Originally posted by Arndur

Originally posted by Waterlily

This seems a pretty uninformed decision from the employer. MMO players in general seem to be pretty intelligent to me. Very fluent spellers and something can be said about developing social skills online which will probably come in handy on the workplace.

 When was the last time you played wow?

LOL!

---

Originally posted by Novaseeker
I never said it was acceptable to "play a game on the clock", or for it to be excused.  If you scroll up, you'll see I was one of those who said that anyone who admitted being an MMORPG player in an interview would raise a red flag for me in the hiring process -- so no free breaks for the "boys" who are gamers, at least not from me.
I do not think, though, that women should get breaks because they are raising children.  Nor do I think that (the few) men who are primary caregivers should get breaks for that either. 

---

Nova, when did this become about you?

This is about the mindset that it's easier to blame women generally for being caretakers (e.g., taking more time off due to caretaking), than even those who'll play MMOs on the timeclock (and various excuses of, "if they mentioned that they played MMOs, then I'll be concerned" -- like job searchers would put it on their CVs, let alone a burger cook on his resume).

BTW, until men take full responsibility in caretaking women SHOULD have breaks in raising not only children, but taking care of relatives and their parents when they're older -- as men sure aren't!

Equal work = equal pay = equal responsibilities. So guys, take some cooking classes; read up on child rearing; how to change diapers; know the value of shuttling kids around (and being involved in the kid's activities [not staying late at the office to show the boss how hubby/bf is a better employee than Mrs. Momma]). When that's more common place, then I'll agree with you, as then no one will get the breaks! 

Originally posted by UNATCOII

 

---

Originally posted by Novaseeker
I never said it was acceptable to "play a game on the clock", or for it to be excused.  If you scroll up, you'll see I was one of those who said that anyone who admitted being an MMORPG player in an interview would raise a red flag for me in the hiring process -- so no free breaks for the "boys" who are gamers, at least not from me.
I do not think, though, that women should get breaks because they are raising children.  Nor do I think that (the few) men who are primary caregivers should get breaks for that either. 

---

 

Nova, when did this become about you?

I thought you were responding to what I wrote.

BTW, until men take full responsibility in caretaking women SHOULD have breaks in raising not only children, but taking care of relatives and their parents when they're older -- as men sure aren't!

Here I don't agree.  That is something for men and women to work out amongst themselves in terms of their partnerships and families outside the workplace.   As I said in my post above, women in category (2) (those where the husband is the primary caretaker of the house/children) tend to do fine in the workplace in my experience.  It's the women in category (3) (where women are primary caretakers) who tend to advance less quickly.  It's not up to employers to put people in category (2) -- that's something for women and their partners to work out, outside the workplace.  And the fact that there are women who are in category (2) is in itself an indication that it is not an impossible arrangement to work out.  Now, personally, I think there are a good number of women who do not *want* to be in category (2), what they want is for both themselves and their partners to be in category (3) and for them both to be rewarded for that choice -- but that will never happen, because it would be inequitable for employers to do that in light of other employees who have fewer obligations outside the workplace.

Equal work = equal pay = equal responsibilities. So guys, take some cooking classes; read up on child rearing; how to change diapers; know the value of shuttling kids around (and being involved in the kid's activities [not staying late at the office to show the boss how hubby/bf is a better employee than Mrs. Momma]). When that's more common place, then I'll agree with you, as then no one will get the breaks! 

All that will happen if this is the case is that the advantage will go to the people who do not have children.  To a certain degree, I have observed this over the years in my various workplaces as well -- for women and men alike.   Employers can only equitably reward people for what they do at work -- not what they do at home.  If both people want to scale back their careers so that they can share responsibilities at home that is fine as well, but neither should expect their employer to reward them for it, particularly over others who, due to their life situations and choices, can devote more time to their employer.

Note, I am a single father myself, so this works *against* me, as I cannot work as long as either my single colleagues, or as other men do who have "stay at home wives".  But I don't find it inequitable, because I do not expect my employer to reward me for what I do outside the office.

    This is a funny topic as I went into gamestop today and they only had 1 employee working the counter.....SOmeone asked him why he was by himself and he said that the guy that normally works with him called in sick.......SOmeone was teasing and said "Yeah probably some game he wanted to play or something".....Then the clerk replied "Well he has been known to miss work and play WoW........

