?

Log in

No account? Create an account
EA: The Human Story - ea_spouse — LiveJournal [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
ea_spouse

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

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


===

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

Comments:
From: (Anonymous)
2004-11-14 05:37 pm (UTC)

additional thoughts...

If someone started a not-for profit 'association of ethical arts' brand that companies could purchase to put on their product labels, would any of you be interested in paying membership fees? If you consider that there are millions of production artist in the world, and if everyone gave a buck or two, we could afford advertizement in all the major magazines and newspapers... to educate the public and have them make the right choices.

Any thoughts?
(Reply) (Thread)
From: (Anonymous)
2004-11-14 09:28 pm (UTC)

Re: additional thoughts...

From: Andie Clarke - Founder, Planetschnoogie.com

EA Spouse - Thank you for bringing these serious issues to the forefront. I am convinced you remain annonymous to protect your SO which we all respect without question.

There are solutions to the immediate issues - but to make a change in the industry overall is to change the mindset of the Corporate entities and thereby establish accepted Codes across the board.

Personally a Union is not the answer. A Union drives a continually separation between sides.

Bringing both sides together to form a unique partnership with accepted guidelines and codes of conduct may be a better solution overall.

This will be a long process - but one not in vein should the outcome prove better working conditions and job satisfaction overall with a bottom line the Corporations are open to accept.

Breaking down the key points - if you are game - we can devise a "White Paper" of what solutions can be presented to overcome these obstacles.

In fact - there are Good Game Companies that may Endorse this "Code" from the gate. Think of it this way - wouldn't you as a Big Game Corporation want to be viewed as part of the solution and not part of the problem? It is in their best interest to be involved.

There are Non-Profits or Associations whom can offer support in one way or another - but I have not yet found one that specifically focuses in this area. Does anyone know of any they can share with the group?

At the risk of being flamed again for offering help - I am willing to volunteer my time to advocate on this cause.

If those serious about making a difference - contact me off-board at andie@devastation3.com.

You as a collective can change this situation for the better - but again - it is going to take a lot of research, writing, presentations, etc.

Be prepared for door slamming rejections, nay-sayers who are stuck in antiquated processes and everything else that will slam you in the face along the way.

With a solid solution that is a win/win for all sides - you cannot lose.

Let me know -

Andie Clarke
andie@devastation3.com

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: bwingb
2004-11-14 09:57 pm (UTC)

Re: additional thoughts...

Andie,

No offence but don't you think it's a conflict of interests to be doing this as a recruitment company representative? And I disagree completely about your position on unions. Unions are only adversarial when a company is opposed to it's employees having rights. Sure, you may have trouble as a recruiter if you advocate unions...but this doesn't make unions a bad idea for the employees.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: (Anonymous)
2004-11-15 01:27 am (UTC)

Re: additional thoughts...

No offense taken -

First and foremost my business is advocating with and for Independent Game Developers - period.

If a company has a reputation of exploiting human beings or other unethical business practices, the choice is simple - I refuse the deal and don't work with them.

This goes for both the advocacy work I do and the recruiting piece.

It is about right and wrong. What happened to good old American standards, morals and ethics? Fuck - they are too far and too in between.

Please forgive me - but I could care less if my company Recruits for a Union or a Non-Union shop. The point selfishly where I stand is, where can I make the most impact to help others that have been wronged? If you saw my bank account - you would understand I am firm in my beliefs and for me - it is not about the money.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: bwingb
2004-11-15 03:16 am (UTC)

Re: additional thoughts...

Pardon me if I say that I wish it were possible for commercial artists to live comfortable, stress-free lives _with_ money and still have the ethics, the standards, the values. Not some ugly, excessive shangrila- just a nice, modest comfortable life.

My monetary idealism kind of went down the tubes when, after two kids and mariage, I realized there are some very fundimental things that money can buy one in this society. Too bad more an more people are fooled into seeing that only in hindsight.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)