In general, tech needs to move to more co-op, employee-&customer-owned, organized labor shops with labor on the board of directors. Mandatory arbitration for any area is BS because for-profit arbitrators are paid to be pseudo-"unbiased" while most often ruling in favor of who pays the bills.
I bet game developers would be the best positioned of all developers to unionize because the wages are so low already that it's hard for management to bring in scabs.
In the context of Riot games and software engineering salaries, wages are still higher than many jobs. According to Paysa Riot games software engineers still make $155K TC on average (https://www.paysa.com/salaries/riot-games--software-engineer). This is lower than FAANG and Unicorn start-ups, but calling it so low it'd be hard to bring in scabs is a stretch at best...
As I understand it the costs of arbitration are usually split between the plaintiff and defendant. However, your point may still be valid because the corporations are often repeat players who wield more influence.
On the other hand, if an arbitration was biased then the plaintiff could petition a court to disregard it and allow a regular suit to proceed. So arbitrators really do need to be unbiased.
Nothing is stopping anyone in Silicon Valley from starting a gaming company that is co-op, employee-&customer-owned, organized labor shops with labor on the board of directors. There are a lot of labor-friendly folks here. Why not pool resources to start one?
Simple: such a company isn't likely to be highly profitable. They can go work on CRUD apps for some enterprise company for a very reliable, solid paycheck, or they can work at FAANG companies for really huge paychecks, without the risk of working at some gaming company that might not survive a year, and has to compete with the big gaming companies that exploit their workers.
Arbitration keeps the court system less full. It has a purpose that everyone ignores. How about solving the underlying problem that brought about arbitration: courts being saddled by too many frivolous lawsuits?
Arbitration, when both parties agree to it, and both participate in choosing the arbitrator, is fine.
But contracts that require you to go though arbitration for any future disputes, and where you have zero choice of venue, are incompatible with due process.
>courts being saddled by too many frivolous lawsuits
Citation Needed.
This has been the argument for many deregulators since the 70's which has resulted in the current culture of Employees being treated as disposable cattle in the US but I have yet to see any strong evidence of it's necesity.
I am incentivised to get the best deal possible for my labour. I am not there to worry about big picture things, that’s what someone else is selling their labour for.
Anything that rational people can do to improve the price they get for their labour, they will.
Unless you own some capital in the company, why would you care overly about the success of the company?
It seems like you feel that everyone involved in a company should be equally bought into whatever “vision” they have, whereas in my case at least I simply don’t care.
Labor does have skin in the game by investing their working time in the company. Also, particularly in tech, stock grants would be lost in such an event.
Entrepreneurs who typically end up with the most shares and control over a company have more skin in the game. They usually work for nothing from the outset with no guaranteed compensation.
If the company wants workers to have some skin in the game it could transition to a compensation strategy that is very stock-heavy with long vesting schedules.
I spent a week or so on site as a contractor (well technically a contractor for a company with a contract).. I certainly didn't leave thinking "hey these guys have it great".
I still keep thinking about their company policy: employees were expected to play their game every day. Can you imagine if McDonalds said they expected staff to eat at least one meal every day in-store?
Reminds me of when I worked at a smaller telecom company who had a crazy VP. He would approach random employees, ask them who their long distance carrier was, and if it wasn't the company, he'd fire them on the spot. "Why are you working for us if you don't believe in us?"
I have worked at a McDonald's and at least when I worked there, workers got something like $5 credit per eight hour shift back in the 1980's. Most people used it to eat a meal but sometimes we would trade credit with KFC or Pizza Hut workers for variety.
I have also worked in games on smaller teams and considered it a responsibility to play the game to make sure that everything I could influence worked well (or I changed it so that it did) or that I could evaluate other parts of the game versus user expectation/current state of the art. Maybe things are different on larger teams/projects.
This probably reveals how out of touch I am... but I always assumed people in the back could just get free food. Is the manager watching? Would fellow employees narc on you?
You could take food but it probably depends on the manager on shift, at the store I worked at the manager was the owner so she was pretty strict when she was around (distinctly remember coworkers joking about how she was pretty OCD about counting cups/sauce packets because that all cost her money so she emphasized being stingy about distributing those/accounting for loss). Coworkers did not have the same amount of skin in the game unless the managers held them accountable for inventory levels.
I worked at McDonald's for a while, and taking food was a fireable offence. I'd get a discount though, but honestly eating the food I'd been stewing in for hours wasn't a great proposition, so mostly just a practical way to eat something if I hadn't brought anything from home.
