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.

What a load of HORSESHIT. Schedule slippages are always management's
fault. In every case. By definition. It is management's JOB to manage
schedules, people, and sort out dependencies before they cause
problems. If it's not happening, you are not doing YOUR job. Don't
blame some worker because your project managers are lazy or
incompetent. 

>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.

They don't get time off for overtime worked.

Joe

Destroy <a...@meplease.com> wrote in news:RK2od.50957$ye4.42996@twister.rdc-
kc.rr.com:

> Umm..if you don't like your job - LEAVE. Simple as that.

The *real* world is not always that simple.  Where I live jobs are in short 
supply and someone I know very well who hates their job has been looking 
for months to get out and only get crap offers to do customer service/tech 
support (now there is a hell job) for substantially lower that their 
current income (which is an insult).  Her situation does not allow her to 
just up and go as there are obligations and responsibilities to consider 
first.

Looking at your response Destroy I find myself doubting that you have 
gotten too far through college much less had any real experience in the 
outside world.  Good luck when you finally get there.  As Dr. Zaius said to 
Taylor "You might not like what you find.".

Skeksis

"john graesser" <grae...@tca.net> wrote in
news:10q22...@corp.supernews.com: 

> I'm sorry that they are treating you so badly, but since this is the
> USA your partner is  free to quit and find another job that is more to
> your liking. I don't buy EA products since the generally put out crap
> (and now I see why if all their projects are run like the one your
> partner is working on).
> 
> Try boycotting their payroll dept by quitting and see how much you
> would rather your partner work to death instead of both of you
> starving. 

Well I think that this post puts you pretty high on the list of 'cold 
insensative bastards with no clue'.  I can relate to the author of the 
weblog knowing too many people trapped in lousy jobs abused by their 
employers in the name of the Almighty Green Jesus (tm) and how have been 
trying to get out but have been unsuccessful and it is not because they 
are not qualified and skilled people.  Hell, I have even been there 
myself.

The job market absolutely sucks in the North East unless you are willing 
to do C/S work and even that is horrendously underpaid compared to the 
daily shit sandwich you have to eat.  The issue here is quality of life 
something that too many companies actively wish to deny their employees.  
Saying just quit and starve shows that you have no comprehension that the 
real world is anything different than the broadcast sludge you obviously 
spend too much time watching.

Maybe some day you will either grow up or develop some empathy towards 
others, maybe once you stop letting the masturbate-media spoonfeed you 
your thoughts and opinions, but I am not going to waste anytime worrying 
about you.  You will be forgotten as soon as the mesage thread dies out, 
you won't even rate a tee shirt, but don't worry, there are lot of other 
ignorant selfish pricks to take your place.

Skeksis

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 12:18:21 -0500, "Grackle" <nos...@lalaland.com>
wrote:

>"Bill" <mrspamnobillo@nospam.bom> wrote in message 
>news:vE1od.297559$%k.36542@pd7tw2no...
>> Just more reasons not to by Anything from EA
>>
>> http://www.livejournal.com/users/ea_spouse/
>>
>> http://www.igda.org/qol/open_letter.php
>
>I've seen employers screw many people over countless times where I work, 
>with little recourse.  The law is a joke except in extreme circumstances, 
>usually regarding some form of discrimination.  Other than that, it's full 
>of loopholes, and employers can do whatever they want, regardless of the 
>impact it has on its employees.  At least that's the case in white collar 
>world.  As an example, you can fire someone who's perfectly competant (but 
>you don't like him/her for whatever reason), claim the position has been 
>abolished, hire someone new for the old position, but give the old position 
>a new name.  Sure that's 'illegal', but you have to prove it actually 
>occured, and there's the rub -- you can't. 
>


I always thought US labour law to be quite robust and equitable.
Referring to my other post demonstrates this belief.  Down here, South
Africa, our labour law is very much centered around worker rights and
many beleive too much so.

Lynley

> IMPORTANT: This is not just an EA policy...  this is pretty much the norm
> for salaried employees throughout the US (Doesn't the US Dept of Labor
> actually have a list of regulations about what salaried employees are and
> are not entitled to?)

Note that I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but this comment
strikes me as a clear case of using the letter of the law to defeat
the spirit of the law.  Yes, salaried employees don't get overtime or
even legal comp time, but this does *not* mean that workers that agree
to be salaried are giving up their personal rights.  While what EA is
doing in this case is not illegal, it's clearly unethical and should
not be rewarded.

