Stan! Talks "Life After Wizards (Again)"

[Jester David]

Stan! just became my hero for turning down a regular paycheque because of principles and in protest of a bad corporate policy.
Well done sir, I salute you.

 

[Kaodi]

You'd have to modify federal labor law to allow it as if you're salaried you're considered to "always" be on the clock; therefore you don't have "you" time that's yours. Additionally, your comments about political speech and such don't apply to a game designer's scope of employment so long such speech doesn't adversely impact the firm.

I do not think "always on the clock" is quite the same thing as "no separation between work and private endeavours" . If it were, logically speaking wherever you were would qualify as your workplace, and your employer could be held liable for anything that happened to you, anywhere, because you were always "at work" . That that is not how things work is, I think, sufficient to demonstrate a salary cannot be an adequate reason for an all-reaching relationship.

 

[Kobold Boots]

I do not think "always on the clock" is quite the same thing as "no separation between work and private endeavours" . If it were, logically speaking wherever you were would qualify as your workplace, and your employer could be held liable for anything that happened to you, anywhere, because you were always "at work" . That that is not how things work is, I think, sufficient to demonstrate a salary cannot be an adequate reason for an all-reaching relationship.

Fair reply so here's one back:

1. The salary equation implies that your efforts related to your field regardless of when they are executed are done on behalf of and as an agent of your employer. Keep in mind, you're the only one talking about an all-reaching relationship. Specific to the point, we're talking about people being creative in a way that is similar to what their employer does. Nothing else.

2. Your employer is liable for your safety at any employer-sanctioned place of work, that includes all of their formal offices and any sanctioned work-at-home office. This is why any company with a formal work at home policy requires pictures of your home office to approve the request. It helps with their taxes but also covers their liability.

The employer is not responsible for your well-being when you are not in those places, but it's assumed you will not being doing efforts related to your field when you're not in one of those places. That's where the non-compete comes in, to fill the gaps.

However, since most salaried employees are also on employer sponsored medical, dental, accidental death and life coverage.. the argument you pose is largely covered. They do take responsibility for you within the scope of what you do for them.

One of the reasons why a corporation is not responsible for an employee's random criminal and social acts that have nothing to do with them (in terms of liability) is due to the corporation's status as a legal individual on its own terms. (one of the emergent properties of the 13th amendment to the Constitution of the United States). Other countries have largely followed the United States' lead in regards to corporate law.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Yeah, not so much down with the corporate feudalism.

Cool for Stan!. I hope companies that pride themselves on being creative and innovative follow in the footsteps of places like Blizzard, Bioware, and other industries that value remarkably innovative people enough to let them keep their ideas.

This policy isn't exactly rare (I've signed a few contracts with language very, very similar to what Stan! describes), and the only way the policy is going to change is if employers realize that ultimately their bottom line is going to suffer for trying to control things like this. Stan! is going to go on to use his talents elsewhere, and I wish him and the companies he works for the best of luck. WotC is a bit poorer without him.

And if Monte left for similar reasons (which wouldn't surprise me, though I have no way of verifying that), we're seeing some people willing to take big sacrifices to remain creatively independent.

If you've got some Strong Opinions on the issue, I'd suggest not just harping about them here, but calling or mailing or e-mailing Wizards directly. Sharing some contraexamples and being firm and polite is probably smart.

I'm honestly not sure how I'd break if I were to be offered a similar deal-with-the-devil kind of arrangement. I might honestly lease them 100% of my creativity for a period of time in exchange for employment, but that's not a place I'd want to stay at forever. To have your thoughts owned like that is really unpleasant, and it'll take people with more bravery than I sometimes have in the face of stable employment to consider their morals before their jobs.

Basically, this is me saying I'm going to fly out to Redmond and buy Stan! a beer. How's Washington State in February?

 

[Mark CMG]

And if Monte left for similar reasons (which wouldn't surprise me, though I have no way of verifying that), we're seeing some people willing to take big sacrifices to remain creatively independent.

He chose wisely.

 

[Ulrick]

Question:

What's the deal with Stan!'s exclamation point?

 

[Cybit]

To be fair, even Boeing has such a policy for full time employees, and as does Paizo (IIRC). The part of this that is important is the "exceptions" part. Most companies are good about the exceptions part. Basically the exceptions come down to whether HR / Corporate Policy thinks that what you're working on could potentially come back to compete with them. Since entertainment is a broad categories (one could argue RPGs compete with even movies for entertainment time of customers), I could see game / entertainment industries being much stricter about such things.

 

[R_Chance]

To be fair, even Boeing has such a policy for full time employees, and as does Paizo (IIRC). The part of this that is important is the "exceptions" part. Most companies are good about the exceptions part. Basically the exceptions come down to whether HR / Corporate Policy thinks that what you're working on could potentially come back to compete with them. Since entertainment is a broad categories (one could argue RPGs compete with even movies for entertainment time of customers), I could see game / entertainment industries being much stricter about such things.

What I find unusual about Hasbro's implementation (not the clauses themselves which seem fairly standard) is, as you mentioned, the lack of exemptions. In the end the head of WotC, Hasbro man that he is, went against all the exemptions including those that already had been agreed to by others. Several of those dealt with areas that had nothing to do with any WotC product and could not have possibly "competed" against WotC. Anything related to RPGs etc. I could understand. But childrens books?

 

[Sonny]

No wonder there are so many kickstarters if this is a standard clause. It's a horrible thing to give up your creative freedom. I can't ever imagine doing it. I can't even believe people are arguing about this infavor of Hasbro by just accepting it and saying, "well, that's a normal contract clause". I take back all the malicious things I have said about kickstarters. Good for them retaining creative freedom.

For older established types it can be a raw deal. But for new people... not so much.

In fact, if you're new to an industry you shouldn't let that kind of clause scare you away. You'll be getting more than a paycheck from them.

Experience - Yes, on the job experience meeting someone else's deadlines day to day while creating and collaborating with others is different then making something at home.

Contacts - I can't stress enough how valuable this is. Not only will you meet people at your place of employment, but trade shows will introduce you to a lot more, especially on the media side of things. (depending on your job of course). Contractors who can get the job done well and on time, are also people you'll want to stay in contact with.

After you've made a name for yourself in (name your industry) and can pick and choose what you want to do, then feel free to turn down companies with such clauses. But you should seriously consider working for them despite that when you're new.

 

[Sonny]

What I find unusual about Hasbro's implementation (not the clauses themselves which seem fairly standard) is, as you mentioned, the lack of exemptions. In the end the head of WotC, Hasbro man that he is, went against all the exemptions including those that already had been agreed to by others. Several of those dealt with areas that had nothing to do with any WotC product and could not have possibly "competed" against WotC. Anything related to RPGs etc. I could understand. But childrens books?

You do know that Wizards has published children's books before right?