• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Ori Developer's Culture Reportedly 'Oppressive,' No Longer Working With Xbox (ign)

Tams

Gold Member
This CEO is straight up asking "hey iz you planning to pop out any babiez any time soon ?"

I don't think men generally get asked at interviews if they plan to have kids so the company can foresee paternity leaves for them.

You don't see any issue with hiring practices leading with questions like that ?




The US is only 'developed' first world country that doesn't offer a universal maternity program, if the program itself was a major source of loss for a revenue it wouldn't be widely adopted world wide.

Besides, in most companies you don't start getting benefits until you've been in there for a few months, especially in contract-to-hire jobs, or straight up contract jobs like most gaming companies tend to have anyway. Contract jobs in the wide majority of cases don't offer any benefits like this in the first place.



Yeah, that's not what's being talked about here though.

You've just avoided my point.

Of course candidates shouldn't have to answer personal questions like that, and the only way to make that fair is to make doing so illegal.

But you then have to accept that employers will still want that information, so will either try to work around it or just make assumptions. Neither of which you can prevent unless you want to make thinking a crime.

That the US have shitty labour laws is not my problem. Americans need to sort that out themselves. My country has maternity leave enshrined in law. Paternity leave laws absolutely could be improved, but there are some protections there.

And my last point is salient. We're discussing hiring practices, and ultimately no private company has to hire you.
 

adamsapple

Gold Member
You've just avoided my point.

Of course candidates shouldn't have to answer personal questions like that, and the only way to make that fair is to make doing so illegal.

You're contradicting your own point which is why there's no reason to address it. You agree potential employees shouldn't be asked personal questions.

Then why even entertain the thought otherwise. Like I said before, most companies don't start offering any benefits until a few months to a year in employment anyway, if an employee has performed in a satisfactory manner by then and have earned the right to use company provided benefits, it's no ones business if they choose to do that then.

But you then have to accept that employers will still want that information, so will either try to work around it or just make assumptions. Neither of which you can prevent unless you want to make thinking a crime.

That the US have shitty labour laws is not my problem. Americans need to sort that out themselves. My country has maternity leave enshrined in law. Paternity leave laws absolutely could be improved, but there are some protections there.

Well, the good ol U-S of A comes through in that regard at least, it's illegal base hiring, firings etc based on pregnancy or related questions. Of course I cannot speak if the rest of the developed world also follows this practice.

Even in this regard, the Moon studio executive is asking the person whose recommending the woman, not the woman herself in the first place during an interview, so that meet your earlier criteria of "they'll skirt around to ask" in an informal way.

Regardless, it is an incredibly scummy thing to do and with leadership like that, I can't blame MS for not funding their next project.

And my last point is salient. We're discussing hiring practices, and ultimately no private company has to hire you.

Yeah, don't think anyone said otherwise.
 

SlimeGooGoo

Party Gooper



Jake Gyllenhaal Love GIF
 

C2brixx

Member
This thought process opens up a whole another can of worms. Here you're asking questions and scenarios that will specifically limit women from joining, and on the flip side some folks then go around and say "see, this field doesn't have that many women in the first place", yeah with questions like that, no shit.

Should we also be asking married men the same question if the company needs to offer a paternity leave for them ?

These kind of questions really don't have a place in the hiring process. If your place is not shite to work, you shouldn't have any issue finding a temp replacement for anyone going on maternity leave.
If you read my post I never said it had to be a woman. It could be a man who's wife is pregnant. She maybe due in 3 months and he may want to take 12 weeks of maternity leave. Yes that would information as an interviewer I'd want to know. It wouldn't look good on me that I'm hiring folks who just months after being on the job PLANED to take extended leave. Again, I'm not talking about a "surprise" situation where a women become pregnant unexpectedly, but if her plan is for me to hire her then she plans to start a family immediately AND take an extended maternity leave. That would be something as an interviewer I'd want to know.
 

adamsapple

Gold Member
If you read my post I never said it had to be a woman. It could be a man who's wife is pregnant. She maybe due in 3 months and he may want to take 12 weeks of maternity leave. Yes that would information as an interviewer I'd want to know. It wouldn't look good on me that I'm hiring folks who just months after being on the job PLANED to take extended leave. Again, I'm not talking about a "surprise" situation where a women become pregnant unexpectedly, but if her plan is for me to hire her then she plans to start a family immediately AND take an extended maternity leave. That would be something as an interviewer I'd want to know.

