Hello, 

I'm not sure if this is just the impression I'm getting from the games industry, or is it actually how it is?

Salaried jobs are usually harder to get,. 

I heard that the 2 biggest reasons  hourly is more common is because of crunch which is overtime related, and because most game companies work on a project  basis. 

What yal think?I Why do you think the games industry favors one or the other?

I'm asking because I'm currently working for Gilead Sciences, on an hourly contact, when the contract is over, they said there is a chance to covert to a salaried employee. 

I'm balancing that with looking for games jobs that  often is hourly. 

I'm in no rush, I got months to decide, so I thought I'd ask around on this topic. 

The main thing I'm looking for is stability, hourly contracts don't really fir that bill, It also seems like if stability is what I'm looking for, games might not be the best bet.  

Salary is common when the company plans to keep you around a long time. Hourly is common when the need is short-time help. If you're going to be a programmer or producer, expect a salary. If you're going to work in QA, expect to work hourly.

In my experience, I've only seen contractors being commonplace in indie development, and hardly ever seen them used at the top end.

5 hours ago, GeneralJist said:

I heard that the 2 biggest reasons  hourly is more common is because of crunch which is overtime related, and because most game companies work on a project  basis. 

Crunch/overtime is generally used by companies to extract extra free labor out of the workforce, so they'd definately want do this to salaried employees (who's remuneration is a fixed annual price). If they did it to hourly employees they'd have to pay for it!! 

When companies work on a project-basis and fail to line up back-to-back work, they seem happy to just to fire all their salaried staff  

I know things are very different in the US (where "workers rights" ==  "what are you soviet Russia!?"), but here in Australia, you can't just treat anyone as a contractor because you say so. A contractor is free to decide how to complete their tasks, provides their own tools, is free to delegate to sub-contractors, and is liable to correct defects in their work. Everyone else that doesn't fit that description is an employee and is protected by a standard set of workplace rights. Simply calling someone a contractor (when they fit the definition of an employee) to try and dodge your responsibilities towards them is illegal here.

5 hours ago, Tom Sloper said:

If you're going to work in QA, expect to work hourly

Probably depends a lot on the type of company, but at all the studios I've worked for, they had an in-house full-time / salaried QA team just like the rest of the development team. In the indie scene, most people seem to outsource QA at the end of a project, so hire a QA company for temporary services (who might in turn have salaried or contract staff). At really big companies (outside my experience) I imagine that yeah, they'd probably hire an army of QA staff on short-term contracts in the lead-up to a release.

15 hours ago, Hodgman said:

Crunch/overtime is generally used by companies to extract extra free labor out of the workforce, so they'd definately want do this to salaried employees (who's remuneration is a fixed annual price). If they did it to hourly employees they'd have to pay for it!! 

ya my bad, that's what I meant to say. 

15 hours ago, Hodgman said:

I know things are very different in the US (where "workers rights" ==  "what are you soviet Russia!?"), but here in Australia

Ya, here in the US, companies have all the cards. Sure there are workers rights, but unless your part of a union, the individual worker can be ignored. Their attitude is if you don't like it here, go find a job else where. It's usually not that bad, but if you have a complaint, it's usually best to sit down and shut up. 

I hear horror stories of HR violations in the games industry, people put up with it because they want to keep their jobs and their record clean. 

From what I hear, contractors rights are very different from employee rights. Not to mention that when you get rid of a contractor no one cares. 

15 hours ago, Hodgman said:

In my experience, I've only seen contractors being commonplace in indie development, and hardly ever seen them used at the top end.

Here in the US, hiring people as "contractors" is a pretty normalised way for large companies to avoid paying the majority of benefits they'd have to provide to salaried employees...