layoffs?

[Gravedust]

This makes me really sad, I just printed off Rescue at Rivenroar today to be the first adventure I DM ever...

Good luck Dave and the others. Hopefully this economy turns around soon.

[Fifth Element]

Originally Posted by Friadoc

Good business models avoid layoffs, as much as they can, as it shows a strong demand for their services and products, instead of a fluctuating demand for it.

Possibly, but you need to bear in mind WotC's specific business. Even if demand for 4E is constant over the next 10 years, they simply do not need the same number of man-hours to maintain the edition as they did to design it in the first place. Designing and developing a new edition is a huge investment and requires a lot of man-hours. Designing supplements for an existing edition is far less intensive.

[gribble]

Originally Posted by Fifth Element

What's the difference between using seasonal workers, and hiring/laying off staff, other than the words used?

It may seem like semantics, but there's actually a world of difference. It's generally much more cost efficient and predictable to use temporary workers who are hired for a specific project/duration. Well run businesses are all about predictability and repeatability.

It also creates much less ill will. If someone is given a 6 month contract, they will be assuming it won't be renewed or extended at the end of that period. If it is, they will be happy about that, but if it isn't they will just look for another contract - it's the life of contract/seasonal staff and they accept it (if they don't, then they should be looking for permanent work).

Permanent staff on the other hand expect (and let's not get into the debate about whether this expectation is valid or not), that once they're given a job it is theirs until they are no longer capable or willing to perform it. Consequently, when they're laid off there is a lot more ill-will towards the company and unease among the retained staff (the "who's next" syndrome).

Originally Posted by Fifth Element

Developing a new edition is done with a full-time staff, due to the commitment required (and probably also due to confidentiality concerns), while the supplement mill relies more on freelancers.

Sorry, but having been a contract worker I'm going to call BS on that one. Contract staff are subject to the same confidentiality agreements, and expected to have the same commitment to a project as permanent staff. In fact, it can be argued that contract staff hired for a specific project are often more committed, because it's specifically why they've been hired, and the only thing they're tasked with doing (as opposed to permanent staff, who - despite the best intentions - will always have other demands on their time from the company.

[Mokona]

Originally Posted by joethelawyer

anyone who knows how WOTC operates, do you know if it is their standard operating procedure to have employees sign some sort of non-compete agreement either as a part of their employment, or as a condition for a larger severance package?

In general it is my impression that non-compete agreements aren't likely or able to be enforced in a court of law. It would also be bad PR if Wizards of the Coast had layoffs and kept its former employees unemployed due to non-compete clauses. I wouldn't worry about it.

[Friadoc]

Originally Posted by Fifth Element

Possibly, but you need to bear in mind WotC's specific business. Even if demand for 4E is constant over the next 10 years, they simply do not need the same number of man-hours to maintain the edition as they did to design it in the first place. Designing and developing a new edition is a huge investment and requires a lot of man-hours. Designing supplements for an existing edition is far less intensive.

While I can see your point, that is also working on the assumption that all the work that is going on within Wizard's is just maintaining the edition, however we know that there is development of 4e Realms, 4e Eberron, and potentially something new beyond that. Plus, potentially, there might be a Modern Product with leverage for SciFi, unless they're abandoning those markets to focus on Star Wars Saga Edition.

My theory is that those related to the DDI area where planned further out with some of the more veteran folks in design and development being the product of some aspect of the economy. But, I am still of the opinion that layoffs are a quick and easy stop gap move, instead of a solid business plan or model, without it being obvious, from the start, that seasonal layoffs are part of the business model, as it is with season labor, such as wildfire fighters, construction, and so forth.

[Fifth Element]

Originally Posted by gribble

It may seem like semantics, but there's actually a world of difference. It's generally much more cost efficient and predictable to use temporary workers who are hired for a specific project/duration. Well run businesses are all about predictability and repeatability.

It's certainly very different from the employee's part of view, but your overriding assumption here seems to be that these layoffs are unexpected. I doubt the WotC staff looked back at the layoffs after 3.0 and 3.5 and said, 'that won't happen this time'.

Originally Posted by gribble

Permanent staff on the other hand expect (and let's not get into the debate about whether this expectation is valid or not), that once they're given a job it is theirs until they are no longer capable or willing to perform it.

Okay, we won't get into it. Though I'd suggest it's quite relevant to the discussion, and avoiding it avoids an important aspect of the discussion.

Originally Posted by gribble

Consequently, when they're laid off there is a lot more ill-will towards the company and unease among the retained staff (the "who's next" syndrome).

Indeed. You seem to feel that WotC has not considered this. I find that unlikely. They most likely considered it, but decided on this business model anyway because it is only one consideration out of hundreds, if not thousands, of things.

Originally Posted by gribble

Sorry, but having been a contract worker I'm going to call BS on that one. Contract staff are subject to the same confidentiality agreements, and expected to have the same commitment to a project as permanent staff.

Legally, yes. You've been a contract worker. Have you also been a manager? The management perspective is quite different from the staff/contractor perspective.

Maybe WotC can't attract the talent they want without offering full-time positions? Maybe the reaction is "I'm not moving to Seattle for one contract, even if it does last 12 months."

There are all kinds of reasons why this business model could be the best for WotC, before jumping to "it's not a well-run company".

[Fifth Element]

Originally Posted by Mokona

In general it is my impression that non-compete agreements aren't likely or able to be enforced in a court of law.

In understand this varies quite a bit by jurisdiction. Where I live, non-competes are enforceable. I know they're not in other locales.

[Friadoc]

Originally Posted by Mokona

In general it is my impression that non-compete agreements aren't likely or able to be enforced in a court of law. It would also be bad PR if Wizards of the Coast had layoffs and kept its former employees unemployed due to non-compete clauses. I wouldn't worry about it.

If they have non-compete agreements in place, I doubt they are valid under a layoff or similarly amicable separation of employment. In my experience, most non-compete clauses are in place to keep an employee from using an unfair advantage, or inappropriate business relationship, to jump ship from one company to an associate or partner company. Also, the only way that they have ever been valid is with contract employees, such as professional wrestlers, and in those cases the company pays them out the remainder of their contract and holds them to the end date of the contract.

So, with respect to those impacted by the recent WotC layoff, I doubt that there is an enforcible NCA in place or, as you said, that WotC would enforce it in such a negative fashion.

Odds are, working on assumption here, the folk who had to do the face-to-face on these layoffs probably hated doing it, felt badly, and did the best they could to take care of those folks that were separated from the company due to a fiscal decisions made beyond them.

[Fifth Element]

Originally Posted by Friadoc

While I can see your point, that is also working on the assumption that all the work that is going on within Wizard's is just maintaining the edition, however we know that there is development of 4e Realms, 4e Eberron, and potentially something new beyond that. Plus, potentially, there might be a Modern Product with leverage for SciFi, unless they're abandoning those markets to focus on Star Wars Saga Edition.

Yes, that's a good point. I was thinking about 4E alone in my arguments. I'd suggest, though, that development of a setting for 4E is still less intensive than the core, since the system is already established and playtested.

[Friadoc]

Originally Posted by Fifth Element

In understand this varies quite a bit by jurisdiction. Where I live, non-competes are enforceable. I know they're not in other locales.

They are enforcible, to a point, in most places around here, but usually with respect to direct competition, as opposed to unfair leverage to keep someone from seeking general employment in the various industries.

i.e. A semiconductor company could keep an engineer from working for the competition, in the exact same, or closely related role, that is currently filled, however they could not keep them from a further afield position.

Most the times that they have failed, quite regularly, has been when the NCA's have been applied vindictively and without reasonable merit, as you cannot keep someone from working, simply because they decided that they wanted to leave a company, as it is massively unfair to workers, while simultaneously being over empowering an employer.

[joethelawyer]

My gut and my experience says that the hiring of many temp/seasonal/freelance workers works well as a cost savings for a company where creativity in terms of the item produced is less of a factor. In other words, it works when the temp worker is doing cookie cutter stuff, or work where a certain outcome or product is specifically requested in detail. Like "Develop for me a computer program which does X,Y, and Z. Here are 20 pages of specs for the program." I am not saying there is no creativity involved in programming. Its just that in situations where the end product requested of the freelancer is described in great detail, there is less room to really leave a creative stamp on the product where people recognize "Ahh, this was a program created by Bill," when the program is simply a bit of accounting software or online billing product created to certain specific specifications. Temp stuff also works well for stuff like boring filing, document review, etc.

(I am not trying to denigrate programmers, and I suspect we may have a large population of them here, or any other job, as I have experience with all of the jobs I spoke of above, so I used them as examples. If you want to argue the point with me rather than try and understand the larger point i am trying to make, take it to email please.)

I don't see temp/freelance/seasonal working too well when you are developing core products and systems for a game like D&D, where the style and taste and overall mindset of the core crew of creative minds behind the game leave such a huge mark on the final product. It does work well for supplements, splat books, stuff like that. It's just hard to keep a consistent style, vision, and cohesiveness to the core materials when you keep wiping out the team of masterminds behind the core materials before all the core materils are all the way out the door.

