When Is A Union Not A Union? When It is the ESA

You have to love Americans. With their idealistic capitalistic ways. There has been a lot of discussion about software developers leaving the ESA recently. Like most gamers you are probably looking at these news items and saying, "So what? Big deal." Which is a completely logical response. However, what are they actually talking about? For us non-yanks the ESA is the Entertainment Software Association. What gamers will probably know this organization for is that the ESA was responsible for the now non-gaming event called E3. Remember the E3 Girls? Well, that is another story.

E3 was responsible for raising a lot of revenue for the ESA. The ESA is the peak body (as we refer to them in Australia) responsible for providing industry representation to the government in representing issues related to the industry. Such as negotiating with regards to ratings. The ESA also maintains the American rating system for gaming (ESRB). Whereas in Australia it is run by a government department. Apparently, since the demise of the E3 function membership fees for the organization have increased in price. This amongst other things has prompted a number of prominent developers to leave the so-called "safety net" of the ESA. Most prominent being id software, Lucas Arts, and Activision.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't say I was a socialist, but an organization whose sole function is to create membership of like minded individuals or organizations in order to represent them to the higher powers of society (either an employer or the government) sounds very much like a union to me. So what if you call it a collective, or a trade association, or a lobby group, or a peak body. This is just the notion of a trade union dressed up under different language. Of course, Trade Unions are not good for workers because it means they can collectively bargain for their greatest asset (labour), but what is good for the goose isn't necessarily good for the gander. Many collectives operate around the world for many different reasons but don't tell me that they aren't another form of unionism coming from the economic power which despises everything socialist. Just because businesses make money and contribute to the capitalistic system doesn't mean they don't gather and lobby in collectives. Of course, employers don't want workers to be able to mobilize themselves and to be able to collectively bargain in things called unions because this gives too much power to the worker. However, when they need to do it themselves then this is perfectly alright.

What does this mean for Software developers in the US? It is entirely possible that candidates for the US Senate and House of Representatives may not receive as much in political donations this year. That is for sure. Obviously, those developers who are pulling their support question the value for money of their union membership. The union leaders are providing enough manipulation for their members and the members are revolting. It won't really affect the incomes that developers make and certainly the ESA won't be labelled as a union on any other web site. You can be certain that there is going to be a moment when all of these businesses kiss and make up with the ESA when they have sorted out their grievances and, once again, the rest of the gaming world will say a collective "big deal".

If you are interested to learn about some of the ways that an organization such as the ESA influences politicians through political donation (this is the Western term for legitimized bribery) then check out this piece on Team Xbox which ran today. It outlines how the ESA had passed on nearly a quarter of a million dollars to politicians in the first quarter. What kind of clout does this really give the developers? How much money does it take to buy political influence?