i can understand, and i get the humor, but it's still wrong to laugh at this. yes, some might be entitled snowflakes, but most (and i know them personally, many are my friends) are just fine people that has to put up with a lot of bullcrap and sacrifice their own personal time (that is, a piece of their lives) to the whims of some incompetent, because they are too busy rising their families in this consumism obsessed society. while that isn't in the least necessary. which is their fault, i'm totally clear (also to them) about that! but it doesn't really matter if it is indoors or outdoors, or whatever the color of the collar. moskitos are surely a plague, but that's just one specific detail and every job has its own set. as a worker it would be smart to be sensible to the broader issue, which is work conditions are inexorably getting worse simply because technology satisfies that demand. turns out our whole societal and institutional narrative, which is based on the working individual, is loosing its main reason of being, how are we going to deal with that ...
The price of being a 'Rockstar'
- Thread starter Barking_Mad
- Start date
i can understand, and i get the humor, but it's still wrong to laugh at this. yes, some might be entitled snowflakes, but most (and i know them personally, many are my friends) are just fine people that has to put up with a lot of bullcrap and sacrifice their own personal time (that is, a piece of their lives) to the whims of some incompetent, because they are too busy rising their families in this consumism obsessed society. while that isn't in the least necessary. which is their fault, i'm totally clear (also to them) about that! but it doesn't really matter if it is indoors or outdoors, or whatever the color of the collar. moskitos are surely a plague, but that's just one specific detail and every job has its own set. as a worker it would be smart to be sensible to the broader issue, which is work conditions are inexorably getting worse simply because technology satisfies that demand. turns out our whole societal and institutional narrative, which is based on the working individual, is loosing its main reason of being, how are we going to deal with that ...
Well, I've served in the Air Force, if that makes me qualified to give satisfaction. During the Cold War times, NATO special forces, no details. Still got my codeword.
In the military, regardless of rank, you're a slave. Everywhere else except prison maybe, you got a life of your own. It's precious, don't spoil it.
If it's about Software projects, Lister & DeMarco have said it all 30 years ago. Look up R* under Spanish Management in #Peopleware. Vienna waits for you
O7,
[noob]
In the military, regardless of rank, you're a slave. Everywhere else except prison maybe, you got a life of your own. It's precious, don't spoil it.
If it's about Software projects, Lister & DeMarco have said it all 30 years ago. Look up R* under Spanish Management in #Peopleware. Vienna waits for you
O7,
[noob]
Last edited:
i think they mean that the military is not at all that different in this. me too i found you have a too high concept of military professionalism in that last sentence. but then militaries vary considerably, i only really knew the spanish army from inside, and i'm prone to assume it's a peculiar case [haha]
anyway, they are indeed very different contexts, but undisputed structure and authority can be both optimal and terribly inefficient, at the end of the day it's ... human nature. we still don't know very well how to deal with it when we try to bunch humans together. we've only been doing that for a few millenia
For some reason I always assume that the thing I have no experience with will be filled with competent and well-meaning professionals. So far it never quite worked out, so I'll take your and gun star's word for it.
stuff like that is what made me a cynic over the years. i try my best to be a fresh, well meaning cynic, though
Wow, tech labour camps, the modern price of wanting to work in popular sector of production... Best get on the tills at Tesco, maybe. Or challenge the whole system of post industrial capital.
My experience of the Military can be summed up as follows:
By far the vast majority did their jobs as best they could. We were given the training that allowed us to do that. We were led by-in-large by others that operated in a similar fashion. Yes there was the odd person in all of the ranks that quite frankly shouldn't have been let in, in the first place but these people generally left or were discharged. We had access to decent food, several bars, football and rugby pitches, tennis and squash courts, to mention a few things in camp. We worked, we finished work, we had plenty of free time and money to make good use of that time. Some of the jobs we had to do would have your average civilian quitting due to the type of work, but everyone knew what they had signed up for, what the job was and what it entailed. We complained about stuff of course, that's just human nature, but we got the job done.
I've saw great men in all aspects of military life from the lowly Trooper to Brigadier Generals, in several different nations forces, during my time. I've saw a tiny number of people who shouldn't be where they were. All in all, it was a good life and one I probably should have stayed in longer.
By far the vast majority did their jobs as best they could. We were given the training that allowed us to do that. We were led by-in-large by others that operated in a similar fashion. Yes there was the odd person in all of the ranks that quite frankly shouldn't have been let in, in the first place but these people generally left or were discharged. We had access to decent food, several bars, football and rugby pitches, tennis and squash courts, to mention a few things in camp. We worked, we finished work, we had plenty of free time and money to make good use of that time. Some of the jobs we had to do would have your average civilian quitting due to the type of work, but everyone knew what they had signed up for, what the job was and what it entailed. We complained about stuff of course, that's just human nature, but we got the job done.
