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.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.
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.What's the difference between using seasonal workers, and hiring/laying off staff, other than the words used?
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.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.
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.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?
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.
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'.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.
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.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.
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.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).
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.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 understand this varies quite a bit by jurisdiction. Where I live, non-competes are enforceable. I know they're not in other locales.In general it is my impression that non-compete agreements aren't likely or able to be enforced in a court of law.
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.
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.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.
In understand this varies quite a bit by jurisdiction. Where I live, non-competes are enforceable. I know they're not in other locales.