Originally posted by Novaseeker

Originally posted by UNATCOII

 

---

Originally posted by Novaseeker
I never said it was acceptable to "play a game on the clock", or for it to be excused.  If you scroll up, you'll see I was one of those who said that anyone who admitted being an MMORPG player in an interview would raise a red flag for me in the hiring process -- so no free breaks for the "boys" who are gamers, at least not from me.
I do not think, though, that women should get breaks because they are raising children.  Nor do I think that (the few) men who are primary caregivers should get breaks for that either. 

---

 

Nova, when did this become about you?

I thought you were responding to what I wrote.

BTW, until men take full responsibility in caretaking women SHOULD have breaks in raising not only children, but taking care of relatives and their parents when they're older -- as men sure aren't!

Here I don't agree.  That is something for men and women to work out amongst themselves in terms of their partnerships and families outside the workplace.   As I said in my post above, women in category (2) (those where the husband is the primary caretaker of the house/children) tend to do fine in the workplace in my experience.  It's the women in category (3) (where women are primary caretakers) who tend to advance less quickly.  It's not up to employers to put people in category (2) -- that's something for women and their partners to work out, outside the workplace.  And the fact that there are women who are in category (2) is in itself an indication that it is not an impossible arrangement to work out.  Now, personally, I think there are a good number of women who do not *want* to be in category (2), what they want is for both themselves and their partners to be in category (3) and for them both to be rewarded for that choice -- but that will never happen, because it would be inequitable for employers to do that in light of other employees who have fewer obligations outside the workplace.

Equal work = equal pay = equal responsibilities. So guys, take some cooking classes; read up on child rearing; how to change diapers; know the value of shuttling kids around (and being involved in the kid's activities [not staying late at the office to show the boss how hubby/bf is a better employee than Mrs. Momma]). When that's more common place, then I'll agree with you, as then no one will get the breaks! 

All that will happen if this is the case is that the advantage will go to the people who do not have children.  To a certain degree, I have observed this over the years in my various workplaces as well -- for women and men alike.   Employers can only equitably reward people for what they do at work -- not what they do at home.  If both people want to scale back their careers so that they can share responsibilities at home that is fine as well, but neither should expect their employer to reward them for it, particularly over others who, due to their life situations and choices, can devote more time to their employer.

Note, I am a single father myself, so this works *against* me, as I cannot work as long as either my single colleagues, or as other men do who have "stay at home wives".  But I don't find it inequitable, because I do not expect my employer to reward me for what I do outside the office.

 

So single folks without children have more privledges by your "ideal" standard? And isn't it clouded by your own bias?

Even the USMC had to drop the single-male combat arms idea, as it flew in the face of reality even for men (as humping guys in the field because they can't risk fatherhood just doesn't fly in the military).

The fact of the matter is, since women make up 51% of the population they will be in the workforce, in all shapes and sizes and single, pregnant and with children. Men just have to accept it, from CEOs to co-workers.

after dealing the nimrods and jackasses that make up  the majority of the WoW playerbase ... I wouldn't want to hire a WoW player either.

Originally posted by UNATCOII

 

So single folks without children have more privledges by your "ideal" standard? And isn't it clouded by your own bias?

Even the USMC had to drop the single-male combat arms idea, as it flew in the face of reality even for men (as humping guys in the field because they can't risk fatherhood just doesn't fly in the military).

The fact of the matter is, since women make up 51% of the population they will be in the workforce, in all shapes and sizes and single, pregnant and with children. Men just have to accept it, from CEOs to co-workers.

No, people should be judged equally in terms of what they contribute to their employer -- that's very equal.  It only gets unequal when people wish to be rewarded for things they are doing outside of their employment.  Women sure will be present in the workforce, and men do accept that -- but women need to accept that they need to contribute at *work* as much as men do if they wish to advance at the same rate that men do.  That's the only thing that's equitable for all in the workplace itself.  Some women accept this, and either arrange their lives around it (by having househusbands, or alternate caregivers, or foregoing children), or they don't and instead rail at the system -- when in fact they have chosen to be less productive at work during a certain period of their lives.  That's a fine choice to make if they wish to do so -- all of the choices are fine, really, but all of the choices also have consequences.

