CD Projekt Red devs unionise after its third round of layoffs in three months
CD Projekt Red devs unionise after its third round of layoffs in three months
You're viewing a single thread.
Other devs, please follow suit.
This industry needs class consciousness in it yesterday.
Just because you're paid well doesn't mean you're not being mistreated.
It's valid to be thankful for what you have but to also know you deserve more.
I wish developers would learn that just because they're well paid doesn't mean they're getting the full value of their work. Your CEO didn't become a billionaire by paying you the full value of your labor.
There's always room for more and unions can get that.
This is from a Swedish perspective, but: My experience with unions has been that they think it's more important that nobody is paid more, than to pay everyone what they're worth. In other words they'd prefer everyone being paid equally over raising the minimum wage. Their motivation seems based in jealousy more than a sense of justice. The money they collect from their members is spent on offering stupid IT courses that nobody (except unskilled people) needs, or stuffing their own pockets.
I like the idea of a union, but to me it seems like the actual unions we have today either lack real problems to solve or forgot about them. Every time a representative comes to visit I just get angered by how out of touch they are. They should focus on their core values and get rid of all that idiotic fluff, so they can lower their fees and recruit more members. But like any organization they grew fat and slow.
Lack real problems to solve? Wtf. Also your experience with unions seem very biased.
*or forgot about them.
Ensuring that people know how to use Excel is not a problem that the union should be spending money on.
At my office we can work at any hours of the day that we prefer, as long as we check with our coworkers and do our agreed 40 hours / week. When the union heard about this they told my employer that we must do all our work during daytime.
Their reasoning was that our liberal hours give us the opportunity to take on more obligations in our personal life at daytime (such as taking kids to soccer practice) which means we have to work in evenings to make up for lost time. And this, in turn, means we don't get enough rest. So basically they don't trust the employees to take responsibility for how much rest they need and want to stop them from doing personal chores during the day.
We (the employees) finally won against the union in this, but what I kept thinking during this ordeal was "jeez, don't they have more important issues to address?" If they did, why would they be meddling with this.
I think you don't understand unions or what they are fighting for. Your presumed freedom in working hours is exactly what the unison stated. If you need freetime to fix chores you should reduce your working hours and not work throughout the night.
Yes, but then that's my choice to reduce my working hours, not something my union should force on me. It's patronizing. All ~100 employees disagreed with the union on this. IMO that's a sign that they are overreaching and forget who they are working for. They need to realize when they are done and just sit back and enjoy what they've accomplished, instead of mindlessly optimizing for the wrong target. At any rate, if this is the kind of stuff they pull I won't want to support them, because to my mind they are making things worse, not better.
Every single industry needs unionized, the country is FUCKED right now for millions of it's inhabitants.
The country.
Totally fair point, I am American and I was referring to America, but this is likely true for at least a few other countries as well.
This article is on Eurogamer.net and CD Projekt Red is Polish. I imagine that's why they pointed out "the country" being out of place
Oh, thanks for clearing it up, I actually didn't know CD Project Red was Polish, thanks.
They currently are in the process of building up branches in Boston and Vancouver though as far as I know.
Just because you're paid well doesn't mean others are not being mistreated
FTFY
without unions there could be a huge salary disparity between devs in the same role, in the same company, even in the same project. I've personally witnessed more than 2x, heard about even more.
Sometimes it's more than justified with individual's performance and impact, sometimes it's not. Some people are just better skill-wise, some people are better at applying pressure on their employer, holding business-critical knowledge hostage or simply negotiating.
Point here is - while unionizing might make things better on average, there would be a very real pushback from people who are benefitting from current system and this is not necessarily management. For management in some cases it would be even a net benefit, since they don't have to deal with primadonnas and someone tying things to themselves just for leverage.
As an engr manager, I've often seen disparity as a result of being hired during good years vs bad years for the company. Or when someone gets a better offer to leave, the company may change their pay but no one else's. Or hiring externally vs a transfer from another internal team. Or whether the team is coding for frontend web vs dev tools, even if using the same language. Or if female.
