Management Says Spiders Strike Allegations Are 'False and Even Defamatory'

I would claim most of all those "revelations" in the industry are blown out of proportions anyway.
Most of the time it's a few unsatisfied employees, and as usual with the internet and humanity in general, everyone amplifies the vocal minority.

The more the "world burns" according to everything media, the more clicks, the more money generated.

Nearly half of workers signing the letter makes me somewhat wary to believe a single word that management are saying. It’s a brave thing to stick your neck out, especially in an industry like this, and that’s a lot of people who feel aggrieved enough to do so.

Nacon has a history of this very thing. Now you have half a studio signing a letter which might be a death sentence. They will just kill the studio and move on. They don't care.

sure thing lil bro

I can't think of any company accused of these kind of shenanigans would ever hold their hands up and say "its all completely true. We are horrible!" Of course they will deny it.

@Lavishturtle really? You know this for certain or is it something you've read previously because before these articles I'd never heard of Nacon being scumbags.

@Frmknst it's literally half the studio that feels it's a problematic workplace that's kind of alot

Well this doesn't seem counterproductive at all.

@Drago201
Well, that’s the thing about unions, you never know who actually has a problem (if there is one) and who is just being strong armed by their union.

Not a comment on this situation, just union mandates generally. I’ve had experience with being forced into a position by a union which was pretty much a required expense for all workers. Not great.

@Lavishturtle Fairly certain that France’s labour laws prevent Nacon from sacking the workers within at least the first 12 weeks of industrial action. I’d imagine that shutting the studio and making them redundant would fall under the same realm, if it can be proven in the courts that Nacon weren’t under massive financial pressure to do so. If they can only shut the studio either after taking a massive hit for 12 weeks or after a deal is struck, then I’d like to think that getting round the table will be their priority, especially with Greedfall 2 in active development.

@Frmknst I don't know the full story here as the article remains fairly vague, but in most cases it's safe to assume the employees have good reason for the actions they're taking and one should generally support workers rights since the majority of the world's population is on the shorter end of the stick. That's an effort many Americans gave up on thanks to union busting and a skewing of the narrative thanks to corporate entanglement in moderate-right politics.

I blame devs and management (both parties!) for driving up the costs of game development.

With Spiders, I would realise that most of the devs aren't very talented if the games' standard is any indication of dev skill.
Why? Because Greedfall is on many levels a crappy, eurojank game. And so the new Greedfall 2 needs loads of polish to succeed in being above average. At this point, where costs and development time are too damn high, I am wary with automatically siding with developers.

@thefourfoldroot1 wow..I've only ever had dealings with USDAW and they are bloody useless so it can't be those nits..

I believe the workers. The French company spelt mobilise with a zed so they are clearly wrong about everything else.

@EfYI What does this have to do with anything? Are poor working conditions excusable if they create the best games ever?

@Drago201 I mean they are French they strike if they are unable to catch snails for lunch

Little typo in the title. It says "defamOtory"

Cool, you would need a 'good reputation' in the first place, most game companies are extremely secretive and is a standard practice to silence contractors before they even start and after they've left.

Brave for some, maybe, @nessisonett, however, you also have to understand just how radical some unions are, and also the pressure that can be applied to individuals to sign such a document. There may well be truth to all the allegations, I have no idea. However, the usual approach is to allege things to be worse than they are to coerce an employer to pay up in order to shut up. If there is any truth to the allegations, the likelihood is that it has affected a few employees, but that many others have either been pressured by the Union or colleagues to sign the letter, or have seen this as an opportunity to improve their lot by siding with the Union. To put it simply; if signing a letter criticising your employer is going to lead to better working conditions and/or a pay rise, then many will take that opportunity, even if they don't recognise the allegations in the letter. Finally, peer pressure is a real problem in strident Unions, and you do not want to be seen to be the one to be going against their wishes. Indeed, it is probably braver of those that have not signed the letter, than those that have...

@Fiendish-Beaver if you're not in the union you can't sign the letter. If you are in the union you have an anonymous ballot to decide what action to take. They will all be aware that industrial action is an option of last resort, and a necessary bargaining position.

The signature on the letter is representative of union member wishes and not a list of names.

If there's industrial action, that's when you'll see which union members are prepared to put their money where their mouth is, and which members may have voted no to protest.

Agreed with all that you say, @riceNpea, but my point is that as with lawyers when their is an acrimonious divorce, the conditions under which one partner says they were living is generally exaggerated in order to elicit sympathy and a better outcome from the Court. The same is true of a Union; one person experiencing some hardship is not necessarily the same for all, and again, it is often exaggerated in order to elicit a better outcome for all.

Peer pressure is a real thing in the workplace. The more militant workers will often label those that do not support their industrial action as scabs. It was absolutely rife here in the UK in the 70s and 80s, and life for those 'scabs' was made a living hell in the workplace (and sometimes outside it too), to the point where people went along with the industrial action just so as to have a quiet life.

French Unions are very much in the vein of the UK Unions of the 70s and 80s. Indeed, arguably, they are even more militant, to the extent that they would set fire to trailers full of live sheep if that farmer was transporting sheep, and not complying with industrial action.

Again, I'm not saying that there is no truth to what is being alleged. I simply have no idea. My point is that if Pierre is going to have his sandwiches urinated on if he does not sign the letter, then he either eats soggy sandwiches, or he signs the letter! Your life can be made truly awful in the workplace if you are seen as a scab, and it is usually easier to just go along with the industrial action that suffer it. Even if the letter is anonymous, you will still have the Union representative speaking to individuals in order to persuade them to sign the document. It is therefore still possible, within the workplace, to identity those that have, and have not, signed the letter.

@Fiendish-Beaver it's anonymous. How would anyone know who voted for industrial action or not? Until there's a walkout there's no way to ascertain which union members were against it. At that point if union members choose to got to work in enough numbers the action will collapse, so the votes when counted are detailed to the workforce. If it's a split decision it wouldn't go to industrial action.

Also, there's no evidence to say Union reps are coersing to workforce to strike, that is illegal in French law. If the Union really did behave like that in this day and age, well you may as well look for a different career because the system is broken.

@Yagami
First off, 'no' to your immediate question, but I feel as if the question is not loyal to what I wrote.

50 per cent of employees are unhappy about some things to a degree that an actual strike is occuring. But I am wondering if their complaints are credible. And in the past I'd say 'yes' automatically. I wouldn't today - not automatically. I have a hard time accepting development times and game prices, and I think the average employee in the sector might be part of this negative trend (which is positive to devs = the longer time a game develops the more security. The larger the price the greater the pay).

@EfYI Again, what do high game prices have to do with the legitimacy of the workers' complaints? It´s wild to think that just because someone isn´t good at their job (= the devs take long to make ***** games), they must automatically be lying about being mistreated

By your logic, a studio producing games really quickly and cheaply could not possibly be lying about being mistreated at work, even if they have the most friendly work environment possible.

Hold on! You're wrong on both counts there.

In this case, just because I don't automatically assume everything they say is the objective truth, and fair in a relative term, it doesn't mean I would say "they automatically lie about [their work]".

Therefore, your next argument to me is non-sense because you misrepresented what I wrote.

I want to say that wages in a general sense ought to be equitable and every work place should strive for fairness. Our democracy ought to be reflected more in our corporate structures.

Mine you I don't even know what their letter of complaint actually pertains. You might have, and thought it was atrocious?

.

It's gotten to the point where it's hard to belive anyone anymore.
Social Media is a cesspool, and it's fuel for raging bonfires of nonsense never goes out.

Folks need to step back and wait for factual evidence before picka side

Both sides are french so I don't know who the bad guy is.