I've saw great men in all aspects of military life from the lowly Trooper to Brigadier Generals, in several different nations forces, during my time. I've saw a tiny number of people who shouldn't be where they were. All in all, it was a good life and one I probably should have stayed in longer.
your experience sums up something i profoundly despise about the human race: "we got the job done" immediately raises the questions "what was that job?" followed by "for what?" and "at what cost?". i mean, there are lots of breathtaking examples of mankind banding together for big goals, but our history is mainly explained by greed and recklessness. if, e.g., you served (judging by your generation) in irak or afghanistan my question would be "who the fig told you to go there?" and "what have you really achieved except playing for some discrete particular interests and making the world a (demonstrably) worse place to live in?". all this in full compliance with your duty.
but i love your post (and i respect it for my own limited experience in similar situations) for how bluntly it shows that it's just a matter of motivation. if you're told the right thing, you'll do what's expected from you.
turns out that's exactly how rockstar exploitation works.
Doesn't Britain have a civilian controlled military? Should you point your finger at the soldier, or at the public that elected representatives to execute the policy?
I'm not sure I'd be quick to judge employees for being exploited. I have a student that owns a candy factory. He's moving the factory to Mexico from southern California. I suggested he should consider what happens to his current employees. His response was that they could move to Mexico. I said, you will be paying your employees half as much in Mexico. He said, but I will be able to expand and hire more employees and the cost of living is less in Mexico. He said he would be making a larger positive difference with more people with his strategy. Are his Mexican employees being exploited when he gives them work? Tough call.
30 years ago I had a neighbor friend that was gifted in computer programming. In high school, he was hired by Qualcomm. He was so excited. He desperately was looking forward to working on the communications software. They assigned him to work on payroll software. He was crushed. He left the company and was instantly hired somewhere else and did quite well. He probably would have been more financially successful if he had stayed with Qualcomm, but his marketable skills gave him choices.
I don't think my student's candy factory workers have the same kind of choices.
well i'm not british but that's a fair and pretty universal question, although it goes a bit beyond the topic (which is work exploitation). it is still a very good question but my anwser is i have really no practical political choice that suits me so my decision is pretty moot. any of the choices i have with real possibilities will reinforce the same behavior. incidentally i feel not alone in this and i'm afraid that more than a debate on what practical democracy is missing, this is a symptom of democracy just becoming obsolete (see trumpism). i confess i'm a bit scared in that regard.
it's all relative, we're slaves in a golden suite and all that. but i can guarantee you, i'm testimony, systematic crunch is exploitation, it burns personell, it rapidly institutes itself as the only alternative, and in the end it just means leaving the ultimate burden on the weakest element of the chain. which is stupid business strategy, if you ask me, but is just sooooo easy and convenient to do! specially if you're not in that position. although i'm positive that 'rockstar' employees are privileged individuals in the context of human species, that crunch time is pure exploitation. and, as i said, it's their fault as privileged 1st world citizen to abide to it. i'm not going to raise a single finger to defend them if they volutnarily submit. i had to deal with my onw crap!
I get it: where you live is way better in all departments across the board, and much of it due to unionization of probably every aspect of life. Not sure I agree with the findings of the various articles you linked to, but I don't have the time or energy (right now) to find a bunch of "empirical evidence" to refute it. All I know is is that for many people such as myself who own a small company and my brother who owns a huge company in Alaska, the union is a political parasite which exists to siphon money from industry without giving a superior product back. Their tactics are basically cannibalistic, little better than common thuggery under the gentile guise of 'labor laws' and though their members no doubt benefit from their status, the product they deliver in most cases and in most industries is sub-standard. Funny that you should mention communism at the end of your post, because that's what unions are in essence. Probably not empirical but certainly experienced in my own field.
I see nothing to suggest that unionization would improve video games despite heavy unionization in your country improving the quality of life for it's members, but plenty of experience to suggest that it would drag out development and probably lower the quality...I mean, just how is the game going to develop itself while all of their programmers are off having their 55+ holidays a year, not counting weekends?
I'm sure most union members worldwide are snuggled in like a tick on a dog, but that has nothing to do with the finished product
Last edited:
Rest assured it wasn't what think. Fairly mundane everyday stuff.
I get it: where you live is way better in all departments across the board, and much of it due to unionization of probably every aspect of life. Not sure I agree with the findings of the various articles you linked to, but I don't have the time or energy (right now) to find a bunch of "empirical evidence" to refute it. All I know is is that for many people such as myself who own a small company and my brother who owns a huge company in Alaska, the union is a political parasite which exists to siphon money from industry without giving a superior product back. Their tactics are basically cannibalistic, little better than common thuggery under the gentile guise of 'labor laws' and though their members no doubt benefit from their status, the product they deliver in most cases and in most industries is sub-standard. Funny that you should mention communism at the end of your post, because that's what unions are in essence. Probably not empirical but certainly experienced in my own field.
I see nothing to suggest that unionization would improve video games despite heavy unionization in your country improving the quality of life for it's members, but plenty of experience to suggest that it would drag out development and probably lower the quality...I mean, just how is the game going to develop itself while all of their programmers are off having their 55+ holidays a year, not counting weekends?
I'm sure most union members worldwide are snuggled in like a tick on a dog, but that has nothing to do with the finished product
Okay, how about this: I have eaten at McD in over 20 countries across continents. I can assure you our hellish socialist burger flippers with their despicable 'living wage' didnt perform less than the glorious overworked, underpaid, stressed-out American burger-flippers. Anyone can taste it for themselves.
And that is when flipping burgers. The more cognitively demanding, and less menial, the job is, the more important it is to have well-rested, happy, stress-free (to some extent) employees. I never did anything important in matlab when tired: it'd go home, do something fun for a bit and get some sleep. That way I could do it in an hour the next day, rather than spending the day fixing the bugs my fatigued head introduced the night before.
Not convinced? Ask yourself this question: if you were to have open-heart surgery, would you rather the procedure be performed by a surgeon at the end of a 36h shift, or by a surgeon just starting his shift after a good night sleep?
That is why you give employees decent working hours, proper healthcare and vacation days. And if the employers in a region still live in 1880, you need unions to explain it to them.
Okay, how about this: I have eaten at McD in over 20 countries across continents. I can assure you our hellish socialist burger flippers with their despicable 'living wage' didnt perform less than the glorious overworked, underpaid, stressed-out American burger-flippers. Anyone can taste it for themselves.
The trick is finding the great working balance between capital and labour. It's my observation that organisations are run either for the benefit of the employer or employees, but rarely for the benefit of those who are using the service/product.
Yes, because that's not goal of those organizations. It is up to employer to guarantee service which makes good meal, price, and happy employees.
And it is possible. It is done in thousand places all over the world, with or without unions. It seems something that escapes lots of Americans - you don't need to be hardcore about work. Work is work. It is dangerously mundane un boring, and all of us would avoid doing most of it. It is not a religious statement or proving you are grit for this world. No. You are just surviving. Cool. But world slowly figure things out that living is not really about survival anymore. At least...it shouldn't.
I suppose the disconnect here is that you guys are employees, while I'm the employer
I suppose the disconnect here is that you guys are employees, while I'm the employer
I could be a teapot on Mars, that doesn't negate any facts. Bit of a cop-out, Jason. You state that unions lead to higher costs and lower quality. McD is a good example because it operates almost everywhere. So if that were true a Big Mac would be much more expensive and of worse quality here than in the US. It aint the case. We have the same burger, for less money, with the employees getting far better working conditions. The idea that large multinationals like rockstar would produce lower quality, more expensive products if unionized isn't supported when looking at other large multinationals. The dynamics of a small local business with a small number of employees is pretty irrelevant in this because it is incomparable with the relation between unions and large corporations employing (tens of) thousands of people.
It is why, in the Netherlands for example, there are all kinds of exemptions made for small to medium sized businesses because you cant have a one-size-fits-all policy that works equally well for IBM and Shell as it does for your local barber and plumber. Rockstar, clearly, would be closer to the former than the latter.
Last edited:
I think the cop out is comparing a menial job with no skill involved with a highly technical, specialized or dangerous labor.
Its the other way around: menial jobs such as burger flipping should suffer relatively little due to a lack of proper working conditions. Consider Asian $1 T-shirt sweatshops. So using McD as an example is in your favor, as it is a job biased towards not needing unions (and thus profiting from de-regulating). The fact that it doesn't support your claim makes it even more difficult for you to maintain your position. In any case, I think we'd best leave it. You're ignoring more and more arguments and replacing them with snappy one-liners, which suggests you'd rather not further discuss this in any serious way. Which is fine, beta is coming and all that.
I suppose the disconnect here is that you guys are employees, while I'm the employer
this means war. class war!
it's actually capitalism
the bottom line is that employers and employees getting along well and having stable, regulated relations is important for the economy. job security is necessary for consumption, which is in turn necessary for business, so the wheel keeps spinning.you will be surprised to know that a job is a citizen right by the spanish constitution, which is as far from being a communist country as it gets. funnily enough, a right that the state neither can nor does guarantee. go figure. it does, however, regulate employment to protect both employers and employees from arbitrarity. yes, as a job giver you can set many conditions, but you cannot change or exceed them at your whim, which makes total sense since it is essentially an asymmetric relation. and yes, these regulations can be and often are gamed by both employers and employees, but they do draw a baseline. if the unions are the only thing that stands between employers and employees in the us, you better keep them no matter what! the us as an extreme liberal country is indeed highly productive, but is also leader in social inequality (not good for the economy in the long run either, although it is skyrocketing in the whole capitalist world).