It's unfair that men don't have to make these choices?  But they do.  If a couple has both partners with good earning capacity jobs, the couple needs to decide whether it is economically (and otherwise) more sensible for both careers to move forward at the same pace (which will be slower, due to the fact that both will be contributing less than others at the workplace), or one moves forward faster than the other (either the man or the woman, and I am aware of a few cases of the latter, although they are less commonplace still).  That's a very private choice that each couple needs to make.  And all of the possible choices are valid.  But it's not up to the employer to subsisize one of the choices -- which seems to be what a lot of people want.  To do that would be inequitable to people who have made other choices, and specifically choices which allow them to contribute more to their work.

As both an MMO gamer (~20 hours a week) and a recurring "Employee of the Month", this thread makes me mildly happy.

Originally posted by UNATCOII

The fact of the matter is, since women make up 51% of the population they will be in the workforce, in all shapes and sizes and single, pregnant and with children. Men just have to accept it, from CEOs to co-workers.

Ummmm.... That figure can't be right.  Maybe women make up 51% of the population or single women make up 51% of  women.

---

Originally posted by Novaseeker
No, people should be judged equally in terms of what they contribute to their employer -- that's very equal.  It only gets unequal when people wish to be rewarded for things they are doing outside of their employment.

---

Like men constantly still get, and the excuse for their larger paychecks even in this day.

---

Originally posted by Novaseeker
  Women sure will be present in the workforce, and men do accept that -- but women need to accept that they need to contribute at *work* as much as men do if they wish to advance at the same rate that men do.

---

You're not reading, Nova. Women with children can't contribute as much as "single" men because of the workload isn't even. Society expects women to not only have that job, but also raise the kids AND caretake anyone else in their family.

Until men share the same workload, that premise is short of reason, as it's a crutch to accept the status quo.

---

Originally posted by Novaseeker
  That's the only thing that's equitable for all in the workplace itself.  Some women accept this, and either arrange their lives around it (by having househusbands, or alternate caregivers, or foregoing children), or they don't and instead rail at the system -- when in fact they have chosen to be less productive at work during a certain period of their lives.

---

Which means, men will have to suck it up and do the same, as sharing the responsibilities takes more than one gender to do so.

---

Originally posted by Novaseeker
  That's a fine choice to make if they wish to do so -- all of the choices are fine, really, but all of the choices also have consequences.

---

Read above.

---

Originally posted by Novaseeker
It's unfair that men don't have to make these choices?  But they do.  If a couple has both partners with good earning capacity jobs, the couple needs to decide whether it is economically (and otherwise) more sensible for both careers to move forward at the same pace (which will be slower, due to the fact that both will be contributing less than others at the workplace), or one moves forward faster than the other (either the man or the woman, and I am aware of a few cases of the latter, although they are less commonplace still).  That's a very private choice that each couple needs to make.  And all of the possible choices are valid.  But it's not up to the employer to subsisize one of the choices -- which seems to be what a lot of people want.  To do that would be inequitable to people who have made other choices, and specifically choices which allow them to contribute more to their work.

---

But it is up to the employer as the employer has to deal with reality, not the MMO world.

Humans are much, much, much more complex and have more immediate needs than trying to run a business as a raid guild.

I don't expect we will ever agree on this, so I think it's pointless to continue the discussion.

Yes, Nova, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Such topics are way too complex to "solve" in a game forum!

Originally posted by Novaseeker

Originally posted by UNATCOII

 

So single folks without children have more privledges by your "ideal" standard? And isn't it clouded by your own bias?

Even the USMC had to drop the single-male combat arms idea, as it flew in the face of reality even for men (as humping guys in the field because they can't risk fatherhood just doesn't fly in the military).

The fact of the matter is, since women make up 51% of the population they will be in the workforce, in all shapes and sizes and single, pregnant and with children. Men just have to accept it, from CEOs to co-workers.