> In the interview he/she was told it was going to be long hours,
> especially at crunch time...

...and in the accompanying log entry from "EA Spouse" it was made
clear that during the interview EA *sidestepped* direct questions
about overtime and crunch time.  The employee, being a veteran of the
industry, was well aware of the requirements of crunch time prior to
roll-out, but when they asked for more detailed information those
points were avoided.  In his/her own words:

"I remember that they asked him in one of the interviews: "how do you
feel about working long hours?" It's just a part of the game industry
-- few studios can avoid a crunch as deadlines loom, so we thought
nothing of it. When asked for specifics about what "working long
hours" meant, the interviewers coughed and glossed on to the next
question; now we know why."

-- http://www.livejournal.com/users/ea_spouse/

So, though the employee in this case was informed of long hours and
crunch time, when they took the responsible approach of asking for
more information they were met with complete obsfucation.

> If short hours and OT and Comp Time were so important to them, they shouldn't
> have even taken the job in the first place

Note provided quote above.  This worker was well aware of what the
industry required, and was a veteran.  His/her expectations were
almost certainly realistic going into the front door.  It's EA's
actions following the hiring process that has led to this issue. EA
misled this worker during the hiring process.  Period.  IMHO this is
clearly an actionable offense, and I wish the employee luck.

And, of course, this just my two cents.

Tony Bruno

"'My Country Right or Wrong' is like saying 'My Mother, Drunk or
Sober'."
--Chesterton

"Bill" <mrspamnobillo@nospam.bom> wrote in message
news:vE1od.297559$%k.36542@pd7tw2no...
> Just more reasons not to by Anything from EA
>
> http://www.livejournal.com/users/ea_spouse/
>
> http://www.igda.org/qol/open_letter.php
>
>

Back in '85, I worked on DoD contracts.  My job was pretty laid back, and I
could come and go so long as my work got done on time.   I had a friend that
did similiar work for another company.     But my friend's company changed.
His company redid the bid on their DoD contract with the military to provide
more hrs of work for the same amount of $.   What this meant was that the
company asked their employees to "voluntarily" work 1hr a day extra but with
no pay.  So you put in 9hrs a day but only get paid for 8hrs.

But you guessed it.   If you didn't work the extra hr a day, the management
would harass you about it.

< cut >

> "'My Country Right or Wrong' is like saying 'My Mother, Drunk or
> Sober'."
> --Chesterton

That's quite good, Toni. My compliments.

Alfredo

"Zaghadka" <zagh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:qkb3q09dg8lt61d80hfku3891e01ivb6i7@4ax.com...
> john graesser bolted into comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, wreathed in wicked,
white
> hot flames, and screamed...
>
> >
> >"Bill" <mrspamnobillo@nospam.bom> wrote in message
> >news:vE1od.297559$%k.36542@pd7tw2no...
> >> Just more reasons not to by Anything from EA
> >>
> >> http://www.livejournal.com/users/ea_spouse/
> >>
> >> http://www.igda.org/qol/open_letter.php
> >
> >I'm sorry that they are treating you so badly, but since this is the USA
> >your partner is  free to quit and find another job that is more to your
> >liking.
>
> If it's so easy, you quit your job. Shouldn't affect you at all, right?
Did it
> ever occur to you that quitting (no unemployment benefits, BTW) is just as
bad
> a choice as staying? Ever hear the term "wage slave"? This man is not
"free."
> That goes double because he has a family.
>
> >I don't buy EA products since the generally put out crap (and now I
> >see why if all their projects are run like the one your partner is
working
> >on).
> >
> >Try boycotting their payroll dept by quitting and see how much you would
> >rather your partner work to death instead of both of you starving.
>
> That is truly despicable. Indeed worthy of Ebenezer Scrooge. Where do you
get
> off mocking anyone with a choice between watching her husband get slowly
worked
> to death or watching the both of them and her family starve to death. Do
you
> believe in GOD?

I took the path of less money, took a job paying 1/3 of what I had
previously because the first job was killing me. Now I am healthy and wise,
just not wealthy.

You would be surprised how much you can live without if you just cut the
strings and let it go.

I stand by my previous post, they can either live the life they chose
willingly, or they can just walk away.

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 20:59:33 -0600, "john graesser" <grae...@tca.net>
wrote:


>I stand by my previous post, they can either live the life they chose
>willingly, or they can just walk away.
>
Yea, and go live in a cardboard box in some dark alley.

"Bill" <mrspamnobillo@nospam.bom> wrote:
>Just more reasons not to by Anything from EA
>
>http://www.livejournal.com/users/ea_spouse/
>
>http://www.igda.org/qol/open_letter.php 

OH NO
THE WHITE MAN HAS TO MOVE HIS FAT LITTLE FINGERS 12 HOURS A DAY
SOMEBODY PLEASE HELP THE WHITE MAN!!!!

I can't believe they are complaining that they can't get a job somewhere
else because EA and all the "bad guys" are buying up the little
companies. It's their fault EA et al are buying up the little companies
because they are putting so much effort into making EA a success.
Computer geeks are so easy to push around. They have no life skills at
all.

"Trout" <fish@no.email> wrote in message
news:d9f8q0ldeq4qa9k82fe5ehp3tcthmtrjpk@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 20:59:33 -0600, "john graesser" <grae...@tca.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> >I stand by my previous post, they can either live the life they chose
> >willingly, or they can just walk away.
> >
> Yea, and go live in a cardboard box in some dark alley.

Yeah, you told him!

The fool, he doesn't realise like you do that the only company on the planet
hiring right now is Electronic Arts and that the poster had a choice:
continue to work for EA or become a street person

Don't you hate those ignorant people who post without thinking like that?
Sheesh, other companies are hiring?  What was he thinking?  What magical
dream world does he live in?

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 08:35:43 -0800, "Augustus"
<Imperia...@Rome.com> wrote:


>Yeah, you told him!
>
>The fool, he doesn't realise like you do that the only company on the planet
>hiring right now is Electronic Arts and that the poster had a choice:
>continue to work for EA or become a street person
>
>Don't you hate those ignorant people who post without thinking like that?
>Sheesh, other companies are hiring?  What was he thinking?  What magical
>dream world does he live in?
>
Read his post again. He never mentioned getting another job, he said,
"just walk away".

Joe62 <NOSPAM...@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:<krl5q0prljb2d5onn...@4ax.com>...
> "Augustus" <Imperia...@Rome.com> wrote:
> 
> >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.
> 
> What a load of HORSESHIT. Schedule slippages are always management's
> fault. In every case. By definition. It is management's JOB to manage
> schedules, people, and sort out dependencies before they cause
> problems. If it's not happening, you are not doing YOUR job. Don't
> blame some worker because your project managers are lazy or
> incompetent. 
> 
Just curious as to the reasoning behind this. The project manager
assigned a chap 1 week to finish certain work, which he failed to
complete. The project manager then has no choice but to reassign some
of the work to others on the team, so now everyone has to work for
some extra hours to catch up. And it becomes the project manager's
fault? Or should the person who fails to finish the assigned tasks on
schedule should be fired?

I would really like to know about everyone's opinions on this.   :-)

"inferno2000" <infer...@my-deja.com> wrote in message 
news:a9390719.0411241738.28f509b8@posting.google.com...
> Joe62 <NOSPAM...@shaw.ca> wrote in message 
> news:<krl5q0prljb2d5onn...@4ax.com>...

>> What a load of HORSESHIT. Schedule slippages are always management's
>> fault. In every case. By definition. It is management's JOB to manage
>> schedules, people, and sort out dependencies before they cause
>> problems. If it's not happening, you are not doing YOUR job. Don't
>> blame some worker because your project managers are lazy or
>> incompetent.
>>
> Just curious as to the reasoning behind this. The project manager
> assigned a chap 1 week to finish certain work, which he failed to
> complete. The project manager then has no choice but to reassign some
> of the work to others on the team, so now everyone has to work for
> some extra hours to catch up. And it becomes the project manager's
> fault? Or should the person who fails to finish the assigned tasks on
> schedule should be fired?

Depends on who decided 1 week was enough.  Did the manager ask the 
programmer for his opinion if 1 week was enough?  Did the programmer 
disagree but the manager said "do it anyways"?  Did the programmer agree and 
said "no problem; I'll have it done", but then failed? 

On 24 Nov 2004 17:38:13 -0800, infer...@my-deja.com (inferno2000)
wrote:

>Just curious as to the reasoning behind this. The project manager
>assigned a chap 1 week to finish certain work, which he failed to
>complete. The project manager then has no choice but to reassign some
>of the work to others on the team, so now everyone has to work for
>some extra hours to catch up. And it becomes the project manager's
>fault? 

Yup. That's a faulty schedule. Such tight dependencies need to be
identified and planned for in advance. Not saying that's easy ... but
if you lack this ability or a method of doing this, you cannot be a
good software project manager, period.

Secondly, you need to look at WHY the task was late. Rarely is the
cause a "lazy employee" (and if so why is he still working for you?).
Usually it's bad time estimates. It's also the project manager's job
to get accurate time estimates ... and to build in slack in the
schedule for typical known causes of slippage ...  illness of
employees, inexperience of a particular person doing the task or
estimating time for it, novelty of the task (e.g., is it something
your company has never done before)? So not only do you get realistic
estimates, you have actual formulas for expanding the time based on
how inaccurate you know the estimate itself to be.

Oh yeah, to get back on topic re EA and overtime ... a typical cause
of bad time estimates is that employers *rarely* track how long it
actually takes to do something. So someone codes something in two
weeks during a crunch, and it's never logged that the programmer
actually worked 140 hours in those two weeks. So the same mistake is
repeated on the next project, a similar task is scheduled for two
weeks.

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 02:58:53 -0600, Zaghadka <zagh...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Thus, the slippages are not "always" management's fault, but it is, IMHO, a
>more intelligent strategy to see it that way. 

Well said Zag, good post and worded more diplomatically than I
managed. ;-)

As you note solutions can only come from the top down, byf holding
management and project managers responsible for the kind of situation
EA as degraded into. Of course that's easier said than done. Even if
the EA CEO decided today that he wanted to work more intelligently, it
wouldn't be easy to turn a ship that big around. Because essentially
it would mean to change 180 degrees the philosophy of every manager in
the company  ... something we all know is nearly impossible for even
one manager. These managers were hired and promoted precisely because
of their incompetent galley-slave-driver philosophy.

The other direction that change may come from is shareholder revolt.
As this brilliant article puts it, "It's not just Abusive. It's
Stupid.":
http://enginesofmischief.com/blogs/ramblings/archives/2004/11/11/643#more-643

In message <a9390719.04112...@posting.google.com>, 
inferno2000 <infer...@my-deja.com> writes
>Joe62 <NOSPAM...@shaw.ca> wrote in message 
>news:<krl5q0prljb2d5onn...@4ax.com>...
>> "Augustus" <Imperia...@Rome.com> wrote:
>>
>> >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.
>>
>> What a load of HORSESHIT. Schedule slippages are always management's
>> fault. In every case. By definition. It is management's JOB to manage
>> schedules, people, and sort out dependencies before they cause
>> problems. If it's not happening, you are not doing YOUR job. Don't
>> blame some worker because your project managers are lazy or
>> incompetent.
>>
>Just curious as to the reasoning behind this. The project manager
>assigned a chap 1 week to finish certain work, which he failed to
>complete. The project manager then has no choice but to reassign some
>of the work to others on the team, so now everyone has to work for
>some extra hours to catch up. And it becomes the project manager's
>fault? Or should the person who fails to finish the assigned tasks on
>schedule should be fired?
>
>I would really like to know about everyone's opinions on this.   :-)
Very clear, it is the PM's fault. It is his job to identify a piece of 
work which will take a week (or whatever), assign it to someone who is 
capable of completing the work in the time, and then monitor progress to 
ensure it happens. If the employee had been with the company some time, 
the PM should have known their capabilities, or found out. If the 
employee was a new hire, then the PM should not have assigned them to a 
critical task, and/or should have monitored progress closely enough to 
take corrective action in time. If it turns out that the employee is 
incompetent then they may eventually be sacked because they are not up 
to the job, of course, but the blame for the late delivery of the 
project lies squarely with the PM. It is a constant refrain from weak 
PMs whose jobs are late - "It's all Jim's fault, he did a bad job". It 
is the PM's responsibility to ensure that Jim does the job right, or 
give it to someone who can.
-- 
John Secker

Zaghadka <zagh...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:5b4bq0dtv390o0...@4ax.com: 

> Nonymous bolted into comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, wreathed in wicked,
> white hot flames, and screamed... 
> 
>>
>>"inferno2000" <infer...@my-deja.com> wrote in message 
>>news:a9390719.0411241738.28f509b8@posting.google.com...
>>> Joe62 <NOSPAM...@shaw.ca> wrote in message 
>>> news:<krl5q0prljb2d5onn...@4ax.com>...
>>
>>>> What a load of HORSESHIT. Schedule slippages are always management's
>>>> fault. In every case. By definition. It is management's JOB to
>>>> manage schedules, people, and sort out dependencies before they
>>>> cause problems. If it's not happening, you are not doing YOUR job.
>>>> Don't blame some worker because your project managers are lazy or
>>>> incompetent. 
>>>>
>>> Just curious as to the reasoning behind this. The project manager
>>> assigned a chap 1 week to finish certain work, which he failed to
>>> complete. The project manager then has no choice but to reassign some
>>> of the work to others on the team, so now everyone has to work for
>>> some extra hours to catch up. And it becomes the project manager's
>>> fault? Or should the person who fails to finish the assigned tasks on
>>> schedule should be fired? 
>>
>>Depends on who decided 1 week was enough.  Did the manager ask the 
>>programmer for his opinion if 1 week was enough?  Did the programmer 
>>disagree but the manager said "do it anyways"?  Did the programmer
>>agree and said "no problem; I'll have it done", but then failed? 
>>
> For one work slippage, no. No firing.
> 
> For consistent failure to miss deadlines in the way you describe. Yes.
> Of course the employee should be fired. That's a given.
And how will it help you to get the job done? The problem in the industry 
is that it is very difficult to find competent programmers. While reading 
Usenet it may not seem that way, but when you need one, somehow all those 
good programmers seem to be happily employed somewhere else. And those who 
apply for the position usually have a good reason to be looking for a job. 
Something like function that reverses the string often appears to be 
unsurmountable challenge (it may look like a joke, but it is not). I think 
(but it's more of a guess) that this problem comes from the dot-com times, 
when the companies were hiring just about everybody. 

Alex.

Dito


"Alfredo Tutino" <powe...@libero.it> wrote in message
news:HdNod.47473$Ni.1648782@twister1.libero.it...
> < cut >
>
> > "'My Country Right or Wrong' is like saying 'My Mother, Drunk or
> > Sober'."
> > --Chesterton
>
> That's quite good, Toni. My compliments.
>
> Alfredo
>
>
>
>

In article <7Qvpd.11367$Ae.5236@newsread1.
dllstx09.us.to.verio.net>, "DoubleEntendre" <potat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Dito
>
>
>"Alfredo Tutino" <powe...@libero.it> wrote in message
>news:HdNod.47473$Ni.1648782@twister1.libero.it...
>> < cut >
>>
>> > "'My Country Right or Wrong' is like saying 'My Mother, Drunk or
>> > Sober'."
>> > --Chesterton

HUH ? I don't know about you, but I'd support my mom [ God rest
her soul ] drunk or sober.

Jim

Zaghadka <zagh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Bateau bolted into comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, wreathed in wicked, white hot
>flames, and screamed... 
>
>>"Bill" <mrspamnobillo@nospam.bom> wrote:
>>>Just more reasons not to by Anything from EA
>>>
>>>http://www.livejournal.com/users/ea_spouse/
>>>
>>>http://www.igda.org/qol/open_letter.php 
>>
>>OH NO
>>THE WHITE MAN HAS TO MOVE HIS FAT LITTLE FINGERS 12 HOURS A DAY
>>SOMEBODY PLEASE HELP THE WHITE MAN!!!!
>>
>>I can't believe they are complaining that they can't get a job somewhere
>>else because EA and all the "bad guys" are buying up the little
>>companies. It's their fault EA et al are buying up the little companies
>>because they are putting so much effort into making EA a success.
>>Computer geeks are so easy to push around. They have no life skills at
>>all.
>
>Do you realize what an insensitive, ignorant prick you are? Please do us all a
>favor and stop abusing your keyboard priveleges.

I don't see you refuting me. Truth hurts bitch.

>Oh, and the "white man" shit is completely racist, despite what Al Sharpton may
>tell us.

I bet you're one of those self hating whites.

Destroy <a...@meplease.com> wrote in message news:<RK2od.50957$ye4....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
> Umm..if you don't like your job - LEAVE. Simple as that.
> 
> 
> Bill wrote:
> > Just more reasons not to by Anything from EA
> > 
> > http://www.livejournal.com/users/ea_spouse/
> > 
> > http://www.igda.org/qol/open_letter.php 

Yeah, everyone should leave.  It is called a strike!

- Richard Hutnik

You misspelled three words in your title. It should be:

EA treats its employees worst than its customers


Is your apostrophe key randomly activated or something?

Sincerely,
Mr. 720 GRE verbal




"Bill" <mrspamnobillo@nospam.bom> wrote in message news:<vE1od.297559$%k.36542@pd7tw2no>...
> Just more reasons not to by Anything from EA
> 
> http://www.livejournal.com/users/ea_spouse/
> 
> http://www.igda.org/qol/open_letter.php

< cut >

> >> > "'My Country Right or Wrong' is like saying 'My Mother, Drunk or
> >> > Sober'."
> >> > --Chesterton
>
> HUH ? I don't know about you, but I'd support my mom [ God rest
> her soul ] drunk or sober.
>
> Jim

Me too, even if she's still alive ;-).

I've never seen her more than the weest bit tipsy, however...

But I find that this is both obvious and not very meaningful. If somebody I
love makes a very bad mistake - for instance because she's drunk - I'd do
everything I can to protect her from any harm, as a matter of course; but I
would not say that what she did is right or that the persons she may have
harmed are wrong or do not deserve some sort of compensation. And even less
I'd contribute to harm them further.

And the best way to protect and help a person who is drunk is (generally) to
take (temporarily) away her right to decide for
herself. Thus: to protect her is ok. To let her lead is wrong.

Mutatis mutandis, it might be interesting to apply some of this back to the
case of "my
country"...

Alfredo

Richard Hutnik <richar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
37bc9e37.0411260534.33e5802@posting.google.com...
> Destroy <a...@meplease.com> wrote in message
news:<RK2od.50957$ye4....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
> > Umm..if you don't like your job - LEAVE. Simple as that.
> >
> >
> > Bill wrote:
> > > Just more reasons not to by Anything from EA
> > >
> > > http://www.livejournal.com/users/ea_spouse/
> > >
> > > http://www.igda.org/qol/open_letter.php
>
> Yeah, everyone should leave.  It is called a strike!

Oh my, a four letter word! No, wait, let me count, it is a FIVE letter word!
ONE LETTER WORSE!!!
Too long too. You are one of those I-know-all types, aren't you?

Alfredo

In message <80678590.04112...@posting.google.com>, Digital 
Puer <digita...@hotmail.com> writes
>You misspelled three words in your title. It should be:
>
>EA treats its employees worst than its customers
>
>
>Is your apostrophe key randomly activated or something?
>
No, he's a greengrocer in real life (or does that only work in the UK?)
-- 
John Secker

"Alfredo Tutino" <powe...@libero.it> wrote in message news:<Er7qd.55343$Es2.1...@twister2.libero.it>...
> Richard Hutnik <richar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> 37bc9e37.0411260534.33e5802@posting.google.com...
> > Destroy <a...@meplease.com> wrote in message
>  news:<RK2od.50957$ye4....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
> > > Umm..if you don't like your job - LEAVE. Simple as that.
> > >
> > >
> > > Bill wrote:
> > > > Just more reasons not to by Anything from EA
> > > >
> > > > http://www.livejournal.com/users/ea_spouse/
> > > >
> > > > http://www.igda.org/qol/open_letter.php
> >
> > Yeah, everyone should leave.  It is called a strike!
> 
> Oh my, a four letter word! No, wait, let me count, it is a FIVE letter word!
> ONE LETTER WORSE!!!
> Too long too. You are one of those I-know-all types, aren't you?
> 
> Alfredo

Well, at least I know a few things (considering by undergrad degree
was in Management). This is better than the know nothings who yell
about the world and argue for the world to be worse for themselves, in
the name of "principles".

Yes, a "STRIKE".  It is something workers collectively do to get
better work conditions.  Do you SERIOUSLY think corporations will
magically try to make things better for workers, when their main
principle is to maximize profits?

- Richard Hutnik

Richard Hutnik <richar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
37bc9e37.0411280930.53d2bdea@posting.google.com...
> "Alfredo Tutino" <powe...@libero.it> wrote in message
news:<Er7qd.55343$Es2.1...@twister2.libero.it>...
> > Richard Hutnik <richar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > 37bc9e37.0411260534.33e5802@posting.google.com...
> > > Destroy <a...@meplease.com> wrote in message
> >  news:<RK2od.50957$ye4....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
> > > > Umm..if you don't like your job - LEAVE. Simple as that.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Bill wrote:
> > > > > Just more reasons not to by Anything from EA
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.livejournal.com/users/ea_spouse/
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.igda.org/qol/open_letter.php
> > >
> > > Yeah, everyone should leave.  It is called a strike!
> >
> > Oh my, a four letter word! No, wait, let me count, it is a FIVE letter
word!
> > ONE LETTER WORSE!!!
> > Too long too. You are one of those I-know-all types, aren't you?
> >
> > Alfredo
>
> Well, at least I know a few things (considering by undergrad degree
> was in Management). This is better than the know nothings who yell
> about the world and argue for the world to be worse for themselves, in
> the name of "principles".
>
> Yes, a "STRIKE".  It is something workers collectively do to get
> better work conditions.  Do you SERIOUSLY think corporations will
> magically try to make things better for workers, when their main
> principle is to maximize profits?
>
> - Richard Hutnik

Excuse me, Richard. I was trying to be funny (I even miscounted the number
of letters in "strike"!). But I didn't succeed.

I quite agree, in fact, with what you said about strikes and the need for
it, of course. I was trying (rather clumsily, it now turns out) to make just
the point that so many things that have been associated with communism
socialism and other forms of left-wing activity, but have in fact good
reasons to exist quite independently from it (as, for instance, strikes)
have come to be treated by some people (especially beyond the Atlantic) as
unspeakable horrors - even sometimes as some form of moral degeneracy - and
not as a normal part of the way any real democratic society manages the
differences among its components.

The matter of course would deserve much longer (and more serious)
discussion, and this is not the place for it.

For the sake of clarity, let me state at any rate, that: 1) I do think that
strikes are often a necessary tool for workers - and not only I've been on
strike myself, I've even been among the organizers of strikes; 2) I'm truly
sorry of having expressed my meaning so clumsily in my previous post.
Probably I should be wary of trying my hand at humor in a foreign language.

Alfredo

"Alfredo Tutino" <powe...@libero.it> wrote in message news:<2prqd.56550$Es2.1...@twister2.libero.it>...
> Richard Hutnik <richar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> 37bc9e37.0411280930.53d2bdea@posting.google.com...
> > "Alfredo Tutino" <powe...@libero.it> wrote in message
>  news:<Er7qd.55343$Es2.1...@twister2.libero.it>...
> > > Richard Hutnik <richar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > 37bc9e37.0411260534.33e5802@posting.google.com...
> > > > Destroy <a...@meplease.com> wrote in message
>  news:<RK2od.50957$ye4....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
> > > > > Umm..if you don't like your job - LEAVE. Simple as that.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Bill wrote:
> > > > > > Just more reasons not to by Anything from EA
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.livejournal.com/users/ea_spouse/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.igda.org/qol/open_letter.php
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, everyone should leave.  It is called a strike!
> > >
> > > Oh my, a four letter word! No, wait, let me count, it is a FIVE letter
>  word!
> > > ONE LETTER WORSE!!!
> > > Too long too. You are one of those I-know-all types, aren't you?
> > >
> > > Alfredo
> >
> > Well, at least I know a few things (considering by undergrad degree
> > was in Management). This is better than the know nothings who yell
> > about the world and argue for the world to be worse for themselves, in
> > the name of "principles".
> >
> > Yes, a "STRIKE".  It is something workers collectively do to get
> > better work conditions.  Do you SERIOUSLY think corporations will
> > magically try to make things better for workers, when their main
> > principle is to maximize profits?
> >
> > - Richard Hutnik
> 
> Excuse me, Richard. I was trying to be funny (I even miscounted the number
> of letters in "strike"!). But I didn't succeed.

Forgive me for replying like that.  I have been posting on
alt.politics.bush way too long, and I get responses like that.