I think you're going into a lot of hypothetical scenarios here which rarely, if ever, reflect real life.

Besides, most companies don't start offering benefits like this, 401K, even PTO until after a certain time since an employee joins. The employee would have to have shit like this planned down to a T to make use of all that in a way as to defraud the company like that, as you suggest. And at that point we're just veering off into tinfoil hat territory.
 
Last edited:
The US is only 'developed' first world country that doesn't offer a universal maternity program, if the program itself was a major source of loss for a revenue it wouldn't be widely adopted world wide
I' m not sure what you mean by that, pretty sure that any Countries that offer universal maternity program, the maternity is not payed from employer but from the State. The employer still oftenprefer not to assume recently wedded women because of the inconvenience of having to substitute them during their leave
 

adamsapple

Gold Member
I' m not sure what you mean by that, pretty sure that any Countries that offer universal maternity program, the maternity is not payed from employer but from the State. The employer still oftenprefer not to assume recently wedded women because of the inconvenience of having to substitute them during their leave

Again, asking about marital status or plans to marry are considered discrimination and can't be used in hiring/firing scenarios, in the US at least.

Like the last time I referred to the US laws, I'm going to hopefully assume the same for most developed countries in the world.

If it isn't and if people get asked questions of this personal nature during interviews, that's the thing that ought to be changed.
 
Last edited:

Dr Bass

Member
Good lord, do you actually believe that? They got out because they didn't feel good in their current job. Do you honestly think no one will hire them because they got out? They destroyed their reputation? Talk about a hyperbole.

Yes, he was absolutely right. A lot of opinions here given by people who have never had to hire, fire, and manage teams. It's not just about "getting out" of a job you don't like. I've done that. I think most people have. But, employers are wise to avoid people who are willing to publicly throw their previous employer under the bus. It's just not something you do, even if your perception of events is correct. And often times these people who are talking about "soul crushing" environments are just very weak employees. There are a lot of bad employees out there. This idea that everyone is the same, works the same deserves the same promotions/opportunities/whatever is just false. You have to earn your stripes and you do so by rolling your sleeves up, losing the ego, and getting things done. There are just so many people that don't get this very basic concept, it's almost easy to stand out from the crowd by having that simple can-do attitude.

I guess, you will need women to have birth control, if they want to work in your business then. Cuz, what you are suggesting here, is bat shit insane. Like women can control, when to have a baby.
Women can absolutely control when they want to try and have a baby, barring certain circumstances that are hopefully extremely rare. What is it with this complete lack of responsibility and accountability in this area?

In regards to the maternity leave debate ...

Turnover is an absolute killer to productivity, and unfortunately I've seen maternity leave abused here in the U.S. Some real life examples I've seen first hand. A woman going on maternity leave, being out for many months, then deciding they aren't returning to the job. In this case the employer is paying this woman's salary and she never had any intention of returning. She thought it was a perfectly justifiable thing to keep getting paid by a company, not work, and having no intention of ever doing so again. I think this is theft, not "maternity leave." Another example. A woman having 3 babies back to back to back, with very little time back in the office before going on maternity leave again for each child. Again this employee was collecting salary continuously, yet working a fraction of that total time. I still do not understand the concept that a private business has to, by law, pay a person to not work because of a life choice they made, simply because this person is a woman. What business is it of the company, either way, if someone wants to have a kid? Why are they forced under the threat of the law to pay this person to stop working? I've honestly never heard a good explanation for it. If a company wants to do it, awesome, good for them. I just don't understand the forced by law part of it. It's especially hard on smaller companies where there isn't a lot of overlap to take care of the person on leave. You can't just hire someone to fill in the however many months this person is going to be gone for, because it is likely a highly skilled position with onramp time. You're not just going to fill in a game dev temporarily for six months, sorry. So yeah, unfortunately, it makes sense to be worried if you're a small business. It becomes an extremely expensive endeavor to pay for that kind of thing, and it literally hurts the business at the same time. And it absolutely does get abused.

