Oh that wacky EA

[Fletch]

First, EA Montreal sends a letter to Ubisoft saying Ubisoft should treat their employees better...

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6143439.html

... and then EA lays off 5% of their workforce.

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3147689

Wheel of Morality Moral Number 12: If you're going to fire off a public letter to take pot shots at your rival, coordinate it with the head office first.

[kleinluka]

owned (even if i do agree with what EA says in the letter)

[ginsengavenger]

EA < *

If anyone knows one of the poor blokes who just lost his job, point em to Factor 5.

[Izuno]

lol...non-complete clauses are often bullshit. You have a right to work. People in this industry move in and out and around all the time. It's pretty hard to deny people the right to work, especially if you have specialized talents like game programming/art/design. So I agree with EA on that point.

As for laying off 5% of the work force...

Interesting that they laid off staff from studios all over. That implies that it was not a single project that was completed or folded, but rather EA was looking for ways to simply cut production cost across the board. So they thinned things out all over the company. Or it implies that a certain function within their studio system was trimmed and possibily centralized. I'm guessing it was really a cost issue.

[Mojo]

5% seems much larger than the actual 300 people that were let go. Yes 300 is a lot, but if its all over, then its roughly like 10 people from each studio.

[von*ferret]

and yet they're coming to my school in a couple of weeks to look in on hiring people?

[Steppenwolf]

I doubth that these clauses are legal. Everybody has a right to work and can free choose where he wants to work.

[dissonance]

and yet they're coming to my school in a couple of weeks to look in on hiring people?

Maybe they needed to clear some space for the new hires.

[kleinluka]

I doubth that these clauses are legal. Everybody has a right to work and can free choose where he wants to work.

EA tried to hire 5 core people at the same time from the original splinter cell team a while back and that was the only time that Ubisoft enforced the clause. The whole thing was taken to court and the judge ruled in favor of Ubisoft.

As for the 5% and the affected EA studios, I have only heard reports about Vancouver, Tiburon and Redwood Shores being affected so far.

[KungFuSquirrel]

EA tried to hire 5 core people at the same time from the original splinter cell team a while back and that was the only time that Ubisoft enforced the clause. The whole thing was taken to court and the judge ruled in favor of Ubisoft.

Now as rumor has it, the guy who did this was the same guy who issued this letter, formerly an employee of Ubi? Is that correct? Because that makes it really funny.

From an outsider's perspective based on what I've seen here and elsewhere, it sounds like the clause is there only for fuckover attempts and almost all employees can do what they want without fear of legal issues.

[Steppenwolf]

The whole transfer system of football players was renewed a few years back because the highest european court decided that clauses like that are illegal. And afaik is no difference there in any western country.The right to choose place of work is a right like freedom of speech.

[Minos]

Yeah but as soon as you read the contract, agree and sign it it becomes legal

[Section_Ei8ht]

take out the reading and agreeing. All they really need is the signiture.

I had some trouble with a non compete agreement about six months ago. We found some loopholes that voided it and reached an agreement out of court, but those things hold up mighty well is US court.

[Fletch]

They are extremely valid in America. Almost every industry seems them in some forms. Pilots from certain airlines can't fly for other airlines for 3-6 months usually. Microsoft uses these for all their top people. The music industry slaps them on virtually every middle or top act. It's just good business insurance. It adds less incentive to quit for some other offer.

The only times they're usually voided is if they are poorly written, or if they are deemed excessive (like prohibitting you to work for a competitor for a full year or something where you would lose everything you own because you can't work).

As for the argument that it restricts your rights, that is essentially what any contract is. You agree to have certain rights restricted in order for compensation.

[ginsengavenger]

I remember some time ago when Ubi laid off a ton of people with non-compete clauses in their contracts. I trust those weren't enforced.