It's always a challenge for one person to fix -- with HR, with the department head, with yearly budget. And sometimes fixing one disparity means not having the sway to fix another as well.
Which is to say -- pay transparency and unions are good for everyone. And if the company can't afford to treat the employees equitably, then the company shouldn't exist. (Or it should reduce its avocado toast budget.)
Eh, more of a case by case basis in the tech industry imo. Most game studio devs should probably unionize, but it's not all horror stories everywhere. I'm not against unionization by any means and it's always on the table, but when me and my coworkers already have great pay, great benefits, stable careers, and great work life balance I don't really see what additional benefits it would bring. It's an over-generalization to say that you'll be earning more money as a union employee when you're already making more than 90% of the population, I know first hand that some trades even make more than their unionized counterparts in my area.
It would being better pay, better benefits, even more stable careers and better work-life balance.
It doesn’t matter how much money you’re already making, or how good your benefits already are. If you have a Union, you can negotiate for improvements. There is always room for improvement, unless you’re working at a fully-mutual workers cooperative.
I know first hand that some trades even make more than their unionized counterparts
I’d be interested to learn more, do you have a source or anything?
This, plus, relying on the goodwill of someone who benefits from you earning as little as possible is a terrible idea.
I already negotiate. Every couple years I interview around, I get a job offer, I take it back it my employer and they either match it or I leave. I've personally increased my salary 6x since I've joined the industry about a decade ago, I know people who have increased it more. I don't know anyone in a unionized field who's managed to achieved anything like this. I don't know that it's impossible, just seems to be much more rare. I'm a specialized individual in a specialized industry, I already have bargaining power and I definitely reject that my compensation, benefits, job stability, and WLB would be better if I had been unionized this whole time.
I’d be interested to learn more, do you have a source or anything?
Like I said, first hand. Purely anecdotal, I'm sure it isn't the case for all union jobs.
This does suck though. To start, a counter-offer-based model begs discrimination. You should be getting yearly raises commensurate with (at absolute bare minimum, not even necessarily accounting for inflation) the increase in productivity from year to year.
This is to say nothing of work environments. Unions could reduce or end crunch. Not just as hard blockers, but mandating the kind of project management that doesn't require crunch.
There's also a history of wage suppression.
https://www.inc.com/jeremy-quittner/silicon-valley-wage-collusion-class-action.html
They'll only get better at it, especially as the market continues to turn and companies continue to consolidate.
This does suck though. To start, a counter-offer-based model begs discrimination. You should be getting yearly raises commensurate with (at absolute bare minimum, not even necessarily accounting for inflation) the increase in productivity from year to year.
I see that a lot with just the starting percentages of yearly raises. Most companies never keep up with market value, and by the time you've spent ten years there, you're making much lower than the industry standard.
The worst is employers who have some 1-5 scale for yearly performance and they gatekeep bosses who try to give out too many 5s. It's not a competition among your peers. If the whole team is doing good and working hard, then reward all of them.
I don't know about discrimination, you'd have to provide actual statistical evidence of that for me to believe it.
I do get yearly raises, they've beaten inflation by a lot every year except for one. I left that job and took a 30% compensation increase elsewhere.
I rarely see crunch time. I have no problems whatsoever with the frequency and intensity of it, but if it became a problem I'd leave and find a job elsewhere.
I don't work in silicon valley, but they make a lot more than I do and my wage doesn't feel suppressed lol.
The job market in tech is alive and well in my experience. There was overhiring during the pandemic which ended with some layoffs, I don't see that as the market turning, but we'll have to wait and see.
I know Lemmy wants everyone everywhere unionized, but for me in my industry the arguments for it are hand wavy at best. I find it disingenuous to tell people in this industry that they don't have bargaining power as an individual.
It’s not that you don’t have individual bargaining power. It’s just that if you were unionised, you’d have much more.
The extent to which you are arguing against overwhelming evidence cannot be understated. You are arguing against something less controversial than evolution.
