Wage slaves drop EA lawsuit for $15.6 million payoff
Electronic Arts reached a settlement today with the graphic artists who alleged that EA owed them overtime pay for all the work that they were doing for the company.
The lawsuit—in part a byproduct of a now-infamous rant by the spouse of an EA employee—alleged that EA improperly classified some employees as exempt from overtime and owed them for the 60- to 85-hour workweeks that were and are common in the games industry. EA's take on the whole matter was that salaried employees are not hourly employees and are therefore exempt from overtime pay. We'll never know how the courts would have decided, because the settlement precludes a visit before Judge Wapner, so all we can do is speculate. And speculate is something we do well here in blogsville.
Will this settlement embolden downtrodden employees of other large developers and publishers, resulting in copycat lawsuits? We reckon that more than a few games professionals are in heavy crunch mode in the period leading up to the release of next-generation consoles from Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Chiablo @ Dec 18th 2005 9:07PM
I'm thinking EA was in the right here. If an employee is on salary based income, the company is not obligated to pay for overtime.
I'd say 80% of companies follow this policy. And if the employees signed an agreement form that clearly states this (as any company would) then they have no leg to stand on.
But of course, because EA Games is 'the evil corporation' the employees get the sympathetic vote. The QA department at my company works 60-70 hour workweeks during crunch time, but they don't complain because they aren't spoiled artists who want the company to wipe their butts (like the group filing the lawsuit.)
Matters @ Dec 18th 2005 9:07PM
I thought they were hourly employees. If they were salary they don't have a leg to stand on. The whole point of salary is that you get a set pay. No over time pay and if you work under 40 hours you still get 40 hours of pay. That's the whole point. No company as far as I know pays over time to salary employees. Companies I work for like to do things like give you a $3/hour raise and move you from hourly to salary then proceed to work your ass off with all the over time they can get out of you before you die of exhaustion.
Not that I agree with anything EA is doing. They are a bunch of bastards and I hate them.
Art Guy @ Dec 18th 2005 9:07PM
As a graphic artist who works for a major videogame publisher... If he didn't like the hours he shouldn't have taken the job. People work in the gaming biz because they love games, not for the money and free time. You will get paid much better in just about any other industry. This is pretty much common knowledge when you get the job, I know I was told to expect many long nights when I started 10 years ago.
TheUndertow @ Dec 18th 2005 9:07PM
I think people should get paid is relation to how much (and how well) they work. If they were given a salary in line w/ approx. a 40 hour work week, they should not be expected to work double shifts.
This is a tactic of a company that short staffs so that they can take advantage of a poor/competitive job market. I think there should be some incentive to this type of "overtime" work regiment.
80-90 hours is ludicrous...especially if you're working on a modest salary (which you have to imagine they are generally).
Maybe if EA hired more people and treating their own better, they would come out with a better product. I guess ultimately its the consumers fault for buying their games though.
crazytown @ Dec 18th 2005 9:07PM
actually it's based on how the employee is 'classified', California law lists some professions as exempt, some as non exempt so some people, even salaried, qualify for additional pay beyond 40 hours a week. Clearly they had a point otherwise the 15million would not have been paid out.
MrBlank @ Dec 18th 2005 9:07PM
60-85 hr workweeks go way above and beyond what a salary covers. There's only 120 hours total in a 5-day workweek leaving about 7 hours a night to sleep. That is slave labor and I would quit that job as soon as possible.
I can understand needing to put in time for a huge deadline, but the company needs to compensate for that extra time by letting people off after the deadline. In the case with EA, as stated in the essay, they were working 12 hour days SIX to SEVEN days a week with no comp time after the project was done. It's slave labor.
Jeb @ Dec 18th 2005 9:07PM
They had plenty of ground for their lawsuit.
A salaried employee is only truely exempt if they make > $90,000 ... around ~$44 an hour. These employees were not paid that much, and were forced to work the overtime.
Hence - illegal practice. Maybe you think they're whiners, and maybe some of them are, but it's still the law.
I doubt many of them were told they would be slaves when they took the job.
Matters @ Dec 18th 2005 9:07PM
I don't think so Jeb. Go tell that to oh say.. 99% of the companies out there and they'll laugh in your face.