Plus, as Monte said, you lose all the institutional experience when you fire the "old guys" which leads to the new guys making the same mistakes every few years.

But rather than argue the merits of temp vs full time, I again want to express my sympathies for those who were heartlesly fired just a few weeks before the holidays, and express my concern for what this means for the future of WOTC and the D&D brand. While I don't care at all for 4e, I do appreciate the role the D&D brand has in bringing new gamers to the tables. Who knows, maybe it truly is the beginning of a great new era in gaming, without the 800 lb. gorilla overshadowing everything.

[Friadoc]

Originally Posted by Fifth Element

Yes, that's a good point. I was thinking about 4E alone in my arguments. I'd suggest, though, that development of a setting for 4E is still less intensive than the core, since the system is already established and playtested.

It really depends on how they handle the development of the setting, since it can either be no change (Eberron), minor change (unseen), or major change (Forgotten Realms), each of which has a change of intensity in development of new material, resources, and unique layout of information. While there could be a simple reprint of previous work wrapped around new rules, ala d20 Dark*Matter, a fair deal of which was the verbatim tech from the Alternity Edition, it is a less commonly used method.

In my experience, new crunch takes less folks than new fluff, but my exposure is more minor than I'd like, so I could be totally wrong here, especially with respect to the current edition of D&D's rules set.

All of this said, though, the human element is very important, both to the folks laid off, to those who still work their, and potential folks who might work there, or for those there. The people who were laid off, from the look of it, were not expecting it, but are trying to cope with it. Their co-workers have, most likely, a level of survivors guilt, and have to work through that and, lastly, those who want to work there, or for there, have an odd level of worry now, too.

While it might make sense with dry numbers, layoffs make less and less sense on the human factor, even though they can often protect the larger numbers from losing their jobs. As has been said elsewhere, there is something to be said about private companies and their abilities to play things a bit tighter, as opposed to publicly traded companies, who work, to a degree, at the whims of the BOD and investors and stockholders.

[d20Dwarf]

Originally Posted by Mike Selinker

And he'll do that for something else somewhere else, because he's the best game designer in America.

Mike

Yeah, I didn't want to step on anybody's toes in the thread, but that's my feeling as well. I'm very sad that he won't have WotC's might behind him, but I'm sure this can be as freeing as it is restricting to his future endeavors. I can't wait to see what he does next.

[joethelawyer]

Originally Posted by Friadoc

If they have non-compete agreements in place, I doubt they are valid under a layoff or similarly amicable separation of employment.

While it varies on a state by state basis, and depending on the terms of the individual agreements, you'd be wrong in that opinion, overall. You would especially want them in those situations.

Plus this may be semantics, but lets not pussyfoot around here.

Layoff = GET YOUR ASS OUTTA HERE. YOU'RE FIRED!

Separation of employment = GET YOUR ASS OUTTA HERE. YOU'RE FIRED!

When you say "layoff or similarly amicable separation of employment", how is a layoff amicable?

Ask any of those 24 people if they had an amicable experience yesterday.

[Zaruthustran]

Originally Posted by Mike Selinker

What Monte said. JoT hired me and many of the people who get thought of as the intellectual core of Wizards back in the day. He figured out how to revitalize D&D with an approach based on rationality and flexibility. And he'll do that for something else somewhere else, because he's the best game designer in America.

Mike

First: welcome, Mike Selinker, to ENWorld!

Second: while the layoff is terrible, I'm really looking forward to what an independent JoT will create. He is a brilliant and amazing man.

[Friadoc]

Originally Posted by joethelawyer

While it varies on a state by state basis, and depending on the terms of the individual agreements, you'd be wrong in that opinion, overall. You would especially want them in those situations.

Plus this may be semantics, but lets not pussyfoot around here.

Layoff = GET YOUR ASS OUTTA HERE. YOU'RE FIRED!

Separation of employment = GET YOUR ASS OUTTA HERE. YOU'RE FIRED!

When you say "layoff or similarly amicable separation of employment", how is a layoff amicable?

Ask any of those 24 people if they had an amicable experience yesterday.

Well, as I had it hammered home in my head, several times, being laid off does not mean you were bad at your job, incompetent, and what not, but that they just needed to make cuts, thus it is, was, less directly personal as being fired because you are a lousy employee, bad at your jobs, a problem, or what not.

Plus, layoffs sometimes have severance packages, benefits, the ability to instantly apply for unemployment, with waiting periods before payout, of course, and other state and federal potentials for assistance and programs.

Yet, when you are summarily fired, that is it, either you get nothing, in addition to a bad mark on the employment history, or you have to find for proper recognition.

Now that does not mean that being laid off does not hurt, as it does, but it does mean that it is not a sign of you doing badly, but more the company making a hard choice, without it being a reflection on you, the employee.

