Is it true?! (work/life balance in gamedev question)
In the UK at least, the main warning sign is something called the Working Time Directive. It's a piece of Health and Safety legislation which limits workers to a 48-hour week, so most game studios (every non-indie I have ever encountered) will ask you to opt out of it.
This is a big one. We have the law to protect us in theory, but in practice some (most?) game developers will expect you to waive your right to use it. It may be difficult to find somewhere that wouldn't do that, especially if you're a junior.
This isn't just gamedev. A lot of larger companies in the UK will ask you to opt out, otherwise they legally can't give you overtime beyond 48 hour a week, paid or not... About 18 years ago, aged 17, in a part time job pushing trollies around a car park for a supermarket I still had to opt out of working time directive for this reason...
I've always heard that programmers are the over worked (80 hours / week)without over time
pay in order to meet deadlines and this affects their work life balance and even family
life at home. Is this true? Is this a reasonable fear to deter me from going down this
path?
This isn't a technical question, so I'm moving it from For Beginners to Game Industry Job
Advice.
Unless practical law works much different in the UK, this is all just pretense anyway.opt out
In Germany, it is outright illegal to opt out. It is also strictly illegal to work more than 10 hours per day at any time, or 2304 hours per year (which is 48 hours per week assuming 4 weeks of holiday). Guess what some large companies (US companies as it happens) tell their employees: "You don't write more than 10 hours in your time report". Guess what you're told when you are a physician: "Don't be such a pussy".
Same goes for holiday, by the way. Holiday must be taken as free time. This is not something at your discretion, it is illegal to work during holiday and it is illegal to "sell" holiday. Guess what you are being told if you couldn't take your holiday because your boss wouldn't let you "for business reasons". Take the money or leave it. Guess what they're telling you whenever some heartrending thing happens in the world (like, it rains in the USA, or it doesn't rain in Africa): "Why don't you donate two or three of your holidays!".
Don't get me started on safety at work, or home office, or bring your own device, or on having your private account being charged for travel expenses (on business trips).
Let's not go there though, a fair bit off topic. Perhaps a good candidate for a new thread?
Some video game developers do end up working 80hr weeks, yes.
Over the years I've worked closely with many people from many walks of life. This has absolutely nothing to do with game developers.
I've known many people -- ranging from casual acquaintances and good friends -- who end up working far more hours than is good for them. In addition to programmers, I know a few doctors, two lawyers, several nurses, several auto mechanics (including one of my brothers), an interior designer, several real estate agents, an architect, long-haul truck driver (a near relative), a furniture store owner (long-time friend), multiple waters/waitresses, store managers, and school teachers, all of them occasionally working long hours.
The fact is that people of all walks of life, in all professions will occasionally work long hours. Employers who ask it of employees, or who demand it of employees, usually have a very difficult time keeping skilled workers around.
Nearly all employers will allow a good work-life balance generally. Even though the employer allows it, it is up to YOU to actually take that balance. If you are in a country with an 8 hr day / 40 hr week schedule, and your company has open office hours, it is your responsibility to work for 8 hours (rather than surfing the web all day), and after you have put in your hours, go home. If they ask for more work, let them know you are done for the day and will do it tomorrow.
Since there are generally legal repercussions, it is fairly rare for management to require more time than is standard. They may ask, they may offer overtime pay, but it is fairly rare for the hours to be mandatory, or for them to be able to terminate the job for not doing them.
Unless practical law works much different in the UK, this is all just pretense anyway.
Sadly, the UK actually added an opt-out clause when the relevant laws were passed. And (at the risk of derailing the thread) that was before Brexit.
Unless practical law works much different in the UK, this is all just pretense anyway.
Sadly, the UK actually added an opt-out clause when the relevant laws were passed. And (at the risk of derailing the thread) that was before Brexit.
There are good reasons for it and that law is well written.
While MOST people want to limit there hours, there are some people and some projects where the hours make sense.
Someone may have a large bonus contingent on completing something, or they may have a critical deadline, or they may have no family and no real life outside work with no interest in anything else. Or maybe they have some other reasons where they really want to do the work.
Without the ability to opt out, these people would be legally forbidden from doing the work that they want to do.
Nearly everybody wants those protections in place, but sometimes people are quite willing to work extra hours of their own volition. They want the rewards from the work, whatever those rewards are. The lawmakers are right in allowing those people to work more if they document the choice, and to forbid any repercussions against people who stick to the standard range.
Since there are generally legal repercussions, it is fairly rare for management to require more time than is standard. They may ask, they may offer overtime pay, but it is fairly rare for the hours to be mandatory, or for them to be able to terminate the job for not doing them.
I found that places that tend to bend and try to get folks to work extra hours, will look down upon those who don't work the extra hours. They won't terminate on the spot, but it's generally not a good career move, especially as a junior programmer. And it can be tough to know whether a place is like that or not until you work there, I've rarely come across a place that says they don't have a great work life balance.
Big companies are actually less likely to have this problem, as they have actual HR departments that aren't the boss' Sister-in-Law. And they've been sued in the past, like EA, where in California employees have to clock in and out and are paid hourly.
There are good reasons for it and that law is well written. While MOST people want to limit there hours, there are some people and some projects where the hours make sense. Someone may have a large bonus contingent on completing something, or they may have a critical deadline, or they may have no family and no real life outside work with no interest in anything else. Or maybe they have some other reasons where they really want to do the work. Without the ability to opt out, these people would be legally forbidden from doing the work that they want to do.
Some of those people who want to voluntarily do the extra work for reward ("I won't get my bonus if I don't!") are also being exploited into wanting to do so ("I won't get my bonus if I don't!").
Having the ability for workers to easily opt out of their legal protections has an impact on the entire working population. It very quickly creates a slippery slope where it's expected that you will opt-out, and creates entire industries where you basically don't have the choice of being protected any more. At that point, the worker's protections have effectively been undone, even though technically you can claim they've voluntarily given them up for their own benefit.
That's just capitalist exploitation of the working class, which is the exact thing that industrial relations regulation is designed to balance in the first place...
So you can't just focus on the desires of the individual here -- legislation must balance the needs of the individual and the needs of the group. If protecting all people from exploitation robs a few 20 year olds of their ability to do double shifts, you've got to weigh up the benefit/cost to both sides there.
Our version of the 8-hour day law in Australia is that workers cannot regularly work more then 38 hours in a week. If a business needs you to temporarily work overtime because of an emergency deadline, they can ask that of you, but then they legally have to give you enough time off afterwards to bring your average hours back down to an acceptable level. Companies still often put clauses in employment contracts telling people that they will occasionally have to do unpaid overtime (and not get 'leave' in return), but such clauses are unenforceable, and in some cases can even warrant a fine if brought to the regulator's attention.
We did have a period where these rights could be given up voluntarily, not by any individual, but as a collective -- so a union could negotiate a different set of rules for an entire unionized workplace. After that, new laws were brought in to allow individual bargaining, but the negotiating power of an unemployed individual vs a company is zero. Giving up your rights effectively became mandatory in order to gain employment or keep your job. However, these laws were wound back, because over time it had the effect where workers rights were gradually being eroded across entire industries, back to 1800's levels, and even though they were technically voluntary people really did end up having to go along with them without any real choice... And the proponents made the same argument as you just have -- that people are choosing to give up their rights as people because it's in their own benefit to do so.
It was actually the backlash from that bit of worker's rights deregulaton that caused an invincible neo-liberal Prime Minister to finally be unseated after a decade in office.
