Late last month I was in London, just in time to celebrate a new holiday: Work Your Proper Hours Day. Leave it to the Brits to have the perfect knack for expressing alarm at the insidious trend of creeping (unpaid) overtime.
As the organizers point out on their Web site, over 5 million people in the UK regularly labor more than their paid hours, giving their employers a fat 23 billion pounds of free work every year. To get a sense of the magnitude of the problem, figure that with the current (appalling) exchange rate, that's somewhere in the neighborhood of $46 billion bucks.
What struck me most about this idea, however, was a story in the NY Times upon my return about the uprising over unpaid overtime at a place closer to home -- the video game manufacturer Electronic Arts.
Game developers at the San Francisco company are in a fever about this issue, stoked by an online essay late last year by a gamer's wife, who complained that EA was forcing its employees to work Dickensian hours, particularly during the crunch time before a game's release. Without the bait of the dotcom era's lucrative options packages, critics say the company's perks -- fancy gyms, classy cafeterias -- seem inadequate compensation for protracted periods of 80-hour weeks.
Rusty Rueff, the company's HR director, responds that paying overtime violates Silicon Valley's entrepreneurial ethos, and risks turning gamers into a bunch of bureaucratic clock-watchers. The company's vice president, Jeff Brown, also made threatening noises about moving the work out of the Valley to a cheaper location -- Vancouver, Montreal....or (insert ominous sound-effects) China.
What do you think? Should these folks "work their proper hours" -- then start the overtime clock? Or be grateful they have cool -- if exhausting -- jobs and suck it up?
Related Stories: | Topics:Careers, Human Resources, London (England), Electronic Arts Inc., United Kingdom, The New York Times Company, San Francisco |
Email
Digg
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Buzz Up!
LinkedIn
Recent Comments | 10 Total
March 16, 2005 at 2:37pm by Steve Every
This issue is as much about competent management as about ethics. If a development project is budgeted to take 10 man years, then actually takes 12, who is responsible and who should bear the cost? By working unpaid overtime, developers (or any other workers) are subsidizing the company and covering the error in the schedule.
Doesn't this indicate overly optimistic project scheduling or staffing? If so, why thould the workers be forced to pay the price? Shouldn't management take some responsibility for the error? Of course, they may work more hours as well, but are the benefits of success the same?
Working unpaid overtime may be acceptable in an entrepreneurial environment, where everyone shares the risk and reward. How many companies truly have such an environment? The rewards of success should be more than continued employment. They should also include a share of the benefits of all that overtime, whether in the form of stock, bonuses or vacation. Alternatively, if long working hours are expected, raise salaries to provide reasonable compensation.
Essentially, there must be a cost to the company for coercing workers to extend their working day. There should also be some cost to the managers responsible. After all, they are the ones who determined the staffing requirements in the first place. They must face the consequences of their actions. If the staffing requirements were based on bad judgement or wishful thinking, this indicates management incompetence. If staffing is deliberately less than needed, it indicates unethical management.
March 16, 2005 at 3:41pm by Adam
Do you blog? There is currently a research survey out that seeks to know "why bloggers blog." The study is being performed by a graduate student at Appalachian State University in North Carolina. The survey takes less than 5 minutes to complete. Thanks for your time.
Click Here to take the survey
March 16, 2005 at 5:19pm by Lazlo Suli
I live in Montreal. EA did open an office in Montreal. I doubt it if any Blue Quebecois would accept in good revolutionary tradition to work for free. Just a few weeks ago WalMart decided to close a store in Quebec because employees got serious and syndicated. There is a limit between beeing nice and stupid. That is the time one decides to allow someone else to decide of their life. And the common denominator is most likely cash. Otherwise it would be called Slavery no matter the Silicon Valley or other tradition. Wasn't that abolished a while ago? Or now it reverted to self inflicted slavery stemming from the fear of threats. I thought smart people opened their own companies in US more than anywhere on the globe. So the real truth is not EA or long hours. I guess it's rather fear of Entrepreneurship. Get off your hinds and OpenSource a game for free if you are that smart that EA actually is willing to pay more to have you during regular hours in US. Because they've already hired the grunts in Montreal which do like to get payed and are backed by a rather ferocious government law of labour.
Either risk your work, become an Entrepreneur or improve your labor laws. No ?
March 16, 2005 at 5:43pm by Rod Armageddon
Really, if they move to Canada or China or Mars, so be it. Let the developers set up their own 8-hour day shop here in the Bay and compete as best they can. I do not believe in extended work hours by any means and agree that there should also be some cost to the managers responsible, in addition to paying for overtime. Quality of life directly affects performance on the job.
True, you'll get the occasional schlep without a social life who will milk their job into endless overtime so they can reap the extra cash, but I imagine that won't be the norm. Plus, if it's excessive, there's a clear sign to management that someone is indeed milking the clock.
Whether to put up with corporate scare tactics is your own problem to answer. These cats at EA are employed under their own free will, so move on if it's too much. I suggest more people stand up for what matters most to them in their careers. Sure, it can be tough when you have mouths to feed, but you should work to find the best spot for your soul or your quality of life with whither and your family will suffer. A lesson to all, work smarter, not longer, and if you're stuck in a team-based environment whereby your hours hinge on the backs of other individuals who don't work as efficiently, get the heck out and find your home. If you can't find one, then build your own.
EA, you squeeze a lot from your people, so don't be surprised when they finally burst and jump ship. You never know, EA may be training the very messiah and apostles whom will bring the mighty games kingdom to the ground. What EA has to realize is whether they want that to be sooner rather than later. Only they hold the key.
March 16, 2005 at 8:16pm by Victor Szalvay
Managers of IT/knowledge firms should read "Slack" by Tom DeMarco before considering any policy about work hours. To me, the question is not whether knowledge workers should be paid for overtime, but rather whether they should consistently be working over 40 hours.
http://danube.com/blog/1_victor_szalvay/archive/38_vics_picks_.html
March 17, 2005 at 12:21pm by Keith
Isn’t that part of the benefits of being salaried? You can depend on your budget able fixed weekly check with insurance etc. And the company benefits and is willing to offer the insurance etc. to ensure that it can work you at times with out the risk of overtime wages? Also, these jobs are taxing to a degree, pressure, hours etc. but stand those people in an assembly line on a concrete floor and let them hand put springs in widgets for 6-8$ per hour with the benefit of overtime and I can nearly guarantee that they will always pick the option to do what they are and work late.
March 17, 2005 at 1:05pm by Jeromey
I think Keith missed the part about these guys being forced to work 70-80 hrs *a week* for months on end, with little compensation (5-30% bonuses don't make up for 80%-100% overtime). The biggest issue (and one still not addressed) is EA's culture of wringing each employee dry before they breakdown and have to quit for health and sanity reasons.
Mr. Every had it right: as a project lead/manager, if my team is working on the weekend, it's not their fault. Either I missed something when spec'ing the project, or allowed unacceptable scope creep, or didn't allow appropriately sized contingency reserves, or maybe I allowed one incompetent team member to affect schedule. Whatever way you cut it, I'm responsible for taking those guys (and gals0 away from their families on a weekend, so I only do when it's absolutely required (which has only been twice in the last 5 years). At EA, their project managers *plan* their schedule with a crunch (60hr weeks) already factored in, with deathmarches (80+ hr weeks) a ready option. It's a shortsighted policy, no matter how you cut it, and if forcing overtime pay is the only way to get them to rethink how they plan and schedule software, then so be it. It's a shame it took legal bullying, and couldn't be resolved by simply acting rationally towards one's employee's in the first place.
March 17, 2005 at 1:32pm by Ryan Ray
It's clear that the quality of EA games has been effected by this. All of the quality workers have left and now even thier biggest titles have serious bugs in them. Madden had such a large bug in it this time around (it's main compatition halved the price of it's game...) that if not for an exclusive contract with the NFL EA would probably have lost it's grip on the entire sports game market due to lack of quality.
I think a freer market would save these employees quickly. If monopolies like EA's current one with the NFL (which is also a monopoly) then EA would have to have started paying the price for their treatment of employees. Until the market frees up in general (Console dev kits for everyone)EA will continue to dominate their competition and their employees.
March 17, 2005 at 1:33pm by Ryan Ray
oops, there was supposed to "were busted," after "...also a monopoly)"
March 17, 2005 at 4:33pm by dennis
If paying overtime violates Silicon Valley's entrepreneurial ethos,
Shouldnt Rusty and other HR directors also be very concerend about the even bigger ethos violation of workers not having a viable exit strategy or realistic option for benefitting from their hard work ?
Whats up with that ?