A French-owned company? Does anyone else see the irony in this? I'll add a link to an old article if I can find it, but I remember a small software company owner in France being fined when some of his workers exceeded 45 hours a week.
Edit:
Here are two articles from when the workweek in France was shortened but I haven't found the article I'm looking for yet. My point isn't really to denigrate France's laws but it would seem that these jobs were shipped out of the country so that more work could be expected from each employee.
Sadly, this is pretty much Japan in a nutshell. People don't complain either. It wrecks your productivity, health, and family. Also does nothing for the economy. The funny thing about the threat of power outages after the earthquake is that suddenly people are trying to find ways to work shorter hours and be more productive for God and country.
Unreasonable hours create a downward spiral. Walking away is an option but fighting back takes courage. Either way the company ends up the biggest loser over time as the best leave for greener pastures.
I think you can put an asterix on this one. People don't complain about long hours in Japanese megacorps for the same reason they don't complain about them in game development studios: if you care enough to complain, you're at nearly zero risk of ending up with that job. Nobody becomes seishain at a Japanese megacorp and then suddenly gets surprised about the working conditions. I went into it with eyes wide open, too. (Although I really underestimated how much that would impact my happiness.)
The folks who would most dislike 17 hour days or 70 hour weeks communicate their displeasure by opting out of the system entirely. (Or, if they're young ladies, by going the pink collar route and quitting at 25 when they get married or 27 when their first child is born.) There is an oft-reported thing for Japanese young men of my generation to take to, basically, grifting (odd jobs, part time employment, mooching off parents, etc) as opposed to doing the salaryman thing, because the salaryman thing sucks so badly. It is probably exaggerated because it sells newspapers, but I'll bet there is a kernel or two of truth in it (c.f. "metrosexuals", "sexting", etc)
Similarly, if you look around my social circle of Japanese techy friends, you'll see a bunch of societal rejects. Not because they're geeky anime nerds, although a few are. They just saw the handwriting on the wall and said "Meh, not for me." So we've got freelancers, folks ensconced in various academic posts, weird government sinecures for techno-artists, a raft of quirky startups, permanent students, etc etc. (I'm not exactly Grade A Salaryman Role Model Material myself anymore, either, even for a white guy.)
That said: any viable alternative to this system, whether for Japan or the video game industry or Silicon Valley or anywhere else its evil takes root, is a victory for all that is good and just in the world.
I can't agree with you more. I remember coming across a blog of one such individual, rejected school and Japanese corporate society, drifted for a while but suddenly got the urge to quit being a NEET and traveled the world. Learned English, graduated an Australian college, got a seishain job at a Japanese company, became a dropout again, went to Singapore, multi-national company adores him.
The problem with the salary man system is it's so demographically bankrupt. Work to death on low pay while you're young, kick back and let the young work for you as you get older and better paid (co-opted by your more capable co-workers if you suck at what you do). Doesn't work with a shrinking population and dismal economy.
There are so many brilliant, young Japanese people out there and IT is a real magnet for them. But they're not the aggressive type either. The American equivalent wouldn't afraid to start a company or pick up women if they find someone attractive, though they may be more shy than the general population. The Japanese mirror national tendencies. I hope this crisis provokes long-lasting change. It's already given me some hope to see how the younger generation are taking more charge after seeing the power of technology to make real differences in the world.
In my experience, employees are not doing more work, they are at the office trying to look busy until the boss goes home. Sometimes the boss is sleeping at his desk, and people are sitting around looking at blank documents on the screen.
The boss is usually avoiding the train wreck that is his family life. It used to be that ever so often they would get off early, around 8PM, so they could go drinking to hang out some more until the last trains. Not so much with the younger generation. These business practices give new meaning to "Japanese miracle".
Ambiguity in contracts is a major pain in the ass. To the employee a "reasonable amount" of unpaid overtime could well be ZERO. I'd certainly want to be paid for it. But to the employer it might be an extra 40 hours a week, which to me is ridiculous.
The only people in the company that should be working unpaid overtime are the founders, because its their company. If you're an employee, you should do your work that you're hired for and then go home.
Really, I had this in my contracts a lot as well (Germany).
I tend to accept it if it's rare (like - release work with some pressure, for a limited time). But - it was a learning curve for me.