What do some of you people want businesses to do? They aren't charities, and money doesn't fall from the sky to cover this stuff. On top of that, if you use a recruiter to hire someone, you're paying that recruiter typically 25-30% of the persons salary to come on board. So lets's say you hire a programmer at 150k a year, then you have to pay the recruiter 50k for that hire. Then let's say the woman get's pregnant and goes on leave in six months. What do you do? You spent all that time and money getting them up to speed, and once they hit a point they can maybe start being really productive, they are gone. Are they even coming back? You've just spent over 100k on essentially nothing. That's real money to these businesses.

Anyway, I'm not against the idea of paying leave and surely there are companies that can easily afford it in general. Companies like Google, Apple, etc. And it makes sense to want to keep your great employees for a long time, hopefully many years, so the time spent on leave in that sense is hopefully a drop in the bucket of their career. If I had a company that could afford it, I would likely happily pay it, but I would also only be hiring superstars, and I don't think superstars would be the kind to take advantage either. But the whole enshrined in law thing is just not right to me. To pretend it's a simple thing and it's all roses and daisies for business and is not abused is a complete fairy tale. It happens, I've seen it, and it's absolutely an issue for small businesses.
 

Perrott

Member
Can't wait for Moon's ARPG, such a shame some of Mahler's early concepts had to be thrown away because of the team's complaints due to their lack of a strong, industry-defining creative vision.

I still hope the game ends up being as dark and ultra-violent as TLOU Part II.
 

kingfey

Banned
Women can absolutely control when they want to try and have a baby, barring certain circumstances that are hopefully extremely rare. What is it with this complete lack of responsibility and accountability in this area?
No Words Reaction GIF by Digital Pratik


Turnover is an absolute killer to productivity, and unfortunately I've seen maternity leave abused here in the U.S. Some real life examples I've seen first hand. A woman going on maternity leave, being out for many months, then deciding they aren't returning to the job. In this case the employer is paying this woman's salary and she never had any intention of returning. She thought it was a perfectly justifiable thing to keep getting paid by a company, not work, and having no intention of ever doing so again. I think this is theft, not "maternity leave." Another example. A woman having 3 babies back to back to back, with very little time back in the office before going on maternity leave again for each child. Again this employee was collecting salary continuously, yet working a fraction of that total time. I still do not understand the concept that a private business has to, by law, pay a person to not work because of a life choice they made, simply because this person is a woman. What business is it of the company, either way, if someone wants to have a kid? Why are they forced under the threat of the law to pay this person to stop working? I've honestly never heard a good explanation for it. If a company wants to do it, awesome, good for them. I just don't understand the forced by law part of it. It's especially hard on smaller companies where there isn't a lot of overlap to take care of the person on leave. You can't just hire someone to fill in the however many months this person is going to be gone for, because it is likely a highly skilled position with onramp time. You're not just going to fill in a game dev temporarily for six months, sorry. So yeah, unfortunately, it makes sense to be worried if you're a small business. It becomes an extremely expensive endeavor to pay for that kind of thing, and it literally hurts the business at the same time. And it absolutely does get abused.
Women get pregnant. Your mother gave you life, because she got pregnant. This is natural life.
The system abuse should be voiced, but you cant held women responsible, because men decided to have sex with them.
if you have a wife, and she is working, then you are the reason, why she is taking the maternity leave. Because you cant control yourself, and want to have a baby (This is an example).

What do some of you people want businesses to do? They aren't charities, and money doesn't fall from the sky to cover this stuff. On top of that, if you use a recruiter to hire someone, you're paying that recruiter typically 25-30% of the persons salary to come on board. So lets's say you hire a programmer at 150k a year, then you have to pay the recruiter 50k for that hire. Then let's say the woman get's pregnant and goes on leave in six months. What do you do? You spent all that time and money getting them up to speed, and once they hit a point they can maybe start being really productive, they are gone. Are they even coming back? You've just spent over 100k on essentially nothing. That's real money to these businesses.
The business owner has sex with his wife, she gets pregnant, and would take days off, so he can spend sometime with his kids. Wouldnt that also hurt the company production? Or does that apply only to women? Same for every men that is working on these jobs, who have wives?

Anyway, I'm not against the idea of paying leave and surely there are companies that can easily afford it in general. Companies like Google, Apple, etc. And it makes sense to want to keep your great employees for a long time, hopefully many years, so the time spent on leave in that sense is hopefully a drop in the bucket of their career. If I had a company that could afford it, I would likely happily pay it, but I would also only be hiring superstars, and I don't think superstars would be the kind to take advantage either. But the whole enshrined in law thing is just not right to me. To pretend it's a simple thing and it's all roses and daisies for business and is not abused is a complete fairy tale. It happens, I've seen it, and it's absolutely an issue for small businesses.
I think you are living in an echo world my friend.