We know that unions promote economic equality and build worker power, helping workers to win increases in pay, better benefits, and safer working conditions.
But that’s not all unions do. Unions also have powerful effects on workers’ lives outside of work.
Unions raise wages of unionized workers by roughly 20% and raise compensation, including both wages and benefits, by about 28%.
Unionized workers are more likely to receive paid leave, have health insurance and pension plans.
Unionized workers receive more generous health benefits than nonunionized workers.
Unionized workers receive 26% more vacation time and 14% more total paid leave
Workers get significant economic benefits from labor unions
Unionized workers earn 10.2% more than their non-union peers
Supporting workers’ right to organize is a key way to help boost wages and support quality jobs.
Unions provide major economic benefits for workers and families
Like I said, hand wavy at best
Edit: Lol this dude ran back and added sources to previous comments after I called him out on not providing sources. Before the edit he claimed collective bargaining can get 50% raises for everyone.
How is it hand wavy?!
Imagine you are an employer with 100 employees, presented with the following situations.
In which of these two situations are you more likely to be willing to grant that 50% raise?
Right, and what percentage of unions are successfully negotiating 50% pay raises? Surface level nuance free thought experiments aren't going to convince me here
It was an analogy. The point is that a union gives you stronger negotiation power than you have alone. By not being in a union, you’re getting worse outcomes than you would have in a union. All of the statistics we have demonstrate that unionising results in a big increase in wages and benefits. You’re basically saying “no” because you think you know better than the science. This is just like anti-vax sentiment.
Every couple years I interview around, I get a job offer, I take it back it my employer and they either match it or I leave.
I don't even have to do that. My employer always give me good raises and even better bonuses. Every year.
Benefits are great. PTO is great. Work-life balance is great. No layoffs whatsoever. It's not just about making money for the company and the owners, but the rest of the employees as well.
I don't need the strife from trying to start a union here. Save it for companies that have pushed their employees too far. Unionize where it's going to have the greatest benefit.
Ever talked to the cleaning staff how they're faring? Your suppliers in Cambodia (or wherever)?
It's not that hard for capital to see reason when it comes to specialised, educated, and sometimes right out irreplaceable workers, but that doesn't mean that capital suddenly developed a conscience.
We don't have cleaning staff. Try again.
You know perfectly well what I meant and the intent and purpose behind my comment. Try again.
And even if you're working in a five person co-op outfit and someone of you indeed does scrub the toilet: What about the dishwashers at that Chinese takeout you order at every other day. How does your actual supply chain look like, even if it's pizza and coffee.
What are you arguing about exactly? Not a single comment in this chain is anti union at all, and the comment you replied to even argued for unionization where it will have the greatest benefit, i.e. all the jobs you just mentioned.
Why are you acting like this is some sort of prisoner's dilemma where either everyone unionizes or no one does?
That's great, I'm finally at a point in my career where I think it'll be the same. As long as there isn't a major culture shift, I could see myself staying at this job for the next 10+ years
I definitely reject that my compensation, benefits, job stability, and WLB would be better if I had been unionized this whole time.
Why? What is your reasoning for rejecting this? Can you justify it? You’re just saying “no” without any thought or explanation. Do you just refuse to believe that things could be better?
... did you not read the rest of my comment?
And frankly that's not how this works. You're the one trying to convince me that a union is in my best interest, the burden of proof is on you and you've given no substantial evidence.
I read your whole comment, but at no point does it explain why you think you wouldn’t be able to negotiate improvements with a union. What you have written essentially amounts to:
“I was able to build a really beautiful cabinet with hand tools. I reject the notion that power tools make it easier to build cabinets. I know people who have power tools but they haven’t made cabinets as nice as mine.”
If you have multiple people as a group who have the power to completely sink a business negotiating together, they stand a much better chance of improving conditions than any of them do alone.
How are you reasoning against such a self-evidently true claim?
My point is that skilled individuals in specialized fields already have strong individual bargaining power, something that you continue to underestimate in this thread. Collective bargaining is not risk free with one outcome, this is a fact that all the nuance free analogies in the world won't change. If the sector is overall happy with individual bargaining power you're going to need more proof than supposed "self-evident" claims.
Let me fix your analogy. A power tool salesman walks up to my door and tells me I have to throw out my hand tools because I can build cabinets much faster without them and then calls me an idiot for not wanting to throw away the tools I've mastered over the last decade.
I’m in the same field as you are with years more experience. Not only that, I have experience in management in the same field.
I am not denying that you have individual bargaining power that I’m sure you’re leveraging successfully.
I am just pointing out to you that if you were unionised, you’d have even more bargaining power which would almost definitely have resulted in a better outcome for you.
Collective bargaining may not be risk free, but it’s lower risk than individual bargaining, by definition.
There’s plenty of proof, and I don’t see why I need any more. You’re just refusing to acknowledge it, like a flat earther faced with the results of their experiment refusing to accept it. Just because you say “no, I don’t like this scientific proof” it doesn’t mean that I’m somehow failing to back up my argument when I refuse to give you more proof. You have THE proof of the matter. Accept it and be right, or reject it and be wrong. It’s up to you.
As for your analogy, being in a union does not mean you lose your individual bargaining rights, you can continue to negotiate your salary individually if you wish to do so. You do not lose any power or rights from being in a union. You only gain power.
I’m in the same field as you are with years more experience.
Lol is this the point in your argument where you call me a kid?
Collective bargaining may not be risk free, but it’s lower risk than individual bargaining, by definition.
Lower risk often means lower reward, and I already consider individual bargaining in my field low risk.
There’s plenty of proof, and I don’t see why I need any more.
You've provided exactly zero links in this thread.
like a flat earther
And there it is! Again! So far you've called me anti-vax and a flat earther because your unlinked evidence and shitty anologies aren't convincing me of unproven theories in my field. This conversation is over and you've done more to hurt your cause than help here you condescending prick.
I appreciate the good faith you're putting into this. I tend to lean your way, but it's interesting to see this discussion play out. Thanks for being respectful. I appreciate it, even though (up to this comment) I'm just observing the thread.
Until this moment you haven’t asked me for any sources for my claim, whereas I have asked you multiple times for yours. Your basis is “just my vibes” and now you’re acting like I’m an asshole for pointing out that your position (arguing against science based on vibes) isn’t rational. Now by claiming I haven’t backed up my claims, despite pretty much accepting that they were valid until this moment, you cast me as irrational, and instead of asking for proof of my claims so you can amend your perspective, you just loftily declare that the conversation is over, because you know fine well that if it continues, your world view will be completely compromised.
Anyone who wants to see the proof can simply Google “average wage difference for unionised workers” or anything like that. You can do the same thing. I’m guessing you already have, but decided “that doesn’t apply to me” because you’re oh so special.
Lower risk often means lower reward
For investment and such, yeah sure, but not everything follows the same pattern. Unionising and collective bargaining is a perfect example, because it consistently has been shown to lower risks and increase rewards, again and again.
Act all indignant if you want to. You’re giving me a perfect platform to demonstrate the superiority of my ideology against your very weak, irrational reasoning. If you think that I’m somehow hurting my cause by revealing the inherent incoherence of your position, then yeah, sure, I’m really destroying my cause right now.
I'm not in games, but if/when things start to turn, it's far easier for myself and the people around me to just leave for an employer that treats us right than to try to unionize and force the current one to behave. Those are the benefits of having a job that's very much in demand though, not to mention one that can be worked from home and isn't dependent on geography, so the union isn't necessary because the employees already hold enough power. If the employer has a monopoly on your jobs, being able to unionize is a powerful tool in your toolbelt.
the funny thing is actual ability to pay is varying from business to business. AAA development with in-house engine is simply inferior as a business compared to mobile gamedev or producing shitty battle royale clones with Unity. If some business can't compete with big tech or low-effort money grabbers, does it mean it has to go?
No, for the same reason that fine dining restaurants don't go out of business when there's a McDonald's around the corner. They're different markets.