> I quite agree, in fact, with what you said about strikes and the need for
> it, of course. I was trying (rather clumsily, it now turns out) to make just
> the point that so many things that have been associated with communism
> socialism and other forms of left-wing activity, but have in fact good
> reasons to exist quite independently from it (as, for instance, strikes)
> have come to be treated by some people (especially beyond the Atlantic) as
> unspeakable horrors - even sometimes as some form of moral degeneracy - and
> not as a normal part of the way any real democratic society manages the
> differences among its components.

This world has become warped now.  When I see Ralph Nader pleading his
case to be elected with readers of "American Conservative" magazine,
you tell me what is left-wing and right-wing any more.  It seems like
left-wing global-minded socialists are now doing the work of
multi-national corporations.

> The matter of course would deserve much longer (and more serious)
> discussion, and this is not the place for it.
> 
> For the sake of clarity, let me state at any rate, that: 1) I do think that
> strikes are often a necessary tool for workers - and not only I've been on
> strike myself, I've even been among the organizers of strikes; 2) I'm truly
> sorry of having expressed my meaning so clumsily in my previous post.
> Probably I should be wary of trying my hand at humor in a foreign language.

No worry.  Again, I thought MAYBE you were trying to joke, but wasn't
sure.

Maybe sticking a :-P emoticon at the end would of helped.

- Richard Hutnik

On 28 Nov 2004 09:30:59 -0800, richar...@hotmail.com (Richard
Hutnik) wrote:

>Yes, a "STRIKE".  It is something workers collectively do to get
>better work conditions.  Do you SERIOUSLY think corporations will
>magically try to make things better for workers, when their main
>principle is to maximize profits?

Of course, you could also go all out and do the 'General Strike' and
demand political reform and in some cases real social change, from it.
This depends on if there is high enough political conciousness amongst
workers. Something tells me that the bush/blair war has caused a
raising of political awareness amongst people which has not been seen
since the late 60's.

The best game I have seen this modelled is 'Victoria' by paradox;
don't give you workers what they need, or tax them too much, they gain
militancy and conciousness and if it gets to bad, hey, you just
converted to a Communist State. 

Zaghadka <zagh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Bateau bolted into comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, wreathed in wicked, white hot
>flames, and screamed... 
>
>>Zaghadka <zagh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>Bateau bolted into comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, wreathed in wicked, white hot
>>>flames, and screamed... 
>>>
>>>>"Bill" <mrspamnobillo@nospam.bom> wrote:
>>>>>Just more reasons not to by Anything from EA
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.livejournal.com/users/ea_spouse/
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.igda.org/qol/open_letter.php 
>>>>
>>>>OH NO
>>>>THE WHITE MAN HAS TO MOVE HIS FAT LITTLE FINGERS 12 HOURS A DAY
>>>>SOMEBODY PLEASE HELP THE WHITE MAN!!!!
>>>>
>>>>I can't believe they are complaining that they can't get a job somewhere
>>>>else because EA and all the "bad guys" are buying up the little
>>>>companies. It's their fault EA et al are buying up the little companies
>>>>because they are putting so much effort into making EA a success.
>>>>Computer geeks are so easy to push around. They have no life skills at
>>>>all.
>>>
>>>Do you realize what an insensitive, ignorant prick you are? Please do us all a
>>>favor and stop abusing your keyboard priveleges.
>>
>>I don't see you refuting me. Truth hurts bitch.
>>
>You don't have to refute an opinion that is idiotic, callous, racist,
>inflammatory and typed up without a second's thought.

Then why did you reply?

>You think I'm going to
>bother wasting my time with a thought out rebuttal of someone who uses the word
>"bitch" in his return arguments? You're an ignoramus. That's the only thing I
>need write.

Using the word "bitch" means what exactly? I'm glad you're not arguing
with me because someone so illogical could only frustrate me.

>In other words, my mentally challenged friend, this is and was a FLAME not a
>rebuttal.
>
>>>Oh, and the "white man" shit is completely racist, despite what Al Sharpton may
>>>tell us.
>>
>>I bet you're one of those self hating whites.
>
>That made absolutely no sense whatsoever. Please take your computer into the
>shower, plug it in, and turn the water on. Thank you.
>
>Bwhahahahahahaha!