No, people should be judged equally in terms of what they contribute to their employer -- that's very equal.  It only gets unequal when people wish to be rewarded for things they are doing outside of their employment.  Women sure will be present in the workforce, and men do accept that -- but women need to accept that they need to contribute at *work* as much as men do if they wish to advance at the same rate that men do.  That's the only thing that's equitable for all in the workplace itself.  Some women accept this, and either arrange their lives around it (by having househusbands, or alternate caregivers, or foregoing children), or they don't and instead rail at the system -- when in fact they have chosen to be less productive at work during a certain period of their lives.  That's a fine choice to make if they wish to do so -- all of the choices are fine, really, but all of the choices also have consequences.

It's unfair that men don't have to make these choices?  But they do.  If a couple has both partners with good earning capacity jobs, the couple needs to decide whether it is economically (and otherwise) more sensible for both careers to move forward at the same pace (which will be slower, due to the fact that both will be contributing less than others at the workplace), or one moves forward faster than the other (either the man or the woman, and I am aware of a few cases of the latter, although they are less commonplace still).  That's a very private choice that each couple needs to make.  And all of the possible choices are valid.  But it's not up to the employer to subsisize one of the choices -- which seems to be what a lot of people want.  To do that would be inequitable to people who have made other choices, and specifically choices which allow them to contribute more to their work.

Remember this.  When you get put in the ground, no one will put on your tombstone... "he did a great job at work".  In fact, your employer will discard you once you are no longer useful or fit their plans.

My wife and I gave up a lot to have children and hold two jobs, and heaven knows I spent far too many hours working for "free" for my employers (its not unusual for me to put in 60+ hour weeks)

I do not feel at any time did my employers suffer because of my choices.  In fact, due to my family concerns, I had to work harder than most to ensure I succeeded.

You sound like a bitter person who feels other co-workers are taking advantage of something that you don't, and you wear your self-rightousness on your sleeve like a badge of honor.

Someday, you may walk in their shoes and understand it isn't all about naked productivity, and more of a long term view is needed to decide what's best for the company.

One final thing, if you believe that advancement comes from being the most productive worker, you've got much to learn, because that's rarely the reason rewards are given.

Now, back on topic.  There was a day I played too much WOW, and my productivity suffered for it.  Realy had nothing to do with the game, I was just letting the raiding guide my life.  So I quit WOW a few years back and now play EVE and don't let it interfere with my work life.

Contrast that with a co-worker (no children) who recently discovered WOW and has let it totally consume her life.  She actually misses days at a time to play the game, something I never did, even once. 

So employers are right to fear MMORPG players, about the same as they are right to fear people who drink alcohol, smoke, play sports, do on-line trading etc. All are practices that could be abused and cause productivity losses at work.

But many people will abuse these things, and employers will suffer a bit for it.

Originally posted by Kyleran 

You sound like a bitter person who feels other co-workers are taking advantage of something that you don't, and you wear your self-rightousness on your sleeve like a badge of honor.

 

Thanks for the personal characterization -- classy of you.

In any case, all I wrote was that people should be judged by workplace productivity.  Clearly many people disagree with me.  That's fine, we have different perspectives.  Life goes on.  No need to characterize those with whom you disagree as "bitter", to be quite honest, Kyleran.

Originally posted by Novaseeker

Originally posted by Kyleran 

You sound like a bitter person who feels other co-workers are taking advantage of something that you don't, and you wear your self-rightousness on your sleeve like a badge of honor.

 

 

Thanks for the personal characterization -- classy of you.

In any case, all I wrote was that people should be judged by workplace productivity.  Clearly many people disagree with me.  That's fine, we have different perspectives.  Life goes on.  No need to characterize those with whom you disagree as "bitter", to be quite honest, Kyleran.

I'm the first person to highlight workplace productivity, but I also know that RL intercedes. If you're a caretaker you understand things are often out of your hands to fate (just like yesterday when my mom fell, which almost gave ME the heart attack, as at her age a broken hip means she'll never walk again), but you can still contribute to the best of your ability.

Personally, I admire workers who, despite their lot,  try their best  --  than those who never faced hardship coasting through life and work like it was a free ride -- as those employees can handle stress, and during emergencies and rush jobs, don't fuss as much (like whining that their friday night pub crawls are being crimped on working late). They know they need to show they can keep up, and too often try to over compensate, as the job means more than just a paycheck -- raising families/caretaking has BIG responsibilities.