Amicable separations are more like, "This sucks, we know it, but we need to make cuts and your feel within those cuts. Your managers will write letters of recommendation, here is a severance package, and a list of work placement benefits."

It is a lot less painful then, say, getting a phone call telling you not to show up to work, not to set foot on the property, and that your particulars will be mailed to you.

A lot less.

[Fifth Element]

Originally Posted by joethelawyer

Layoff = GET YOUR ASS OUTTA HERE. YOU'RE FIRED!

Separation of employment = GET YOUR ASS OUTTA HERE. YOU'RE FIRED!

Yeah, regardless of the legal form of what happens, from the employee's perspective it often matters little.

[Breschau of Livonia]

Regarding the layoffs - ladies and gentlemen, you've got my sympathy - and empathy. I've been there. Back in '02 the tech startup I worked for went under - just a little while after my first child was born. I know it was a rough time for me - worrying about finances, getting a new job in a lousy economy. Hang in there folks - you've brought a lot of joy to a lot of us here in geekdom and the karma's gotta be good for something.

I can't speak to whether its good business to have cyclic layoffs depending on the economy - I'm on the techie side of things, not the business. But I know being in layoff environments is brutal - the anticipation (rumors usually are afloat, sometimes even announcements). And even if you survive one round there's always the next. And there's the increased workload from the missing people, the damage to morale. It might make shareholders happy - and I've known companies that pride themselves in canning people even in good times - but it's gotta have some negative impact on the bottom line.

As far as non-compete goes - it really depends on how much the company wants to enforce them and how much they can spend on lawyers. Whether enforceable or not they can make your life miserable.

I've never been a contractor, but I've had good experience using them. Contractors who gain a rep for not respecting confidentiality tend not to go very far, so it is in my mind a perfectly reasonable business model, especially for short to medium term needs, avoiding the crushing damage to morale that layoffs bring.

OK I'm done pontificating...

[Dannyalcatraz]

In understand this varies quite a bit by jurisdiction. Where I live, non-competes are enforceable. I know they're not in other locales.

The enforceability of a NCC hinges on several things, not the least of which is whether it is "unconscionable," the scope of the NCC, and the geographic area it covers.

Whether a NCC is unconscionable is a balance test between the company's valid reasons for having the NCC in the first place and the ability of the person covered by it to find gainful employment.

Given that the RPG industry involves precious few true corporate secrets- things that would be on a par with KFC's secret recipe, for instance- it would be hard for a court to justify barring someone from working in the biz on that rationale.

Ditto the size of the industry- despite the explosion in the number of companies since the dawn of the hobby, the number of professional level game designers probably wouldn't fill a mid-sized auditorium, and most of them probably know each other on sight. This also means that there aren't many vacant slots to be filled at any one time. (Besides, can you imagine what trying to get a job with another RPG company if you were known to be the one who tried to get a NCC enforced?)

Given the nature of publishing these games, the geographic coverage of a NCC would be considered national or international. A court considering enforcing a NCC would presumably ask the party seeking its enforcement to meet a high burden of proof.

Put all together, its unlikely that a court would enforce most NCCs in the RPG industry, assuming a company tried to enforce one.

When you say "layoff or similarly amicable separation of employment", how is a layoff amicable?

A layoff is probably not amicable, but a separation of employment may be moreso than a true layoff.

I know of several people who were facing true layoffs who were given the option of continuing employment by becoming independent contractors.

Usually, its not quite as good a deal as full employment, but in a downward spiraling economy, it sure beats the alternative. And if you're particularly skilled, it may even be a better deal.

The father of a friend of mine worked in the oil industry in Tx, and lost his job on Dec. 24 of that year. By Jan 2, they had re-hired him to work in a different office within the company, still in the USA. By April, he was downsized again, but was offered a position as an independent contractor...in Paris. In addition to keeping his salary, they even offered covering the family's moving expenses, as well as round trip plane tickets for the 2 kids for when they were out of school (both were in college in the USA).

Emotionally draining? Certainly- but it did work out for the best.

While some of those WotC laid off are surely looking for new jobs, AFAIK, its not known whether any of them will be given positions as freelancers.

[joethelawyer]

Originally Posted by Fifth Element

Yeah, regardless of the legal form of what happens, from the employee's perspective it often matters little.

Exactly. At the end of the day, you still have to worry about putting food on your kids plates, making the house payment, and trying to put away a little bit for the kids college and your retirement.

Whether you got some severance package or not, whether it was due to your performance or not, whether you get a handshake or a kick in the ass, when you walk out the door that last time, it sucks.