EA fires over 60 staff!

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"Vax" <vaxdogt567spam@msn.com> writes:

> EA fires over 60 staff!
>
> http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3137918
>
> http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/01/26/news_6117158.html

It's really not that unusual. But all these firings, re-hirings and
split-offs into new, small dev houses must be ruining any company
loyalty in the business, and hence the quality of the products: What
is the point in making an effort to produce quality when you will be
fired after the project completes anyway?
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"Tor Iver Wilhelmsen" <tor.iver.wilhelmsen@broadpark.no> wrote in message
news:u3bwmexm4.fsf@broadpark.no...
> "Vax" <vaxdogt567spam@msn.com> writes:
>
>> EA fires over 60 staff!
>>
>> http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3137918
>>
>> http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/01/26/news_6117158.html
>
> It's really not that unusual. But all these firings, re-hirings and
> split-offs into new, small dev houses must be ruining any company
> loyalty in the business, and hence the quality of the products: What
> is the point in making an effort to produce quality when you will be
> fired after the project completes anyway?

An honorable man would do the best job he can.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

That's because nowadays they just need one guy to 'make' the next
Madden NFL 2006 (just update rosters and sell it as a brand new game)
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"Adam Russell" <adamrussell@sbcglobalREMOVETHIS.net> wrote in
news:35va2kF4rsvscU1@individual.net:

<snip>
>>
>> It's really not that unusual. But all these firings,
>> re-hirings and split-offs into new, small dev houses must be
>> ruining any company loyalty in the business, and hence the
>> quality of the products: What is the point in making an effort
>> to produce quality when you will be fired after the project
>> completes anyway?
>
> An honorable man would do the best job he can.
>
>

That means, if you are approximately as honorable as an EA suit,
you'd do... what? ;-)
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Thusly "Adam Russell" <adamrussell@sbcglobalREMOVETHIS.net> Spake Unto
All:

>> loyalty in the business, and hence the quality of the products: What
>> is the point in making an effort to produce quality when you will be
>> fired after the project completes anyway?
>
>An honorable man would do the best job he can.

And get fired every 18 months.



--
Everything is gone;
Your life's work has been destroyed.
Squeeze trigger (yes/no)?
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Thusly "Oliver A. Nowak" <oliver_andreas_nowak@yahoo.de> Spake Unto A

>> An honorable man would do the best job he can.
>
>That means, if you are approximately as honorable as an EA suit,
>you'd do... what? ;-)

Line your pocket and shag the hawt secretaries.
What did I win?



--

Avoid cliches like the plague!
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Mean_Chlorine wrote:
> Thusly "Adam Russell" <adamrussell@sbcglobalREMOVETHIS.net> Spake
Unto
> All:
>
> >> loyalty in the business, and hence the quality of the products:
What
> >> is the point in making an effort to produce quality when you will
be
> >> fired after the project completes anyway?
> >
> >An honorable man would do the best job he can.
>
> And get fired every 18 months.

Everyday you take pay and dont do the job you promised to do is a
fraud.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On 2005-01-28, Mean_Chlorine <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Thusly "Adam Russell" <adamrussell@sbcglobalREMOVETHIS.net> Spake Unto
> All:
>
>>> loyalty in the business, and hence the quality of the products: What
>>> is the point in making an effort to produce quality when you will be
>>> fired after the project completes anyway?
>>
>>An honorable man would do the best job he can.
>
> And get fired every 18 months.

Those were layoffs and not firings AFK. Also why is it any of
your business what EA does internally? Maybe they had less
projects scheduled this year and needed to trim the fat.

It's very reasonable for a company to lay off workers. No one
owes you work. You upgrade your skills and start looking
again. You can also start your own business if you think being a
"suit" is easy. Give it a try sometime.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On 2005-01-28, wolfing1@yahoo.com <wolfing1@yahoo.com> wrote:

> That's because nowadays they just need one guy to 'make' the next
> Madden NFL 2006 (just update rosters and sell it as a brand new game)

Big deal. People pay for that and there's a market there. You
cannot fault EA for catering to that market.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Thusly shadows <shadows@whitefang.com> Spake Unto All:

>> And get fired every 18 months.
>
>Those were layoffs and not firings AFK.

I'm sure those affected appreciate the distinction.

>Also why is it any of
>your business what EA does internally? Maybe they had less
>projects scheduled this year and needed to trim the fat.
>
>It's very reasonable for a company to lay off workers. No one
>owes you work. You upgrade your skills and start looking
>again.