When I started my first 'real' job I was constantly working overtime (10-12 hours, daily), no compensation (and a low salary). I sold myself far too low - but at that time it didn't occur to me. Evil team dynamics can make this even harder: IF someone from our team decided that 22:00 is late enough and packed up, we'd half-jokingly complain about him being on half-time. In retrospect, this idiotic behavior just helped our employer to milk more time (not really work, I'd argue.. Productivity goes down fast after a while) out of us.
My last contract again included this clause, but I grew up and learned to say no, leave if I'm tired and turn off my mobile. If you're no jerk about it I'd expect it to work flawlessly. Of course your employer would love to see you work more for less/the same. And he certainly is free to ask me to 'do this one thing'.
And I can always decline, and do so most of the time now.
Why does a contract ever provide for unpaid overtime?
Surely overtime is necessary once in a while to match a deadline. However, having a modest premium on it is an easy way of ensuring the amount of the overtime will remain reasonable.
It can be compensated differently. For example, it's pretty standard in Sweden to have 6 weeks of vacation (instead of the usual 5) in exchange for reasonable unpaid overtime.
I've seen and heard about this a lot in US gaming companies too. The culture is something like "we're so passionate about games that we have to do super-crunch time to get things finished by the deadline." But I think the reality is that a lot game companies tend to just be run extremely poorly. People who are more competent managers and want to make money are in other industries, people who "just want to make games", are making games, and I think at least on the management side, that dilutes the talent pool a lot.
It could be my personal limited experience, but I've seen several really badly run game companies, and none that seemed to be run well at all.
That's normal for Gameloft. It's the same in Romania. They don't need quality, they just need volume (mobile development = lots of devices = lots of tests = lots of versions), so they hire students with low salaries and put them to work unpaid overtime until they can't take it no more. Then they leave for a better job (which they could not get before because "no previous job" doesn't sound good in a resume for most of the companies).
"A spokesman said legislation did not stipulate the maximum number of hours an employee could work (..)"
Really? Is this common/normal? A problem only in that (IT) sector? What about other professions (I assume medical personal, public transportation drivers etc. at least have rules for that)?
This is one of these eye-opening moments where something I took for granted (my bad, I guess) is realigned with reality.
Or 3. Call the bastards on their bad behavior so other programmers think twice before applying.
There's nothing wrong with outing a company that treats their employees like expendables. The gaming industry's had a bad reputation for horrid working conditions for some time. Maybe it's time to wake up.
I don't think it's wrong to go public, but going to the department of labor seems backwards. I'm not familiar with the laws there, but I don't see how this could be regulated outside of a collectively bargained union contract?
Edit: I'd like to see a response behind these downvotes. As a business owner and employee, I'm confused.
What? I'm not sure where you live, but the vaste majority of countries/states/territories/whatever have laws that protect employees with respect to working hours.
Your remark is so odd to me, I feel like I either completely misunderstood it or you live in a very sad place.
edit:
What you are saying to me sounds like "It's odd that you called the police because someone shot you; I really don't see how this could be resolved except for forming a vigilante group"
The objection is that people should be able to voluntarily interact in any way they see fit. If they want to work lots of hours then there is nothing wrong with this.
This is very different than being shot, which is a violation of someones rights.
A couple points. First, some of the labour laws that I've seen actually _explicitly_ forbid such agreements because they are afraid it'll lead to abuse...kinda like "agree to work a 20 hour shift or you're fired." The strictest I've seen for this is around minimum wage and minimum vacation time. Simply, there are some rights you can't give away because it would too easily lead to people taking them away.
Secondly, sleep is a basic human right. It's possible that you just take it for granted.
Well, the laws protect some employees at the expense of others. Specifically, they protect employees who prefer time to money while harming employees who prefer money over time.
It's just protectionism - some people can't compete and use the government to hobble the competition.
Comparing this to getting shot is a little dramatic don't you think?
Again, I'll go to my original point, which is that if you don't like the hours your employer has asked you to work in exchange for the salary that they are paying, then find a new job. I see no need for regulation here, especially in our industry, where there are more jobs than people.
A lot of new employees have either relocation or signing bonuses, that would have to be repaid if they left the company within 1-2 years. Compounding this, the bonus is usually given out pre-tax but has to be repaid post-tax.
So sometimes there really isn't an option but to finish the year(s) or take a big financial hit.
Edit:
Here are two articles from when the workweek in France was shortened but I haven't found the article I'm looking for yet. My point isn't really to denigrate France's laws but it would seem that these jobs were shipped out of the country so that more work could be expected from each employee.
http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_18/b3627192.htm http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/06/25/european_working_pra...