Women get pregnant, because men have sex with them. Same Men that work on these jobs, have sex with their wives, which get pregnant. Every manager in that company, made their wife pregnant. And some point in their life, took maternity leave, to see their kids, or days off to spend time with their kids. This is not something, that is exclusive to women. It human nature.
If you want to blame women for getting pregnant, then you need to blame the company employees who made their wives pregnant. This doesnt work in 1 side.
 
Last edited:

nush

Gold Member
In regards to the maternity leave debate ...

Turnover is an absolute killer to productivity, and unfortunately I've seen maternity leave abused here in the U.S. Some real life examples I've seen first hand.

Things like the examples you give absolutely do happen. I worked for one company and the owner flat out told me "I'm no longer hiring any women that haven't had children already". I'm thinking, that's kind of illegal but it was never a written down policy. All he had to do was open the interview with the basic "Tell me about yourself" opener and if a woman had kids she would definitely mention it then.

The reason he did this was because every time he hired a woman that didn't have kids she'd get comfortable in the role and it was a good place to work and so that stability factored in people feeling comfortable to start a family. But they were always definitely coming back to work after maternity leave and be a proud working mother.

So far so good, however the reality was these women would come back for a month or less and be hit with the realization that raising a baby and having a career job wasn't as easy as they thought. No worries, they just resign and live off the husbands salary.

For the business, you've paid them for the maternity leave, kept the role open for their return, had a department running short staffed for months and then after all of that you then need to go through the hiring process again to fill a role that's now available.

After he told me this I actually watched what happened when women in that company got pregnant, yup it did every time. It didn't matter for any of the lower roles but if a woman got up to department lead level or higher that it was a big issue for the business.
 

Nickolaidas

Member
Fucked up, but not uncommon.
Yup. My employer would hire mostly women, until half of them had babies at the same time and suddenly almost half his staff was on maternity leave. After that, whenever he would hire a woman, he would interrogate her on whether she has kids, or when is she planning on having any.

It sucks for the young woman who comes in to offer her talent and instead is 'forced' to answer such personal questions, but it is what it is.
 

adamsapple

Gold Member
Yup. My employer would hire mostly women, until half of them had babies at the same time and suddenly almost half his staff was on maternity leave. After that, whenever he would hire a woman, he would interrogate her on whether she has kids, or when is she planning on having any.

It sucks for the young woman who comes in to offer her talent and instead is 'forced' to answer such personal questions, but it is what it is.

Your employer may be committing a federal crime if they're asking these questions and are based in the US.
 
TLDR: Thomas Mahler is a PS fanboy and thinks him and Korol G. they are the new Stamper Bros, they come across as whiny instead and fall victim to the modern era of digital communications serving as easy proof of their behaviour, ruining reasonable doubt. Deep down Thomas Mahler wants to be respected and loved but suffers from porkupine dillemma, lack of self worth and is a control freak. He also thinks he is a lost member of Monty Python, joke repertoire from 1969. 100% Pure bred Edge Lord.

Microsoft might buy them for cheap, if there's anything to salvage after they launch their next game, then oust the studio founders. Nintendo won't go anywhere near something that smells toxic and Sony won't care.

Owners will then set up another developer with the same ethos, vow to have changed and seen where things went wrong and achieve Peter Molyneux industry status. Perhaps they'll team up with "disposed of" bad Activision assets. Their new found company will have no women (that avoids sexual arrassment nicely) and Christmas parties will be themed to look like the Wolf of Walstreet. Korol Gennadiy dressed as Jonah Hill dressed as Donnie Azoff. Irony is lost on them.

There's also danger of Thomas Mahler going solo and getting other janitor to his frat party operation. If he goes solo and has media coverage we might have a Kanye West at hand.
 
Last edited:

Banjo64

Gold Member
Oh, by the way, for context, keep in mind that what you are seeing in this screenshot is the two co-owners jokingly insulting each other.
Truly, hell let loose on Earth.
I have no issue with the word retarded, just thought it’s funny that it’s always the Reee types who are the pedos/ones who use offensive language but do it secretly and outwardly pretend to stand against it.
 

kingfey

Banned
Such are the perils of 100% remote work.
remote work is shit in my opinion.
I am taking my university remotely, and I would like to be back to the university. Its shit, that you are working at home, without no interaction to people. I dont know how people cope with that.
 

Goalus

Member
Oh, by the way, for context, keep in mind that what you are seeing in this screenshot is the two co-owners jokingly insulting each other.
Truly, hell let loose on Earth.
Ah, thanks.
So it's just the word "retarded" that is the problem here?
As I said earlier, if the owners can talk to each other in this way with both of them laughing about it, it seems to be a very positive, non-toxic work environment.

Toxic would be to say "Yikes!!! Did you just say "retarded"? I am literally shaking right now!!!"
 
Last edited:

Lognor

Member
remote work is shit in my opinion.
I am taking my university remotely, and I would like to be back to the university. Its shit, that you are working at home, without no interaction to people. I dont know how people cope with that.
No, it's not. I've been working remotely for over two years. It's great. We are starting back to the office next month and no one on my team is happy about it.
 
No, it's not. I've been working remotely for over two years. It's great. We are starting back to the office next month and no one on my team is happy about it.
And it makes special sense considering increasing gas prices, financial crisis looming and salaries staying the same. It's a better contribute for decreasing CO2 footprint nuking the need for transportation 5 days a week than, say... Sell electric Teslas to everyone, and every company can and should do their part in that. Having your co-worker sitting across from your desk is a luxury commodity and not something that's usually needed.

If for the most part you can do your job from home, then by all means, you should be home and only pop-in when either you want to or it's really needed.
remote work is shit in my opinion.
I am taking my university remotely, and I would like to be back to the university. Its shit, that you are working at home, without no interaction to people. I dont know how people cope with that.
I wouldn't want to have done my University remotely because the most valuable thing I gained from it really was a network with my colleagues that helps me to this day. Without that it would have been a internet course, which is far less useful as I already knew how to work.

In regards to work though, it's not the same. You're not supposed to be buddies with your co-workers "that reduces productivity", you're expected to work. Bosses usually don't like it when you mingle and generally just have fun (while doing your job), and the most fun your department feels to them the less work they think gets done.

In a normal scenario though, people ought to have a choice. Even when I was in University, there were people that only appeared to present their work on deliveries or came for tests and otherwise didn't have to show up - hence, I showed up because I wanted to. That's a big part of being an adult and making decisions, the fact that you can manage your time in any way as long as you do what you need to, it's really something that you get a glimpse of in University and then usually are unable to do in your professional life, for no reason other than your bosses being control freaks.
 
Last edited:

Ozriel

Member
Man…

It’s perfectly valid not to like the overly ‘Woke’ attitude in society these days, but take care not to go too far in your ‘anti-Wokeness’ to end up seeming like a complete asshole.


There’s someone above questioning why employers have to pay women on maternity leave. Describing pregnancy with terms like ‘irresponsibility’. That’s utter nonsense.
 
It may be, but if I'm running a business I'd want to know if this "person" I'm hiring is planning on doing something in the near term that would effect my business. If the interviewee was to require maternity leave within a year of being hired then I'm right back where I started. Looking for someone to do their job while they're out.
I think the issue is both the way he phrased it, and also the fact by your wording, both women and men could do almost anything in the near term that'd affect a business. However, did the Moon guys ask any pressing questions to male hires if they were going to, say, take an extended vacation or just use their position at Moon as temp for a resume boost towards getting a position at a bigger company? Maybe even take time off to look after a newborn child while the wife eases back after giving birth?

It just kind of looks like double standards applied for females on the team compared to the men, and there's better ways to factor maternity leave into the equation (and with more respect/taste in how you phrase it among your employees/staff) than the way that quote presents it. That quote's a very smoothbrained way of putting the concern out there as the head of a studio IMHO.
 
Man…

It’s perfectly valid not to like the overly ‘Woke’ attitude in society these days, but take care not to go too far in your ‘anti-Wokeness’ to end up seeming like a complete asshole.