That's true. This is also true: it's very reasonable for employees not
to feel they owe loyalty to management who feel they owe the employees
nothing.

>You can also start your own business if you think being a
>"suit" is easy.

No I could not possibly stand the rigors of accounting and filing. I
don't mind the high salaries cops, ER staff, and suits have - they do
unpleasant jobs I certainly wouldn't want to do.

Hmm. Well, something like that anyway.

One thing very few companies realize is that management does not
generate revenue, what management generates is more management.

Also: a suit != self employed.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Mean_Chlorine <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> abagooba zoink
larblortch news😱pqnv0p5ko8slkgp58rh2knh4anhfvt8rg@4ax.com:

> Thusly shadows <shadows@whitefang.com> Spake Unto All:
>
>>> And get fired every 18 months.
>>
>>Those were layoffs and not firings AFK.
>
> I'm sure those affected appreciate the distinction.

They will once they get to the "Why did you leave your previous
position?" part of the job search.

> That's true. This is also true: it's very reasonable for employees not
> to feel they owe loyalty to management who feel they owe the employees
> nothing.

Employees owe management NO LOYALTY AT ALL. Any employee who thinks that
he owes management the tiniest bit of loyalty beyond "due diligence" is
just a moronic chump. Management is quite happy to turn on the employees
at the drop of a hat. Employees owe management the same loyalty that
management gives them.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

>That's true. This is also true: it's very reasonable for employees not
>to feel they owe loyalty to management who feel they owe the employees
>nothing.

In today's market, employees really ought to being looking out
for themselves. The 50's era of "company men" is long since gone.

You'd be surprised at how easy it is to negotiate a golden parachute
these days, for example. Few people ever ask, but on paper it is a
non-expense to the company -- easy to grant. You have to have some
valuable skills they want, of course.

>No I could not possibly stand the rigors of accounting and filing. I
>don't mind the high salaries cops, ER staff, and suits have - they do
>unpleasant jobs I certainly wouldn't want to do.

In many companies, the purpose of what you think of as "management"
is to provide a bit of what I'd call "adult supervision."

C//
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On 2005-01-29, Mean_Chlorine <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Thusly shadows <shadows@whitefang.com> Spake Unto All:
>
>>> And get fired every 18 months.
>>
>>Those were layoffs and not firings AFK.
>
> I'm sure those affected appreciate the distinction.

I sure hope they do. A layoff means if your job becomes available
again you get a chance to go back.

> That's true. This is also true: it's very reasonable for employees not
> to feel they owe loyalty to management who feel they owe the employees
> nothing.

They owe the employee what was signed in a contract. Anything
else is gratuity. Understanding this allows you to negotiate for
more instead of driving down the demand for your skills by asking
for less money and then getting all mad when your employment is
terminated and your boss gets a bonus.

> No I could not possibly stand the rigors of accounting and filing. I
> don't mind the high salaries cops, ER staff, and suits have - they do
> unpleasant jobs I certainly wouldn't want to do.

You can hire an accountant and terminate their employment when
feel they are not necessary.

> One thing very few companies realize is that management does not
> generate revenue, what management generates is more management.

An employee doesn't "generate" revenue. Products and services
do. Next time you're at a library pick up some HR books on
corporate structuring. You'll find its a very big and interesting
topic.

> Also: a suit != self employed.

Now a days we have big corporations with share holders and
executive who make the decisions. The executives are required by
their job function to make decisions which profit the share
holders even if they don't like the decision. You'll find a lot
of these "suits" are nice people with hard decisions to make
everyday that can break or make their career.

Be happy. Most of us work for a handful of companies and just
retire in the end.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

shadows <shadows@whitefang.com> abagooba zoink larblortch
news:slrncvo1l5.2hmo.shadows@helena.whitefang.com:

> They owe the employee what was signed in a contract. Anything
> else is gratuity.

Then employees owe management what was signed in the contract and no more,
as well. "Loyalty" beyond the terms of the contract is not owed.


> An employee doesn't "generate" revenue. Products and services
> do.

Managers do not generate products and services.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

shadows wrote:

> I sure hope they do. A layoff means if your job becomes available
> again you get a chance to go back.

This sounds like HR drone speak...

> They owe the employee what was signed in a contract. Anything
> else is gratuity. Understanding this allows you to negotiate for
> more instead of driving down the demand for your skills by asking
> for less money and then getting all mad when your employment is
> terminated and your boss gets a bonus.

