Video Game Unions and Paying People Money

[Scaldrew]

Not at all unaware of the fact that you are not a video game afficionado, I nevertheless hazard to ask you this question. I came to my own conclusions based on the information provided, but I'm only I and I'd value a different perspective. Currently there is a "voice actor's strike" going on in the video game world where a bunch of actors and voice actors have unionised and refused to work until their demands have been met or until the voice actors and game companies enter negotiations. Now, I know that sounds like some sort of a kidnapping deal where the voice actors are holding their own voices hostage, and I'm sure critics would levy that comparison if they lacked the proper chromosomes to do so, but there's more.

The voice actors are disgruntled because the gaming companies are withholding information during the recordings for their respective games. This is being done in a futile attempt to prevent leaks concerning game releases. So work is being done on a game, but nobody on the outside knows of this yet and the companies would like to make some kind of big surprise announcement at the right time to rake in the cash. Obviously, from a business standpoint (besides the financial) it's more annoying to make public projects of which you're unsure as to whether or not they'll make it past 6 months (or some arbitrary length of time). Having to cancel an announced title is always a bit of an indirect smear on your company name and resume because thanks to writing and the Internet, that information will never go away.

Specific reasons as to why this working in secrecy is a big no-no for the union workers (I had to get it in there) relate to both financial and operational interests. Working on a big name game that sells more copies is of course different from working on smaller games that maybe only end up being played by 10,000 people. Whenever work is being done in secret on a smash hit game, then, voice actors feel cheated because they were completely unaware until after the release of the game. Thus the voice actors are asking for additional pay if the game sells X amount of units. This may seem entirely unreasonable on the outset, but some games in specific franchises are almost guaranteed to sell millions of copies, so this is the type of information a voice actor would like to know in advance. This seems to be the biggest reason for going on strike, with the other reason being that improper introduction to the game's setting makes for less adequate, less fully realised deliveries on lines. So money and the fear of underperforming as the main reasons.

One thing I should mention is that paying more when you sell more copies of your product isn't an indefinite type deal. I don't remember specifics, but they're asking for 4 extra days' work being paid when a game reaches 5 million sales or something as a final cap on extra salary. So if a game sells 6 or 7 or 8 or 20 million, the extra pay remains fixed at 4 days and no more.

First off, I know it may seem absurd to ask you this, but I'm in a completely non-unique position where I only ever enjoy products and services and never offer them (except for my job as our friendly bartender and some other odd jobs I've done). More succinctly, I've only ever been an employee or a one-man gang, never actually an employer who pays staff salaries. Hence I'd like to know your capitalistic, American, business owner perspective to contrast with my, uh, European perspective (need I say more?). I guess as an analogy, would you pay the artist who drew the neat images in the blue book more if you: knew in advance the book would sell as well as it has or; ended up selling more copies than you expected or; sold lots of copies regardless of expectations? Would you support a group of artists who'd go on strike for not getting extra money after working in the dark on large projects?

Not that it matters, but my current stance is that they're right to refuse work and ask for better working conditions. Ultimately, the game companies are fighting the losing battle in making every effort to conceal that which some Randy is going to reveal online anyway. In the current global climate where the Internet is a reach into your trouser pocket away, it's really an inevitability that a major game title is leaked before it's convenient for anyone but the hacks who make a quick buck out of hyping an unfinished product. For better or worse, they just have to try and make the best of it and not shaft their own development process by keeping key members like (voice) actors in the dark up till the day of release and their input is no longer necessary or even possible. But I don't know anything about paying people, so I want to hear what you (or other business owners if you end up yawning by the end of the second paragraph) have to say on this. Thanks.

[Mark Rippetoe]

In my opinion, workers can organize and demand higher pay if they want to, and employers can fire them if they know they can hire replacements of equal or higher value. The value of labor is subject to supply and demand just like every other commodity. So workers had better carefully gauge the market before threatening to quit. When we hire work done, we get a bid on the work, and if it's reasonable we hire it done, if not, we shop. As for the potential profit in the venture, the entity taking the risk makes the money. If voice actors feel like their work is integral to the project to the point that they deserve more money if it succeeds and are willing to stake their current time investment against their confidence in the value of their work, this is called "working for a percentage" and it's quite popular here.

[IlPrincipeBrutto]

The value of labor is subject to supply and demand just like every other commodity.

It would be if all factors that take part in the market were subject to the same constraints, or, if you prefer, if the market was fair. And that's not the case.
For a start, freedom of movement for capital is nowadays almost absolute, while labour mobility is obviously constrained; if labour is in demand, rather than pay more for it, as it would happen for any other commodity, capital might simply delocalise production.

Immigration has the same effect; it increases the supply of labour, thus reducing its value.
Capital and Labour are not playing with the same rules; the evidence is that the supply and demand relation works only in one way. And that's going to be the case until free, unrestrained movement of capital, goods and people is in place.

If voice actors feel like their work is integral to the project to the point that they deserve more money if it succeeds and are willing to stake their current time investment against their confidence in the value of their work, this is called "working for a percentage" and it's quite popular here.

This can only work if voice actors have access to all the information required to make the call, and that's exactly the grievance they are striking about.



IPB

[shabu]

Is free market negotiation not a thing in europe?

[simplesimon]

Mark, do you make a distinction between public and private sector unions, particularly as it relates to collective bargaining?

[Mark Rippetoe]

It would be if all factors that take part in the market were subject to the same constraints, or, if you prefer, if the market was fair. And that's not the case.

Define this term for us.

Mark, do you make a distinction between public and private sector unions, particularly as it relates to collective bargaining?

Public sector unions should be illegal.

[Mark Le Comte]

Public sector unions should be illegal.

Why? Surely the people have the same rights?

What I dont like is career public servants - need to get in the market sometimes to know what is real.

[Scaldrew]

Is free market negotiation not a thing in europe?

Almost definitely. I just have zero experience in any of this. I don't even pay taxes yet, hence I diferred to the people on this board that do. The USA vs Europe comment was more of a joke, really. I wouldn't consider myself a socialist or a marxist. Similarly, however, I'm unwilling to call myself a capitalist or a free marketeer or w/e for more reasons than one, the most important one being I really don't know. The only thing on the matter is that capitalism seems to work, even if sometimes some people get shafted, whereas socialism seems to be doomed to fail. But let's get into that in the politics thread, shall we?

Thanks for your response, Rip. Nothing I disagree with. I was half expecting you to levy some form of criticism, but I'm not at all surprised by your comment. I guess the other half of my expectations lined up with your initial response. Hopefully others have things to say and I can go about my lurking ways.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Why? Surely the people have the same rights?

You think the Police get to go on strike???? Have you lost your mind?

What I dont like is career public servants - need to get in the market sometimes to know what is real.

Who do you think comprises public sector unions?

[thedude47111]

You think the Police get to go on strike???? Have you lost your mind?

You can have public unions along with laws which limit their ability to go on strike. Surely you know this.