There’s someone above questioning why employers have to pay women on maternity leave. Describing pregnancy with terms like ‘irresponsibility’. That’s utter nonsense.
This

Both side of this stuff is getting retarded at this point one side calls everything woke like did they even look up what the word woke means wile the other side is sensitive little people and wants to cancel everyone with a different opinion or view then their own
when did it get like this ?

i don't actively follow this crap so when i see it everywhere it get so stupid
 

adamsapple

Gold Member
Man…

It’s perfectly valid not to like the overly ‘Woke’ attitude in society these days, but take care not to go too far in your ‘anti-Wokeness’ to end up seeming like a complete asshole.


There’s someone above questioning why employers have to pay women on maternity leave. Describing pregnancy with terms like ‘irresponsibility’. That’s utter nonsense.

Thank you.

The amount of folks so flippantly commenting that they would also ask females about their pregnancy plans in a hiring capacity is just a bizarre thing.
 

Doomtrain

Member
Speaking as someone who works in the games industry: no one offers men paternity leave to begin with. Most companies will offer it to women, but not men.
 
Women can absolutely control when they want to try and have a baby, barring certain circumstances that are hopefully extremely rare. What is it with this complete lack of responsibility and accountability in this area?

What the hell? Lack of responsibility and accountability? How do you even deduce that?

In regards to the maternity leave debate ...


Holy mother of god. I'm not surprised by this statement at all but whenever this comes up, I'm just blown away. Of course you're in the US, a country that can easily have maternity leave but don't. Why? No idea. But I'm a bit confused by a few statements you made.


Turnover is an absolute killer to productivity, and unfortunately I've seen maternity leave abused here in the U.S. Some real life examples I've seen first hand. A woman going on maternity leave, being out for many months, then deciding they aren't returning to the job. In this case the employer is paying this woman's salary and she never had any intention of returning. She thought it was a perfectly justifiable thing to keep getting paid by a company, not work, and having no intention of ever doing so again. I think this is theft, not "maternity leave." Another example. A woman having 3 babies back to back to back, with very little time back in the office before going on maternity leave again for each child. Again this employee was collecting salary continuously, yet working a fraction of that total time. I still do not understand the concept that a private business has to, by law, pay a person to not work because of a life choice they made, simply because this person is a woman.

I'm confused here. You said "...by law., pay a person to not work..." I do hope you're aware that US does NOT have a law that requires businesses and corporations to offer paid maternity leave to their employees (https://www.oecd.org/els/soc/PF2_1_Parental_leave_systems.pdf).

So what do you mean by law? According to the The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, US DOES require 12 weeks of UNPAID leave annually for mothers of newly born or adopted children if they work for a company with 50 OR MORE EMPLOYEES. But that is unpaid and the examples you're mentioning all describe someone being paid while of leave. So I suppose maternity leave was part of the company you're describing?

It is completely up to the company to offer PAID maternity leave (or even unpaid). So, I do not understand what you mean "by law..."

Indeed, if there are individuals who are doing this on purpose (if you can somehow prove that), it is indeed wrong.

What business is it of the company, either way, if someone wants to have a kid? Why are they forced under the threat of the law to pay this person to stop working? I've honestly never heard a good explanation for it. If a company wants to do it, awesome, good for them. I just don't understand the forced by law part of it. It's especially hard on smaller companies where there isn't a lot of overlap to take care of the person on leave.

Still not understanding. There is no law, at least in the US that a company has to be FORCED to do this, especially a small business. And mentioning what business is it of a company if someone wants to have kids? Seriously? What if someone wants a child? And they like their job? What happens then? I mean, it's such an asinine and confusing statement that my mind if baffled that someone would actually type that.

You can't just hire someone to fill in the however many months this person is going to be gone for, because it is likely a highly skilled position with onramp time. You're not just going to fill in a game dev temporarily for six months, sorry. So yeah, unfortunately, it makes sense to be worried if you're a small business. It becomes an extremely expensive endeavor to pay for that kind of thing, and it literally hurts the business at the same time. And it absolutely does get abused.

Again, confused. Let's take a look at Moon Studios, which is based in Austria and has 80 + employees (Linkedin says around 60: https://www.linkedin.com/company/moongamestudios/).

Now let's look at maternity leave in Austria (taken from here:

"Maternity leave (Mutterschaftsurlaub) is the statutory time off work for maternity reasons. No woman is allowed to work eight weeks (or 12 weeks in case of high-risk births) before and after her expected due date. This is intended to prevent any stress on, or risk for, the (expectant) mother and the (unborn) child. Maternity benefit (Wochengeld) is provided as financial compensation during the maternity break.