So loyalty is meaningless, even though a loyal employee is usually far
more effective...hell, they don't even have to be happy, just let them
know their job is secure and suddenly productivity goes up!

> An employee doesn't "generate" revenue. Products and services
> do. Next time you're at a library pick up some HR books on
> corporate structuring. You'll find its a very big and interesting
> topic.

HR, management, etc, etc also don't generate revenue..hell, I guess we
don't even need employees at all...we just need to ship product!

> Now a days we have big corporations with share holders and
> executive who make the decisions. The executives are required by
> their job function to make decisions which profit the share
> holders even if they don't like the decision. You'll find a lot
> of these "suits" are nice people with hard decisions to make
> everyday that can break or make their career.

HAHAHAHHAHA...they are all anit-social nuts. Most of the suits don't
have a clue as to what is going on and how to streamline the
corporation. Nor do the suits take the employee suggestions seriously.
The big problem is the overhead. Fire HR, fire the suits, and let the
stakeholders drive the company directly rather than by an incompetent proxy.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

>So loyalty is meaningless, even though a loyal employee is usually far
>more effective...

Worker productivity and workplace loyalty are strongly correlated.

However, if the management of any particular enterprise is unable
to make you feel all atwitter with corporate love, I suggest you
look out for yourself.

Even in companies that do care (organically, as in caring about
employees is in the corporate culture), economic circumstances
can conspire. Those circumstances are inhumane, and don't care
about you even a little bit.

Worse, the executives of the company have a little thing called
"fiduciary responsibility". That is, given any guidance from the
ownership to the contrary, their ethical and legal obligation is
to the financial well-being of the corporation.

If they don't see you as being involved with that, it's practically
against the law for them to do anything but let you go.

C//
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"James Garvin" <jgarvin2004@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1_ednRpWRKpf_2HcRVn-ig@comcast.com...
> shadows wrote:
>
> > I sure hope they do. A layoff means if your job becomes available
> > again you get a chance to go back.
>
> This sounds like HR drone speak...

It's the law in Canada, actually. The only way you can get around it is if
you "buy them out" regardless of whether they had an actual contract.

The "HR drone speak", from what I've heard, is not that they have to re-hire
you if a position that you are qualified for opens up, but that there's a
lot of ways to make the same job sound different enough to not hire you
back.

The flip-side to this is that, at least in Canada, out-and-out firing
someone is exceedingly difficult to do. Hence a lot of lay-offs that are
basically "We don't like you".

> > Now a days we have big corporations with share holders and
> > executive who make the decisions. The executives are required by
> > their job function to make decisions which profit the share
> > holders even if they don't like the decision. You'll find a lot
> > of these "suits" are nice people with hard decisions to make
> > everyday that can break or make their career.
>
> HAHAHAHHAHA...they are all anit-social nuts.

The suits I personally work for are not only quite social (I talked to the
head of my country's operations at our Christmas party) many of them really
do take the interests of the employees into account when making business
decisions.

> Most of the suits don't
> have a clue as to what is going on and how to streamline the
> corporation.

Um, usually the problem in those cases is that the "suits" aren't
"on-the-ground" and so don't know precisely what impact certain decisions
will have at the lowest level, but considering where they are that's
difficult for them to do. So they rely on the layers of management below
them to make the right decisions and give them the right information. But
that many chains of self-interest will inevitably lead to incorrect
information -- and the chain starts at the employees.

> Nor do the suits take the employee suggestions seriously.

Sometimes they can't, or the employees don't know the big picture.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"Bryan J. Maloney" <cavaggione@comcast.ten> wrote in message
news:Xns95EDD1D856DCYarblookie@216.196.97.136...
> shadows <shadows@whitefang.com> abagooba zoink larblortch
> news:slrncvo1l5.2hmo.shadows@helena.whitefang.com:
>
> > They owe the employee what was signed in a contract. Anything
> > else is gratuity.
>
> Then employees owe management what was signed in the contract and no more,
> as well. "Loyalty" beyond the terms of the contract is not owed.

The high-tech boom -- for anyone who worked in it -- proved beyond a shadow
of a doubt that -- given a chance -- employees will do just that. When
people would work for a company for MAYBE a year before ditching to another
company for a higher salary, you can see why some employers might feel that
employee loyalty is not an issue -- in both directions.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Courageous wrote:
>>So loyalty is meaningless, even though a loyal employee is usually far
>>more effective...
>
>
> Worker productivity and workplace loyalty are strongly correlated.

My point exactly!

