Log in

No account? Create an account
ea_spouse [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

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?



This article is offered under the Creative Commons deed. Please feel free to redistribute/link.

From: (Anonymous)
2004-11-10 07:49 pm (UTC)

Re: According to the labor commission

Someone has to the start a movement.

See Newton's First Law Physics for an explanation.

I suggest you start calling wives and the programmers. But only of the ones you trust to not be whistleblowers.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: ea_spouse
2004-11-10 08:40 pm (UTC)

Re: According to the labor commission

Here's the thing: I don't know any of them. Our husbands (and wives) have no social lives, so we never see each other. It is possible that I could start creating contacts, but not gracefully. This is going to be up to the employees themselves, ultimately -- or a class action lawsuit.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: (Anonymous)
2004-11-11 12:47 am (UTC)

Re: According to the labor commission

There is a class action going on for California based Artists only though.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: (Anonymous)
2004-11-11 05:20 pm (UTC)

Re: According to the labor commission

When I worked at EA, just a couple of years ago, it was definitely the same. In fact, I can't guarentee it, but I suspect that I would currently be working on the team your SO is on now, if I were still there. I will say, at least your SO has one day off. When I was there, I worked for six months straight with only one day off. (What I mean to say is that out of 180 days, I worked 179) We also averaged 85-90 hours a week.

That being said, there were a few things I wanted to mention:
1) We had the EA widow's club. All of our SO's hung out together, and they formed some very strong friendships precisely *because* their SO's were all going through the same thing. I suggest trying to get into contact with some of the others.

2) I had the fortune to have a friend-of-a-friend who was a labor attorney. He looked into my case and was positive that EA would lose, should we bring a suit against them. I kept all of my e-mails asking me to work overtime as documentation, as did several of my coworkers. We determined that EA would owe me approximately $30K in overtime pay. For others, the amount was much higher. In CA, you can make a claim for unpaid overtime *up to four years* later, so some of the guys had a lot of OT pay coming their way. In the end, we did not bring suit for two reasons: 1) I wanted to continue working in the game industry (fear of the blackball), and 2) There weren't enough of us at the time to get a class action suit going, and I didn't have the funds to pay for the lawsuit privately. Please note though, that legal fees can be awarded in addition to regular damages in labor suits.

3) The state can and will take your case for you, if you go through the labor department. I investigated this route briefly, but not for too long. In CA, the laws are very labor friendly; and a company representative is usually held personally responsible in addition to the monetary damages against the company. Nothing says 'You can't treat me this way' like a $50,000 fine for your snake-oil-selling manager.

4) It is precisely because there are so many eagerly waiting to get into our industry that we cannot unionize. As soon as one studio tries to unionize somewhere, EA will JUST FIRE THEM ALL. Even if the product is just about to ship. I assure you that it would be cheaper for them to can that project then to have a studio unionize; as soon as one studio does it the rest will fall in line. What is needed is a legal precedent in this case. Someone needs to bring suit against EA (potentially a class action), and be willing to see it all the way to the end. NO SETTLING. As part of any settlement, EA would stipulate that they wouldn't have to admit to any wrongdoing, which would mean that there would be no change.

I wish you good luck, and hope that you guys find greener pastures soon. By the way, I would suggest to your SO to start looking for a new job now, and get out as soon as he has an offer.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: ea_spouse
2004-11-12 12:10 am (UTC)

Re: According to the labor commission

Your comments are very insightful, and I thank you for them. It sounds like you've already done the legwork that I was beginning to do.

If the union route were pursued... as I understand it, first, enough workers would have to sign rep cards. Then there would have to be a silent vote. If EA at any point fired the people involved, wouldn't they be setting themselves up for MASSIVE wrongful termination lawsuits? Regardless, I agree with your point that the first step is a single suit, or a class action suit, to set legal precedent. The class action suit would be better... though more difficult to resist the pressure from a group of people to settle if EA decided to make a big enough offer.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: wengeue
2004-11-12 10:44 am (UTC)

Re: According to the labor commission

Once you have officially announced a union drive, the organizers can't be fired for organizing, according to US labor law. The problem is the first part of the process, when you are getting a committee together and planning the whole thing, because you don't want to "go public" with it until you are ready to go full-speed ahead and have laid the groundwork. That is when you run the risk of being fired, if someone you approach for the committee rats on you.

After the drive goes public the organizing committee are on record, and can't be fired for organizing. If a company tries to fire for other grounds at that point (but really for unionizing), the union can help you to some extent.

Then comes the vote, and if the union wins you are golden... if not, update the resume, because even though you still can't be fired for the organizing, life might not be much fun at the company after that.

(This is all based on memories from a union drive I was involved in back in the late 80s. I don't think the law has changed much. In my case, I was laid off during the pre-public stage of the organization, but the other folks involved all kept their jobs, and I am pretty sure the layoff was innocent -- they didn't know yet that I was organizing. The company fought back REALLY hard, and the union drive eventually failed. I was never so glad to have been laid off. It was a terrible workplace, and for $4.25/hour.)

Basically, you need to go to an existing union and just have a chat with them. They will tell you what you would need to do, and how the process works, and if you want to become part of their union, they will generally provide organizers and resources to help you. Here's a good resource to get started.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: backburner
2004-11-16 03:28 am (UTC)

Re: According to the labor commission

Can't be fired for organizing, but can be fired for missing targets. Legally, if they're having to work 90+ hour weeks and still not shipping on time, that's a legitimate reason for termination in the eyes of the law.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)