You will receive maternity benefit (Wochengeld) if you have to take a break from employment because of pregnancy."

I don't want to type the whole thing (you can read from the article at your leisure) but I do want to point some things that might put your concerns to rest.

Number one: "Your entitlement to maternity benefit will be suspended if your employer continues to pay your wages (continued payment)."

So, according to this, the employer DOES NOT have to worry about paying the employee unless they want to forfeit their benefits. So, the company or organization does not have to worry money. The government takes care of it (shocking, I know).

Number two: "The amount of your maternity benefit is calculated individually on the basis of your net earnings in the previous three full calendar months before the beginning of maternity leave."

So, if you "abuse" the system, you're not getting the benefits.

I don't know where you're getting the "6 months" part. As per the article I mentioned above, the benefits are not for that long:

"You will receive it for eight weeks before your due date, or before the scheduled date of your Caesarean section, and for eight weeks after delivery. The payment period is prolonged to 12 weeks in case of premature and multiple births and in case of Caesarean sections."

So 16 weeks total they're getting benefits, and that can be nullified if they go to work (if they feel they are ready). And they can also take leave up to 16 weeks (8 before and 8 after delivery (https://www.leavenetwork.org/filead...work/country_notes/2018/FINAL.Austria2018.pdf). So 4 months top.

Frankly, in this specific situation, things would be planned and maybe the "game dev" could work from home. And maybe the project could get delayed for a few months. Or maybe someone else from the company can pitch in and take over temporarily.

Again, I honestly don't understand what you mean when you say "So yeah, unfortunately, it makes sense to be worried if you're a small business. It becomes an extremely expensive endeavor to pay for that kind of thing, and it literally hurts the business at the same time. And it absolutely does get abused."

Small business DO NOT require a maternity leave, at least not in the US. And I have already talked about Austria's leave and their safeguards imbedded to prevent abuse. So what is the concern?


What do some of you people want businesses to do? They aren't charities, and money doesn't fall from the sky to cover this stuff. On top of that, if you use a recruiter to hire someone, you're paying that recruiter typically 25-30% of the persons salary to come on board. So lets's say you hire a programmer at 150k a year, then you have to pay the recruiter 50k for that hire. Then let's say the woman get's pregnant and goes on leave in six months. What do you do? You spent all that time and money getting them up to speed, and once they hit a point they can maybe start being really productive, they are gone. Are they even coming back? You've just spent over 100k on essentially nothing. That's real money to these businesses.

Who are you talking about? What specific businesses? Moon studios? If so, I wouldn't worry about them. The government takes care of the leave and benefits. They are NOT, and I REPEAT, THEY ARE NOT spending money on that employee during that leave (if they are, they nullify their leave and benefits).

Are you talking about the US? If so, number one, why? And number two, as I;ve said before, small businesses DO NOT NEED TO ADHERE TO A LAW IN TERMS OF MATERNITY LEAVE. They can have it sure, but it's completely on them at that point.

You're making these scenarios that are so out there and might not even apply at all. Why will the women go on leave for six months? Even if we do take the FMLA law, that is 12 weeks (3 months) or UNPAID LEAVE. UNPAID. That is if the company is 50+ employees. So the company does not have to worry about paying that "women who get's pregnant," as per your words.

Anyway, I'm not against the idea of paying leave and surely there are companies that can easily afford it in general. Companies like Google, Apple, etc. And it makes sense to want to keep your great employees for a long time, hopefully many years, so the time spent on leave in that sense is hopefully a drop in the bucket of their career. If I had a company that could afford it, I would likely happily pay it, but I would also only be hiring superstars, and I don't think superstars would be the kind to take advantage either. But the whole enshrined in law thing is just not right to me. To pretend it's a simple thing and it's all roses and daisies for business and is not abused is a complete fairy tale. It happens, I've seen it, and it's absolutely an issue for small businesses.

Ah yes, of course you're not. What you've just said is DEFINITELY not against the idea.

Again, there IS NO LAW in the US. I'm so confused at this point by your "law" that keeps on coming up.

You've seen maternity leave abused? How is that possible? Honestly? As I've said above, there is no federal law. If it's a 50+ employee company, it's UNPAID time. And small business don't even have to follow that law.

And what about the other end of it? I've seen Women who are near term working in the ICU because they want to "save" their time off. Do you honestly think that is healthy? In the ICU, dealing with life and death and being exposed to many diseases? This happened twice, to two different women, when I was in the ICU. And then again on a medical surgical floor, which can be more physically demanding. How the hell is this safe? And this is a massive hospital chain, and they cannot give maternity leave? Seriously? I've seen them REQUEST time off from other employees. These are health care providers and the hospital cannot even provide them that much? I've seen Nurses and Doctors who are working and they go INTO LABOR right there, taking care of the patient.

I'm flabbergasted that you mention lack of responsibility. So, if a women wants a child, whether it's her own or adopted, that is lack of responsibility?

The sooner federal maternity leave comes to the US, the better.
 
I know, and it's been in the video game industry from the start. So I don't quite get why so many people think its a new thing
People went to school and expected to pop out at the top of the corporate ladder with their gender studies degree. They were told work was easy, bosses are bad, etc. they are being told grades are useless, they are being lied to.

People I know who work in it have been gaming forever, they jumped on computers as soon as they were old enough to learn C and ASM, create graphics and sounds, make them move, etc. No need to tell you that I don't know any girl who sacrificed her teen years to one her skills at that kind of thing... Obviously, there must be some somewhere, but I have never met one so far (I have met many girls who are more and better gamers than me, but this is not the point)... A lot of people who make games started on the side with no other incentive than "I like to make stuff move around the computer screen", they did not learn it at school (however, many did these days... but I am from another time, one of rugged programmers and pixel artists).
 
People went to school and expected to pop out at the top of the corporate ladder with their gender studies degree.

I see that sometimes at work. I've had 3rd year students on my ward, think that patient care is beyond them and yet they want to be a nurse?
I've been gaming since 1984 and even then it was long hours of work staff that made games, given the tight deadlines they were given to make the game for the Microcomputers It only got worse with the advent of 3D. I think the Destruction Derby Team lived on 4 hours of sleep a day eat only pizza takeaways during its crush period What I don't like is staff not getting rewarded for long hours mind and overtime not being paid

Lots of professions are known for long hours like gaming, security or journalism to name but a few
 
Anti-semitic banter from a studio with an Austrian leader......hhmmm??
Michael Jackson Effect: It's okay if your surrounded by them.

If Pedos are not surrounded by kids, then nazis are not surrounded by jews.

(regardless, I don't think the guy is a nazi)
 
Last edited:

kyussman

Member
Michael Jackson Effect: It's okay if your surrounded by them.

If Pedos are not surrounded by kids, then nazis are not surrounded by jews.

(regardless, I don't think the guy is a nazi)
Engaging in anti-semitic banter doesn't automatically make you a Nazi.....just a nasty cunt.
 

Sentenza

Member
Anti-semitic banter from a studio with an Austrian leader......hhmmm??
"Anti-semitic banter" targeted in jest to his business partner/studio co-owner, more specifically.
You know, the person he decided to start a studio with and work together for years, despise clearly hating on the Jews.

Basically the sort of thing that outrages just the Twitter audience.

And my god, did you know that once the same guy drew a penis over the same business partner's picture at the starting of a meeting?
If that's not an expression of male privilege and oppressive patriarchy I don't know what it is.
What a hell on Earth this working place must be. The most unsavory work environment in the history of mankind.
 
Last edited:

Ogbert

Member
I know, and it's been in the video game industry from the start. So I don't quite get why so many people think its a new thing
Because they're pampered children.

What annoys me is that they seem to think the company has to change rather than them make a choice. I worked for a decade in the litigation department of a magic circle law firm. It's was fucking shit. Slept in the office once or twice a month. Absolute grind.

Halved my wage and went in-house. I now have something resembling a life back.

Don't like it, leave.
 
Because they're pampered children.

What annoys me is that they seem to think the company has to change rather than them make a choice. I worked for a decade in the litigation department of a magic circle law firm. It's was fucking shit. Slept in the office once or twice a month. Absolute grind.

Halved my wage and went in-house. I now have something resembling a life back.

Don't like it, leave.
Lots of jobs have long hours like said. I don't know why people look to become hairdressers or a butcher. I have friends in both those professions and they work long hours with poor holidays, but it's widely known .
I remember even back in my ZX Spectrum days reading how developers had to work all the hours GOD give to meet their 2 month deadline
 
Top Bottom