During the dot com bomb I had to get a job at Lowes to make ends meet. NONE of the salary people there got over time and let me tell you...NOBODY in that building made 90k/year LOL. You were lucky to make more than $11 bucks an hour. Salary people made about $13 and no.. They didn't get over time.. I'm willing to bet my life this is true for almost every job in the US (with only a few exceptions)
tpp @ Dec 18th 2005 9:07PM
Matters, this is in California. If you actually knew anything about this dispute, you'd know California has a much employee-friendlier attitude to labor laws than most other states. Jeb is 100% correct.
It's also a well known fact large retailers like Walmart and Lowes will screw you faster than you can say "Union".
PickyPants @ Dec 18th 2005 9:07PM
Guys, no one who works 120+ hours a week is a whiner. Jesus tacos. Those guys deserve a break, and as nice as the 15 mil payout is, it was paid out so they wouldn't have to change the system.
Chiablo, if you aren't a kid, you certainly have never pulled down that kind of time at work. Especially doing graphic work. Its not all fun and games, and it's not totally "AWESOME" all the time.
cheese @ Dec 18th 2005 9:07PM
if EA was "in the right" they wouldn't have had to pay out a settlement. There would be no legal standing for the people suing if EA's compensation was deemed adequate.
cheese @ Dec 18th 2005 9:07PM
if EA was "in the right" they wouldn't have had to pay out a settlement. There would be no legal standing for the people suing if EA's compensation was deemed adequate.
A Faithful Employee @ Dec 18th 2005 9:07PM
personally... I do feel that EA is in the right... in that ANYBODY who works in the game industry... is well aware that they will be putting in a lot of hours.. it's even stated in the contract, which we all sign. However, I do strongly agree with "you should be paid as hard as you work". I have no problem sharing my salary and how many hours I work with all of you. I am an entry level designer, making 38,000 per year. on AVERAGE... I work 55 - 60 hours per week in standard development. During crunch time, easily add 10 or 15 more hours. What I find fairly humerous.. is that the game testers end up making about 20k more per year, because they are paid overtime... it'll definately be interesting to see how this all turns out
SickNic @ Dec 18th 2005 9:07PM
makes you feel kinda bad for trash talking the graphics of a game, and giving the developers shit for it... I can't even stand working 60 hours a week, let alone 80....
Velocity Gnome @ Dec 18th 2005 9:07PM
A lot of you are saying "They are on salary, and that is that." It's not quite that simple, and that's why it's bordering on illegal. The job may be "officially" 40 hours a week, but when 80 hour weeks are common and expected, not being able to, or refusing to put in that overtime is basically a ticket to getting fired. The games industry is highly competitive, and if they have one person who won't work twice the hours for just a *slightly* higher-than-average salary, there's a massive pool of people who will. It's "work extremely long hours for less than you're worth, or lose your job".
Dorv @ Dec 18th 2005 9:07PM
Obviously these guys had a cause of action, and a good case because EA settled.
I'm no labor law expert... But the fact that they settled settles it for me.
(I work in the Amusement Park industry, and the 'Seasonal Labor' classification got me for the longest time. I was hourly, and for all intents and purposes, Exempt. It did, however, lead to some hefty paychecks, in the ends of those summers... They would have never let us work that much if we did get paid overtime ;)
Just another CG artist @ Dec 18th 2005 9:07PM
Actually, from what I hear, there is no 'actual' payout for the artists, as it is no longer a class action, being settled out of court and all that. Lower 'grades' of artists: i.e. the junior positions will now be eligible for overtime, but will forego any benefits such as shares or bonuses.
As to the 'Faithful Employee' dutifully doing your 60 hours, give it a few years. Being stiffed out of promised bonuses, dealing with studio closures and trying to have a balanced work/life relationship soon change your tune.
White Rose Duelist @ Dec 18th 2005 9:07PM
80 hour work weeks during crunh time is not uncommon in software development. 80 hour work weeks all year every year, including holidays, is not. EA is lucky it's not getting a UFIA from the DOL.
EA Slave @ Dec 18th 2005 9:07PM
I work in the Salt mines of EARS. EA will always make out clean no matter how much they told the world they have to pay. We some of us got a pay cut and was told that we now have to work a 45hr work week to keep are current pay grade. So let's see in a nut shell there screwing us again.