Really depends on where you are and who you’re working with. Lots of fast food places are pretty cramped in the kitchen, and you’d pretty much have to be friends with whichever set of bosses are around.
There's a lot wrong with Riot but dog fooding the game never struck me as that odd. If you work on gmail you should probably use gmail often. If you work on an iOS you should probably spend time using an iPhone.
These games tend to be about 30 minutes in length and can be quite tedious. It's not exactly like firing up another game and getting through a few games in about 20 minutes.
Is this something they were expected to do on company time, or personal time? If company time, then it doesn't matter how long it takes, that's the company's prerogative to have their employees burn billable time playing their game. If personal time, forget it.
Maybe on average, but from my experience a couple years ago it's more like 40+ minutes, and about every second game you're called every name in the book because someone else on the other side of the planet didn't like that you equipped an item they don't like.
The game has definitely evolved since then. I remember those days and still play pretty frequently. The level of toxicity among the playerbase has definitely reduced. It is still a quite toxic environment though.
That's called dogfooding - how can you expect your entertainment product to be any fun if your own workers aren't having any fun playing it?
Leave aside for a second that it doesn't scale into large companies - for the product people and engineers working directly on the product, it doesn't seem like such an unreasonable expectation. If you come from the school of thought of "I'm a professional, I clock in at 9 and clock out at 5, here strictly for the paycheck, strict separation of life and work" then OK, it's not a fit for you. Thankfully, not every company has to be a fit for everybody.
When was this? I remember reading that they understood that culture wasn't scaling, so they dialed down to an expectation that employees like to play some games, of some kind, at some level (including casual). But that used to be their cultural expectation when they were smaller (sorry I don't have a source).
Clearly that culture (everyone must play the product) doesn't scale when you need to hire into roles that have nothing to do with the product itself.
Using the company's product is a perfectly reasonable request, either "on the clock" for exempt employees or contractors or as part of the job description for non-exempt.
I've interviewed with Riot a couple of times and it's always been an interesting experience. The first time I interviewed the recruiter basically hung up on me in the phone screen after 20 minutes because I hadn't played League of Legends.
Imagine the alternative...Wendy's employees having lunch at McD's, in Wendy's uniform during their lunch break. (leaving aside the logistics of having your emps take an 1 hour break for lunch during the busiest period.)
Being in the US, which from an outsiders perspective appears to have little in the way of employee rights, what risk do these workers face of simply being fired and replaced by the company?
That would be illegal. US workers have right to discuss workplace conditions and can't be fired for trying to start a union. Also this is in California which has further worker protrections on top of that.
It's not "forced arbitration", it's "contractual arbitration" which means both sides agree to it. Employment contracts are freely negotiable, including a contractual arbitration clause.
That may be true for the executive team, and a 'rockstar' developer or two, But I'm finding it hard to believe that a QA person, or mid-level project manager, or the receptionist has any ability to negotiate their employment contract. Especially when rent is due at the end of the month, and little Bobby needs new shoes.
I think its similar to the arguments saying forced arbitration is fine for cell phone contracts, because you can choose to not do business with that company, when EVERY cell phone provider now has them...
I find that argument to be fairly naive. In theory there are lots of things that can be negotiated but are rarely done so, especially in an industry with a high abundance of eager workers. Having a small clause in their contract that voids their ability to take legal action against the company is something that I find to be worth protesting against.
It's what the law presumes. There is such a thing as an "adhesion" contract, where a power disparity can lead to the voiding of contractual clauses, for instance, the super fine print in a cell phone contract. But, I don't think an employment contract would fall into that category.
Companies larger than a certain size should be required to use a standard template for employment contracts. It is acceptable and normal to negotiate over compensation, including salary, bonus rates/amounts, vacation days, etc., subject to legal minimums. It should not be acceptable to negotiate over terms like contractual arbitration, non-competition/non-solicitation, etc. - there should be a regulatory standard for every employment contract.
EDIT: to be more specific: if you get raped at work, the criminal part against the rapist goes to court as usual. The case against the company because of establishing a rape culture and you seeking compensation goes to arbitration.
Are you familiar with the story? The COO of Riot has been accused of ball-tapping and humping employees. I don't know about you, but if someone "ball-tapped" me in a workplace, I'd be reporting the incident to HR as sexual harassment.
In general, tech needs to move to more co-op, employee-&customer-owned, organized labor shops with labor on the board of directors. Mandatory arbitration for any area is BS because for-profit arbitrators are paid to be pseudo-"unbiased" while most often ruling in favor of who pays the bills.