There's more to finding the best employees than their relationship and marriage status, a-l-o-t more. You want a well rounded workforce, but one above all that understands that while at work they're there to work. If they want to leave at 4:59pm, but busted their butt for 8hrs, who am I to judge them for being "non productive" if they don't stay an hour longer after work? They did more than most, and that's what you can only PRAY to have as employees.

Originally posted by Cryotech

Originally posted by Novaseeker

I wouldn't ask my own recruiter to do a lot of digging about it, but if someone wolunteered to me that they had MMORPG's as a hobby, I would think twice about hiring them as well.  While many people just play an hour or two here or there, you never know if you're hiring one of the obsessed ones who will skip work to play, stay up until 2am leading raids and turn up at work tired and the like.  It's certainly a risk.

 

I liked this answer on the f13 forums:

Shrug. Everybody does something when they're not working. Just as an example, (and to be clear I do not do this, it's very illegal) I would love to avoid hiring married people with young children. Nothing sucks more time than kids, and children are always prioritized over work. I've had major problems with parents in the past. Major, major problems. If it weren't illegal, I'd hire the unkempt surly gamer with a neckbeard over the married professional guy with a lovely wife and infant at home any day of the week. Any day, any way. If only it were possible.

I also wouldn't hire anyone over 50, women, or cripples. Old people leave at 4:59:59.999, women get married and quit working or take long maternity leaves or sue your ass for harassment, and no matter what they may think, being unable to hobble with that crutch faster than 0.4MPH does impair your ability to do a white collar job, Quasimodo. But hey, all illegal.

Have to agree with the orange post... Id take a gamer over a mother, pregnant woman, old person, or cripple any day of the week.

sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen

also its just plain stupid to deny someone just because they play games and a few gamers become obsessive (funny how the media focusses on them) and screw up their lives.

also as if any of those obessive gamers would ever get a job anywhere outside of the fast food industry.

 I've worked in HR in the past and seriously any employ with an addictive issue whether it be gaming, partying, drugs, text messaging, extended online dating/surfing/youtube/facebook, etc., will have a reduced job performance.  Weeding them out on the other hand . . .  As I do game, I wouldn't have an issue with a person taking allowable vacation/personal time for gaming - if notified in advance - anymore than someone that is going to be gone for a child's school event, vacation, fishing trip, etc.  IF they are entitled to paid or unpaid personal time/leave then how they choose to spend isn't up to me.

People with young children/older parents (care giver role) do seem to need the most flexibility with their work schedule.  Generally women that hold this role, would I not hire them for this reason, no if they are qualified, but you do need to be prepared to be flexible.

As for a potential employee that games - if they're a 'got to be on 10 hours a day and the raid won't go off without me' type - I'd pass on them.  As you know where their priorities lay.  You tend to see that type though in lower paying jobs/shift work as high end corporate jobs that require extended overtime - well the two won't mesh!  Not to pin point a group but it tends to be the 18-24 year olds anyway.  Not generally high end earns.

I know plenty of 30 to 40+ gamers, but most have their priorities established regarding gaming and fall into the casual/hardcore gamer.  I mean casual/hardcore that plays randomly or daily - but has enough sense to know its a game and entertainment not their whole life in general makes an ideal candidate.  Having a hobby is generally viewed as a good thing.   

As I do game, I wouldn't have an issue with a person taking allowable vacation/personal time for gaming - if notified in advance - anymore than someone that is going to be gone for a child's school event, vacation, fishing trip, etc.

Who says that only the ideal, most productive possible candidates can be hired?  Very few job openings would ever be filled if that were the standard.  There's plenty of money to be made hiring people who will be only 90% as productive as the ideal candidate, and then paying them 90% as much as the ideal job candidate. 

Originally posted by Death1942

sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen

Lawsuit for what, not hiring someone because they play video games.  It's pefectly legal !

The only time people can get in trouble over hiring practices is when they do not hire based on some inappropriate class.  Federally guaranteed classes are age, disability, gender (sex), national origion, pregnancy, and one or two other ones.  If you do not fall wihtin protected classes the the employer can discriminate against you for any reason.

So like somkers, gammers need NOT mention that they play games during job interviews or list a game as a hobby on a resume (really do you think that makes you look professional?!?), or come in with bloodshot eyes after being up all night on a raid.