Ubi and EA Get Cranky in Canada
I really encourage all of you to visit Montreal at some point. It’s a beautiful city if you can avoid being killed by the psychotic motorists and is packed full of interesting things to do: jazz festivals, a huge indie music scene, Quebecois culture, and sporting events galore.
Montreal has just announced a new attraction to the fair city: Video Game Publisher Battle Royale. Yes! Watch as heavy weights Ubisoft and Electronic Arts continue their long standing grudge match north of the 49th parallel.
What’s got their snot in a knot this time? Apparently Ubisoft, as part of their hiring practices, requires employees to sign a non-compete clause stating that they will not, upon termination of their Ubi-employment, run off and work with the competition until 12 months after ending their job at Ubisoft (does this mean that if you leave Ubisoft, you’re technically unemployable in the game publishing industry for a full year??). And apparently, EA doesn’t like this clause and went ahead an hired an ex-Ubi employee from the Montreal studio to work in their Montreal studio. They were kind enough to inform Ubisoft of their actions, via a letter from EA Montreal head Alain Tascan to Ubisoft Montreal head Martin Tremblay that also suggested that Ubisoft “stop the illegitimate practice of forcing talented people to sign employment contracts that restrict their creative and economic freedom.”
I hear it’s also available on pay-per-view.
Related Stories
POSTED IN: News
4 opinions for Ubi and EA Get Cranky in Canada
Renee
Feb 4, 2006 at 3:49 pm
I think it is quite ridiculous that a lot of companies, not just Ubi-Soft, require that. The last job I had had the same thing in effect. For 12 months from my quitting there, I am not allowed to work at another place that does the same thing. Silly, I never thought data entry was such a competetive market, but apparently it is.
Hopefully this doesn’t have some adverse effects on the individual hired at EA.
Kamyar
Feb 4, 2006 at 9:29 pm
Actually, at least here in the States, such contracts would not hold in a court of law, for several reasons. It would put the employee at an undue hardship.
If you can prove that what you do for a living, for instance, cutting hair, is the ONLY thing you know how to do, then the courts will say that those contracts are unconstitutional and will declare it null and void. They do this because they will claim that you cannot get another job anywhere else due to your lack of skills and you cannot remain jobless for that long.
Another reason is that it would also force the employee to move out of an area - which would require them to move their entire family, another major burden.
Renee
Feb 6, 2006 at 6:17 pm
That is true. Hopefully it will all work out. I understand the need to keep certain information private and the like, but that is what non-disclosure contracts are for. No need to keep someone from doing what they like or the only thing they know.
If my mother (who still works at the same place I mentioned above) were to quit or get fired, she’d be in a real pickle. Data entry is all she is trained for, and so she would have a hard time finding a good job, because she wouldn’t be able to get another job at a place that did data entry.
So they are really shooting people in the knees here, you know?
Aaron
Feb 10, 2006 at 9:15 am
Oh if only NDAs were taken by all parties in the spirit they are agreed to there wouldn’t be any problems but there really are quite a few cases of corporate espionage that force companies, such as Ubisoft, to take such draconian stances. It really is unfortunate.
Have an opinion? Leave a comment: