EA: The Human Story

[nobbie]

Clicky! --> http://www.livejournal.com/users/ea_spouse/

EA: The Human Story
[Nov. 10th, 2004|12:01 am]

My significant other works for Electronic Arts, and I'm what you might call a disgruntled spouse.

EA's bright and shiny new corporate trademark is "Challenge Everything." Where this applies is not exactly clear. Churning out one licensed football game after another doesn't sound like challenging much of anything to me; it sounds like a money farm. To any EA executive that happens to read this, I have a good challenge for you: how about safe and sane labor practices for the people on whose backs you walk for your millions?

I am retaining some anonymity here because I have no illusions about what the consequences would be for my family if I was explicit. However, I also feel no impetus to shy away from sharing our story, because I know that it is too common to stick out among those of the thousands of engineers, artists, and designers that EA employs.

Our adventures with Electronic Arts began less than a year ago. The small game studio that my partner worked for collapsed as a result of foul play on the part of a big publisher -- another common story. Electronic Arts offered a job, the salary was right and the benefits were good, so my SO took it. 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.

Within weeks production had accelerated into a 'mild' crunch: eight hours six days a week. Not bad. Months remained until any real crunch would start, and the team was told that this "pre-crunch" was to prevent a big crunch toward the end; at this point any other need for a crunch seemed unlikely, as the project was dead on schedule. I don't know how many of the developers bought EA's explanation for the extended hours; we were new and naive so we did. The producers even set a deadline; they gave a specific date for the end of the crunch, which was still months away from the title's shipping date, so it seemed safe. That date came and went. And went, and went. When the next news came it was not about a reprieve; it was another acceleration: twelve hours six days a week, 9am to 10pm.

Weeks passed. Again the producers had given a termination date on this crunch that again they failed. Throughout this period the project remained on schedule. The long hours started to take its toll on the team; people grew irritable and some started to get ill. People dropped out in droves for a couple of days at a time, but then the team seemed to reach equilibrium again and they plowed ahead. The managers stopped even talking about a day when the hours would go back to normal.

Now, it seems, is the "real" crunch, the one that the producers of this title so wisely prepared their team for by running them into the ground ahead of time. The current mandatory hours are 9am to 10pm -- seven days a week -- with the occasional Saturday evening off for good behavior (at 6:30pm). This averages out to an eighty-five hour work week. Complaints that these once more extended hours combined with the team's existing fatigue would result in a greater number of mistakes made and an even greater amount of wasted energy were ignored.

The stress is taking its toll. After a certain number of hours spent working the eyes start to lose focus; after a certain number of weeks with only one day off fatigue starts to accrue and accumulate exponentially. There is a reason why there are two days in a weekend -- bad things happen to one's physical, emotional, and mental health if these days are cut short. The team is rapidly beginning to introduce as many flaws as they are removing.

And the kicker: 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. The time just goes away. Additionally, EA recently announced that, although in the past they have offered essentially a type of comp time in the form of a few weeks off at the end of a project, they no longer wish to do this, and employees shouldn't expect it. Further, since the production of various games is scattered, there was a concern on the part of the employees that developers would leave one crunch only to join another. EA's response was that they would attempt to minimize this, but would make no guarantees. This is unthinkable; they are pushing the team to individual physical health limits, and literally giving them nothing for it. Comp time is a staple in this industry, but EA as a corporation wishes to "minimize" this reprieve. One would think that the proper way to minimize comp time is to avoid crunch, but this brutal crunch has been on for months, and nary a whisper about any compensation leave, nor indeed of any end of this treatment.

This crunch also differs from crunch time in a smaller studio in that it was not an emergency effort to save a project from failure. Every step of the way, the project remained on schedule. Crunching neither accelerated this nor slowed it down; its effect on the actual product was not measurable. The extended hours were deliberate and planned; the management knew what they were doing as they did it. The love of my life comes home late at night complaining of a headache that will not go away and a chronically upset stomach, and my happy supportive smile is running out.

No one works in the game industry unless they love what they do. No one on that team is interested in producing an inferior product. My heart bleeds for this team precisely BECAUSE they are brilliant, talented individuals out to create something great. They are and were more than willing to work hard for the success of the title. But that good will has only been met with abuse. Amazingly, Electronic Arts was listed #91 on Fortune magazine's "100 Best Companies to Work For" in 2003.

EA's attitude toward this -- which is actually a part of company policy, it now appears -- has been (in an anonymous quotation that I've heard repeated by multiple managers), "If they don't like it, they can work someplace else." Put up or shut up and leave: this is the core of EA's Human Resources policy. The concept of ethics or compassion or even intelligence with regard to getting the most out of one's workforce never enters the equation: if they don't want to sacrifice their lives and their health and their talent so that a multibillion dollar corporation can continue its Godzilla-stomp through the game industry, they can work someplace else.

But can they?

The EA Mambo, paired with other giants such as Vivendi, Sony, and Microsoft, is rapidly either crushing or absorbing the vast majority of the business in game development. A few standalone studios that made their fortunes in previous eras -- Blizzard, Bioware, and Id come to mind -- manage to still survive, but 2004 saw the collapse of dozens of small game studios, no longer able to acquire contracts in the face of rapid and massive consolidation of game publishing companies. This is an epidemic hardly unfamiliar to anyone working in the industry. Though, of course, it is always the option of talent to go outside the industry, perhaps venturing into the booming commercial software development arena. (Read my tired attempt at sarcasm.)

To put some of this in perspective, I myself consider some figures. If EA truly believes that it needs to push its employees this hard -- I actually believe that they don't, and that it is a skewed operations perspective alone that results in the severity of their crunching, coupled with a certain expected amount of the inefficiency involved in running an enterprise as large as theirs -- the solution therefore should be to hire more engineers, or artists, or designers, as the case may be. Never should it be an option to punish one's workforce with ninety hour weeks; in any other industry the company in question would find itself sued out of business so fast its stock wouldn't even have time to tank. In its first weekend, Madden 2005 grossed $65 million. EA's annual revenue is approximately $2.5 billion. This company is not strapped for cash; their labor practices are inexcusable.

The interesting thing about this is an assumption that most of the employees seem to be operating under. Whenever the subject of hours come up, inevitably, it seems, someone mentions 'exemption'. They refer to a California law that supposedly exempts businesses from having to pay overtime to certain 'specialty' employees, including software programmers. This is Senate Bill 88. However, Senate Bill 88 specifically does not apply to the entertainment industry -- television, motion picture, and theater industries are specifically mentioned. Further, even in software, there is a pay minimum on the exemption: those exempt must be paid at least $90,000 annually. I can assure you that the majority of EA employees are in fact not in this pay bracket; ergo, these practices are not only unethical, they are illegal.

I look at our situation and I ask 'us': why do you stay? And the answer is that in all likelihood we won't; and in all likelihood if we had known that this would be the result of working for EA, we would have stayed far away in the first place. But all along the way there were deceptions, there were promises, there were assurances -- there was a big fancy office building with an expensive fish tank -- all of which in the end look like an elaborate scheme to keep a crop of employees on the project just long enough to get it shipped. And then if they need to, they hire in a new batch, fresh and ready to hear more promises that will not be kept; EA's turnover rate in engineering is approximately 50%. This is how EA works. So now we know, now we can move on, right? That seems to be what happens to everyone else. But it's not enough. Because in the end, regardless of what happens with our particular situation, this kind of "business" isn't right, and people need to know about it, which is why I write this today.

If I could get EA CEO Larry Probst on the phone, there are a few things I would ask him. "What's your salary?" would be merely a point of curiosity. The main thing I want to know is, Larry: you do realize what you're doing to your people, right? And you do realize that they ARE people, with physical limits, emotional lives, and families, right? Voices and talents and senses of humor and all that? That when you keep our husbands and wives and children in the office for ninety hours a week, sending them home exhausted and numb and frustrated with their lives, it's not just them you're hurting, but everyone around them, everyone who loves them? When you make your profit calculations and your cost analyses, you know that a great measure of that cost is being paid in raw human dignity, right?

Right?

[TaiDaishar]

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[FoxBat]

I'm suprised no-one can mount a legal claim against what is being described.

If these folks took a good look at CMM, the might be able to reduce crunch time in the name of efficiency, instead of the usual management idiocy going on here.

[kandrathe]

Clicky! --> http://www.livejournal.com/users/ea_spouse/
[right][snapback]60123[/snapback][/right]

Yeah, I've ended up working in a few intellectual sweat shops. I voted with my feet. These people are pretty skilled and can get a decent 40 hour a week job if they look for it. Many want to work at a shop like that for the prestige, and because they love building games. Sometimes it's not worth it. Eventually they will get in trouble with enough law suits and a bad reputation, they will change their ways or they won't have any workers.

[Brista]

My gut reaction is unprintable, even on these broad-minded boards

Hopefully more people will vote with their feet, more people will seek legal remedies for this employer malpractice and brighter less exploitative ventures will attract the best of these workers away from these neo-Dickensians

Thanks for the heads up, Nobbie

[Roland]

I'm suprised no-one can mount a legal claim against what is being described.

If these folks took a good look at CMM, the might be able to reduce crunch time in the name of efficiency, instead of the usual management idiocy going on here.
[right][snapback]60133[/snapback][/right]

They did.

Link.

[FoxBat]

They did.

Link.
[right][snapback]60150[/snapback][/right]

Ahh sweet justice. :D

[Guest]

But didnt we all hate EA anyway? I think they explemplify what everyone dislikes and fears the game industry will become.

[Occhidiangela]

They did.

Link.
[right][snapback]60150[/snapback][/right]

Glad to see that a challenge is being raised.

Next, a collective bargaining unit at EA probably needs to be formed.

Unions exist where and when there is a need for them. Obviously, this corporation needs a Union. It's management is, if the account is even half right, out of control and negligent. Not even sure if Department of Labor standards are being adhered to.

You don't do that to people unless you are evil.

Occhi

[--Pete]

Hi,

Sucks. That's why professionals are embracing unions more and more. Even grad students and post docs have formed unions. Voting with one's feet is not always a solution for anyone looking for family stability.

As long as there are people who put their pride ahead of their well being, there will be weasels taking advantage of them. And as long promotion in management is based on the cesspool model, said weasels will rise to the top.

'Why can't we all get along?' Because we've all got differing goals. And when those goals are in conflict, power rules.

--Pete

[whyBish]

I don't know why everyone here is so upset.

a) What does the contract say? If it doesn't limit your hours or provide compensation for overtime then why sign it? It is an indication of inept management if they are unwilling to do such in a contract (particularly when you are in a skilled industry).

B) If you don't like it you can give notice and leave, noone is being forced to stay. (although the point about "family stability" is relevant, anyone that decides to stay has obviously weighed up that factor).

c) It is all about supply and demand. There are plenty of people willing to work those hours to be in the game industry, for the prestige or enjoyment etc. If you don't like the hours then weigh up the prestige/enjoyment factors etc. against a guaranteed hours job in some 'unsatisfying' industry.

[Occhidiangela]

I don't  know why everyone here is so upset.

a)  What does the contract say?  If it doesn't limit your hours or provide compensation for overtime then why sign it?  It is an indication of inept management if they are unwilling to do such in a contract (particularly when you are in a skilled industry).

B)  If you don't like it you can give notice and leave, noone is being forced to stay.  (although the point about "family stability" is relevant, anyone that decides to stay has obviously weighed up that factor).

c)  It is all about supply and demand.  There are plenty of people willing to work those hours to be in the game industry, for the prestige or enjoyment etc.  If you don't like the hours then weigh up the prestige/enjoyment factors etc. against a guaranteed hours job in some 'unsatisfying' industry.
[right][snapback]60229[/snapback][/right]

Three Words.

Collective Bargaining Unit.

In numbers there is sometimes strength. Your position, which strikes me as rather anti human being and does not seem to fit with Bishness, is a reflection of laize faire attitudes that were very popular in the late 19th century, the age of predatory capitalism and monopolies. I am not a Marxist, but the reason we have labor laws in my country is due to the dynamic struggle between labor and ownership/management that was paid for in blood, sweat, and tears . . . and a heck of a lot of lawsuits.

This situation is one more lawsuit regarding man's inhumanity to man.

Ever heard the term "wage slave?"

Occhi

[kandrathe]

Three Words. 

Collective Bargaining Unit. 

In numbers there is sometimes strength.  Your position, which strikes me as rather anti human being and does not seem to fit with Bishness, is a reflection of laize faire attitudes that were very popular in the late 19th century, the age of predatory capitalism and monopolies.  I am not a Marxist, but the reason we have labor laws in my country is due to the dynamic struggle between labor and ownership/management that was paid for in blood, sweat, and tears . . . and a heck of a lot of lawsuits.

This situation is one more lawsuit regarding man's inhumanity to man.

Ever heard the term "wage slave?"

Occhi
[right][snapback]60232[/snapback][/right]

Unfortunately, unions are run by the people I would never want in charge of anything. I've seen enough of the dark side of unions for a lifetime, and I would never support one. But, I can agree with the ideology of collective bargaining and workers organizing for decent pay or decent working conditions. It is just that that is never how union power has been expressed when I've seen it played out. My experiences are that seniority protects the incompetant and younger better workers are shut out. The biggest loser is quality. The business cannot hire the best work force, and the best workers are not rewarded for their excellence but instead are treated adequately en masse. I would rather that the incompetant worker is encouraged to change ways or professions, and that bad businesses either root out their problems or suffer the ravages of capitalism and fail.

I still think my advice for any techno geeks who are looking to get into a large or small company would be, a) get some information on the place you are applying at, and b) never accept the unusual as usual. Think of your relationship with your employer as a marriage. The interview is dating, and the hire is the marriage. Then you both let down your hair, warts and all, and decide if you can actually live with each other. Will they follow through with their commitments to you and are you willing to commit to them? The more you learn about them before the hire, the better for both of you. If you find once you are there that it is not right for you, move on and don't look back. It is better for you and better for them.

For the bread winner who is looking for a stable paycheck to support the spouse and kids back home, well, find a stable, thriving but not overly competitive business to start your long term relationship with. Still, I've never found the company yet that has no competitive pressure or is not threatened with obsolescence by emerging technologies. I've worked at about 5 seemingly stable firms in my career that have had the legs cut out from under them due to failure in the global marketplace, or mergers. From my perpective, job security is related to your marketability within the global market. The more strings that you have tie down your options and limit the choices you have.

We all have those lines we will not cross. Mine is working more that 50 hours in consecutive weeks. An infrequent push to reach a close finish line is undertandable, or extra effort to shore up a crisis. I would say that if a project is messed up to require overtime as the norm, then it is worth reworking the schedule or starting over with more realistic timelines. All in all, even with a family, I would leave a place rather than be a wage slave or be forced to join a union.

[jahcs]

I hope the employees aren't too scared or too 'status quo' to present a united front. And I would almost like to see every case tried individually. Every class action lawsuit I've seen it's the lawyers that make the money and the plaintifs receive a pitance.

[kandrathe]

I hope the employees aren't too scared or too 'status quo' to present a united front.  And I would almost like to see every case tried individually.  Every class action lawsuit I've seen it's the lawyers that make the money and the plaintifs receive a pitance.
[right][snapback]60268[/snapback][/right]

I suspect the workers would be satisfied to have the shackles of excessive work hours removed and sanity return to management ethics.

[jahcs]

True, the end goal should be the restoration of the workers rights. Compensation for previous work which will cost the company $$ may be the only thing to get the company's attention that it shouldn't continue it's practices.

If the lawsuit isn't resolved quickly I would not be suprised to see EA ship many of it's jobs to countries with less regulation.

[whyBish]

Ever heard the term "wage slave?"

Hmmm... how can you be a slave when you have the choice not to work there? If a person weighs up all the factors like the long unpaid overtime hours etc. vs. the enjoyment of working on a game, the stability of family income etc. and then *decides* to stay then how are they a slave.

EA has set up the conditions, the employees have chosen to accept them.

Collective bargaining will do the workers no good, as like I said, there is an excess of supply of workers, so the C.B.U. has no monopoly position, as EA can unload the current bunch and re-hire fresh. C.B.U. only works when there is a monopoly (or cartel etc. :P ) otherwise competitive forces will make it unviable (i.e. the workers that can earn more will leave the C.B.U. leaving it with the less efficient workers )

Now if the law states that 90 hour working weeks are illegal, then that is a separate issue, and I will agre with you, but sans that law I can't see what they are complaining about. They have choices.



To completely sidetrack the issue, my current (permanent) contract stipulates 37.5 hrs per week. If projects I am on get mismanaged and I'm required more than that then my employer has to bargain with me to get me to do overtime. Same for all of our employees. It makes management much better at estimation and planning. Over the last three years I have only done about 3 weeks overtime in total, averaging a mere 1hr per week. I have turned down contracts offering more money and a more 'exciting' environment because they contained 'as required' unpaid overtime clauses. This is the price I pay for such a clause. If I can weigh up such circumstances and make tradeoffs how are these employees victims or 'slaves'?

Perhaps my circumstances bias me?

The only other thing I could think that would legitimate their claims, is one that they are not pushing: that of "false-advertising" - Having an XYZ hour working week promised but not delivered.

[Walkiry]

Collective bargaining will do the workers no good, as like I said, there is an excess of supply of workers, so the C.B.U. has no monopoly position, as EA can unload the current bunch and re-hire fresh.  C.B.U. only works when there is a monopoly (or cartel etc. :P ) otherwise competitive forces will make it unviable (i.e. the workers that can earn more will leave the C.B.U. leaving it with the less efficient workers )
[right][snapback]60292[/snapback][/right]

I do not agree with this. Sure, there are more programmers out there, but the cost of unloading the current bunch and hiring new ones would be astronomical. You can't just throw away all your programmers, plug in new ones and expect everything to be right on track the following day. Running projects woud be hit hard (and possibly severely delayed) and planned projects will have to be reviewed to match the skillset of the new team. Not to talk about HR costs and efforts for all that hiring.

I think you're downplaying the effect of kicking your programmers in the middle of a project. It's by no means small potatoes.

[jahcs]

I think you're downplaying the effect of kicking your programmers in the middle of a project. It's by no means small potatoes.
[right][snapback]60297[/snapback][/right]

And the fact that as word gets around the job market of EA's practices the programers who are truly qualified will apply elsewhere.

[FoxBat]

Hmmm... how can you be a slave when you have the choice not to work there?
[right][snapback]60292[/snapback][/right]

Yep. Let's eliminate *all* labour and wage laws then, starting with minimum wage. Well except maybe child labor if you argue they aren't competent to choose.