> However, if the management of any particular enterprise is unable
> to make you feel all atwitter with corporate love, I suggest you
> look out for yourself.

Very few corporations even present to make you feel like you are worth
while...you are a cost and they would rather you not be there...

> Even in companies that do care (organically, as in caring about
> employees is in the corporate culture), economic circumstances
> can conspire. Those circumstances are inhumane, and don't care
> about you even a little bit.

Agreed...however corporations like this usually soften the blow by
reducing hours and giving people a chance to move on...they also tend to
be very careful about who they lay off.

American Airlines is a perfect example of how NOT to do this ;-)

> Worse, the executives of the company have a little thing called
> "fiduciary responsibility". That is, given any guidance from the
> ownership to the contrary, their ethical and legal obligation is
> to the financial well-being of the corporation.

Agreed. Every corporation is responsible to the stakeholders. However,
this is not always the case nor is it a "responsibility"...see Enron or
Worldcom...

> If they don't see you as being involved with that, it's practically
> against the law for them to do anything but let you go.

???? I'm not sure what you mean here...
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On 2005-01-30, Bryan J. Maloney <cavaggione@comcast.ten> wrote:

> Employees owe management NO LOYALTY AT ALL. Any employee who thinks that
> he owes management the tiniest bit of loyalty beyond "due diligence" is
> just a moronic chump. Management is quite happy to turn on the employees
> at the drop of a hat. Employees owe management the same loyalty that
> management gives them.

Then you'll never get a promotion or a decent bonus and when
layoffs come you're the fat they trim.

People who stay with one company and work hard tend to move up
after a few years when the company grows.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On 2005-01-30, Bryan J. Maloney <cavaggione@comcast.ten> wrote:
> shadows <shadows@whitefang.com> abagooba zoink larblortch
> news:slrncvo1l5.2hmo.shadows@helena.whitefang.com:
>
>> They owe the employee what was signed in a contract. Anything
>> else is gratuity.
>
> Then employees owe management what was signed in the contract and no more,
> as well. "Loyalty" beyond the terms of the contract is not owed.

Actually some contracts require you to act loyally. It's usually
part of an ethics document you sign and agree to.

>> An employee doesn't "generate" revenue. Products and services
>> do.
>
> Managers do not generate products and services.

What do you think a "Product Manager" does? Yes that's a job
title, and they tend not have no staff or only one or two people
to assist them. They manage a set of products for the company
they work for.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On 2005-01-30, James Garvin <jgarvin2004@comcast.net> wrote:

> HR, management, etc, etc also don't generate revenue..hell, I guess we
> don't even need employees at all...we just need to ship product!

I've been working in telecommunication most of my career. I've
done everything from Internet to Wireless. I was always a "loss"
to my company because I never "generated revenue." I'm pure
overhead. I haven't been "layed off" yet though because my role
ir a necessary loss.

> HAHAHAHHAHA...they are all anit-social nuts. Most of the suits don't
> have a clue as to what is going on and how to streamline the
> corporation. Nor do the suits take the employee suggestions seriously.
> The big problem is the overhead. Fire HR, fire the suits, and let the
> stakeholders drive the company directly rather than by an incompetent proxy.

How old are you? 12?

Most of these "suits" are actually brighter than you and me. In
fact, most politicans are. Why do you think they get those jobs?
Because they are pretty?
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"shadows" <shadows@whitefang.com> wrote in message
news:slrncvpont.2hmo.shadows@helena.whitefang.com...
> On 2005-01-30, James Garvin <jgarvin2004@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > HR, management, etc, etc also don't generate revenue..hell, I guess we
> > don't even need employees at all...we just need to ship product!
>
> I've been working in telecommunication most of my career. I've
> done everything from Internet to Wireless. I was always a "loss"
> to my company because I never "generated revenue." I'm pure
> overhead. I haven't been "layed off" yet though because my role
> ir a necessary loss.
>
> > HAHAHAHHAHA...they are all anit-social nuts. Most of the suits don't
> > have a clue as to what is going on and how to streamline the
> > corporation. Nor do the suits take the employee suggestions seriously.
> > The big problem is the overhead. Fire HR, fire the suits, and let the
> > stakeholders drive the company directly rather than by an incompetent
proxy.
>
> How old are you? 12?
>
> Most of these "suits" are actually brighter than you and me. In
> fact, most politicans are. Why do you think they get those jobs?
> Because they are pretty?

For Canadians, can you say "Belinda Stronach"? I knew that you could.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom