[HN Gopher] Activision Blizzard Is Trying to Stop a Union Vote a...
___________________________________________________________________
Activision Blizzard Is Trying to Stop a Union Vote at Its Albany
Office
Author : hvs
Score : 159 points
Date : 2022-11-15 19:10 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.vice.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.vice.com)
| kneebonian wrote:
| Blizzard brought me some of the greatest joys of my childhood. I
| remember playing warcraft 1 in all it's 8-bit glory, I loved W3,
| I am playing my way through Diablo 2 again right now. But it just
| feels like right around the time of WoW they started to change
| and it became a priority on revenue over producing good games.
|
| It seems like that is the inevitable result of any successful
| creator(s) they labor out of love and a joy for what they make
| and then once they get big enough MBA, managerial types, that are
| focused on metrics and numbers come in and like a parasite feed
| on the success of those who labored for love before eventually
| leaving it an unrecognizable bloated rotting carcass of it's
| former self.
|
| Is there anyway to build something successfully that contributes
| to the world without it being subsumed by management culture?
| andruc wrote:
| Look to companies that never go public
| hayst4ck wrote:
| Unionization is the 2nd amendment of labor law.
|
| The 2nd amendment exists because every human has a right to
| sacrifice themselves meaningfully to fight tyranny. Guns are a
| proxy for power, and the 2nd amendment says that citizens have a
| right to some power. Since citizens have a right to some power,
| our government cannot get too tyrannical because there would be
| consequences.
|
| The right to unionize is the right to use the threat of force
| (collective bargaining) against tyrants (CEOs), exactly like the
| 2nd amendment is the right to use threat of force (use of guns)
| against tyrants (people who rule as kings).
|
| Unions are the representation of the idea that employees should
| be able to exercise meaningful power over their CEOs, in
| particular to demand better wages and conditions.
|
| Without collective bargaining, why would a CEO ever have to
| compromise or negotiate except with other CEOs? If multiple
| companies acted like a cartel, how would employees be able to
| fight that without collective bargaining?
|
| Why are wages generally proportional to the job, and not
| proportional to a companies profits?
|
| Just like in software, the structure can be sound, while the
| implementation is poor. I think a lot of the problems people have
| with unions are implementation detail problems rather than
| structural flaws.
| dudus wrote:
| Not sure why you are doing mental gymnastics to justify
| unionizing is a constitution right by conflating it with the
| 2nd amendment when the 1st amendment already guarantees the
| freedom of assembly which is widely understood to support
| unions.
| kevingadd wrote:
| I interpreted it more as them explaining the societal value
| of unions via equating it with the 2nd amendment, i.e. 'they
| do these valuable things for us'. Not 'this is why we have
| that right'
| hayst4ck wrote:
| It was more of an, if you support one, one which many
| people hold as part of their political identity, you should
| support the other.
| chmod600 wrote:
| An interesting analogy.
|
| It's hard to follow though, because the Second Amendment has
| been held as an individual right (with some dissenting
| perspectives, of course), while unionization is inherently
| collective.
| VancouverMan wrote:
| What do you propose should be done when unions themselves
| acquire enough power and influence to begin to act in a
| tyrannical manner?
|
| We've seen this happen with public sector unions in various
| places, for example.
|
| Despite the employees having quite safe and comfortable working
| conditions, despite them being quite well compensated, and
| despite them even being able to have some input (via voting)
| over who their bosses are, it's not uncommon for these sorts of
| unions to impose varying degrees of disruption just to try to
| get even more money or benefits out of already over-taxed
| societies.
|
| These sorts of unions and their members never seem to care much
| about the negative effects that public transit, public
| education, and other artificial work disruptions/shutdowns may
| have on society at large.
| throwaway742 wrote:
| "Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered;
| any attempts to disarm the people must be stopped, by force if
| necessary"
| worik wrote:
| In New Zealand video game workers have no employment rights.
| Along with workers on film sets
|
| We call it the "Warner Brothers' Law"
| dangerboysteve wrote:
| I would have thought it would have been called the Peter
| Jackson Law.
| worik wrote:
| Hobbit Law sometimes:
| https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2018/01/29/78965/the-hobbit-
| law-t...
|
| The actual law: https://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2010/0
| 120/latest/whol...
| bovermyer wrote:
| I remember back when I was a level designer for a New Zealand
| video game company, I was paid $150 NZD per day, and that was
| my entire compensation. No benefits. That was twenty years ago,
| though.
| worik wrote:
| The dispute that started the process to change the law was
| (if my memory serves) over a "model maker" making $NZ17 an
| hour back in 2010. Hardly big money.
|
| https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/bills-and-laws/bills-
| propose...
| thinkmcfly wrote:
| Peter Jackson's thumb
| FredPret wrote:
| Or middle finger
| Lev1a wrote:
| At this point, it would be better for all those involved [1] if
| _the corporate entity_ called Activision-Blizzard was burnt to
| the ground and a new games company was built in its stead, with
| actually competent managers [2], a unionized labor force and
| actually enforced zero-tolerance policies on abuse of all kinds
| among some other nice-to-haves.
|
| [1]: Obviously not Kotick and the rest of the scum, who not only
| tolerated but even engaged in the "alleged" instances of all
| manners of abuse for years. I actually wouldn't mind if they
| provided themselves as kindling on that corporate bonfire after
| having their golden parachutes cut away to pay
| damages/"reparations" to their victims.
|
| [2]: ie. with at least a background in games development, not how
| to best financially screw their workers.
| bovermyer wrote:
| Microsoft should buy Activision-Blizzard, fully separate
| Activision from Blizzard, assign Kotick to work at a one-man
| game studio in Alaska or something, and completely rebuild
| senior leadership at Blizzard.
| danaris wrote:
| Yes, because what we need is _more_ consolidation...
| Sakos wrote:
| It's Activision Blizzard. That acquisition is just totally
| irrelevant based on every metric except maybe revenue. AB
| is primarily CoD. I'll take some minor consolidation over
| Kotick and his cronies keeping their jobs after what they
| did to the women working there, particularly the one who
| _committed suicide_ because of them. I want AB to burn to
| the ground, but I 'll take the current management being
| replaced as a consolation prize.
| endemic wrote:
| Kotick'll get his golden parachute. Don't worry about _him_!
| [deleted]
| hilyen wrote:
| If only our government wasn't beholden to corporate power, they'd
| enforce the union busting laws. They know that if enough big
| companies become unionized, the workers would be able to exert
| democratic corporate power and influence government.
| pyuser583 wrote:
| Don't forget that the interests of unions are often the same
| interest as the employers.
|
| My daughter has special needs, and we want to send her to a
| nearby public school. But the school isn't in our district. So
| we have to pay for private school.
|
| Teachers unions fought tooth and nail to prevent cross district
| enrollment using arguments from the 19th century.
| JTbane wrote:
| Agreed, also there were several high-profile reports of
| retaliation (Starbucks, et al) against union members. While
| they might have been settled out of court, it is not a good
| outlook for labor rights.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| I adored Blizzard's output for ~20 years - I have every
| collectors edition they released from Warcraft III to Overwatch -
| but I'm basically done. The scandals, the shitty monetization,
| and the half-baked products all point to a radically different
| culture and company than the one that released Starcraft in 1998.
| No king reigns forever.
| w0m wrote:
| I'm not sure i 100% grok the OW2 backlash we're seeing at the
| moment. It's a f2p game and has a middling reward model for the
| battle pass. That's pitch fork worthy now?
| ajkjk wrote:
| The OW2 backlash was "you re-released a game with almost no
| changes for a bunch of money and you want us to just.. buy
| it?"
|
| Although to be fair I guess that's what CoD does every year.
| Hmm.
|
| But Blizzard has been spending its goodwill for years. Ever
| since, I think, ever WoW expansion was worse and more pay-to-
| win than the last.
| streblo wrote:
| > "you re-released a game with almost no changes for a
| bunch of money and you want us to just.. buy it?"
|
| Except it's free to play
| gwill wrote:
| heroes used to be released and everyone would get them.
| now there's a pay/play a LOT to unlock mechanic. same
| goes to cosmetics.
| ajkjk wrote:
| Oh yeah true. But i think everyone felt they were just
| being screwed with though.
| belval wrote:
| Someone who didn't pay for OW1 might have no ground to
| complain, but in my case I paid for OW1 which now doesn't
| exist and I am left with OW2 which locks away any kind of
| progression unless I pay.
|
| It's a bait and switch and the community is rightfully
| angry. If they wanted to make a f2p OW they could've
| released OW2 as a standalone, except they knew no one
| would have migrated so instead they killed the old one.
| danaris wrote:
| Do they brick all previous iterations of CoD whenever they
| put out a new one?
|
| My understanding is that they shut down the OW1 servers
| after OW2 came out...
| goosedragons wrote:
| No they don't. They aren't even shutting down the free to
| play CoD: Warzone 1 when 2.0 releases. I can still play
| CoD games I bought on PS3, online. But somehow OW1 had to
| go.
| pests wrote:
| A day before OW2 came out!
| AlexandrB wrote:
| I quit OW when role queue was introduced. It felt like
| Blizzard was forcing a certain "meta", and while it might
| have been necessary for high-level play it seemed awfully
| restrictive at n00b level I played at. It didn't help that
| Mercy, who I played a lot, was balanced to be "not fun"
| around the same time.
|
| For me OW2 commits the same major sin that Warcraft 3
| Reforged did. Replacing its predecessor with no option to
| play the older game as it was. I understand not wanting to
| split the community, but if someone doesn't like OW2's 5v5,
| or monetization, or whatever, their only option is to quit.
|
| Also, given that OW2 made every cosmetic more expensive to
| acquire, it's only natural that people would draw comparisons
| and get mad.
| bastardoperator wrote:
| I think most people expected more and instead got less is the
| gist of the situation. I'm pretty surprised they released a
| game with less features, the same maps, and didn't deliver on
| many of the promises.
| willis936 wrote:
| Indeed.
|
| I played a final 40 hours of OW1 just before OW2 came out
| then played 40 hours of OW2. 5v5 in its current state has
| problematic balancing issues, but I will set those aside
| with the assumption that they'll eventually be fixed. I
| will also set aside the total destruction of the metagame
| as that is their business department's plan.
|
| The real scandal with OW2 is that they removed all
| performance feedback. No more being on fire, no more end-
| game cards where you could give kudos to a player on either
| team. In its place is nothing and there is no business
| justification for it. Defeats are crushing, victories are
| hollow. No levels or loot boxes. I can't ask my friends to
| come back and play because it's just bad. I'm just not
| going to play anymore.
| gigaflop wrote:
| The original Overwatch would release new heroes for free, and
| cosmetics for that hero would be available for random
| drops/purchase just like any other cosmetic item.
|
| In OW2, the new heroes are on tier 55 of the battlepass, if
| you're a free-to-play user. If you buy the pass, you unlock
| the hero for play instantly. As far as I know, there is no
| word on hero availability for those who do neither, for when
| the pass duration runs out.
|
| Having played the first game, the monetization model of the
| second feels like a slap in the face. They've added new
| categories of worthless junk cosmetics to pad things out. It
| feels like they _looked_ at other battlepass models, and
| threw a bunch of random shit together to pad it out.
|
| But hey, if you don't want to grind too much, you can always
| buy the Battlepass +20 package, and knock out the first 20
| tiers instantly!
| kmeisthax wrote:
| The funny thing is, Overwatch 1 monetization wasn't any
| better. They were notorious for popularizing[0] loot boxes
| in paid games and got flak for it.
|
| [0] Not "inventing". TF2 was the OG "loot boxes in paid
| games" game, and mobile F2P was already awash with loot
| boxes.
| gigaflop wrote:
| Blizzard made it big, EA followed suit, and we ended up
| with lawsuits over loot boxes :)
| pests wrote:
| > no word on hero availability for those who do neither,
| for when the pass duration runs out.
|
| I heard some rumors that hero's will be unlockable via
| challenges in seasons after they were released.
| jchw wrote:
| One thing notable about the way Blizzard has been operating
| lately is that they remove the existing thing when updating
| the old thing. I've heard you automatically get "upgraded" to
| Warcraft III reforged if you have it installed and are logged
| into Battle.net. I hear Overwatch 1 is similarly wiped out
| and no longer playable.
|
| The thing that's weird is, I don't think this is normal at
| all. On Nintendo's end, you can still play Splatoon 2 just
| fine even though Splatoon 3 came out, even on multiplayer.
| Multiplayer games often have a long life after they're
| superceded, even if it's a smaller contingent. If you boot up
| Quake 3 Arena or Unreal Tournament 2004, you can see there
| are still players online pretty much always, even if it's a
| small contingent.
|
| The only good reason I can think of for utterly axing old
| games is so that you don't have to compete with them. Why buy
| Reforged for $40 when you could get the original better
| Warcraft III on GoG? (You can't, of course; you can only get
| Warcraft I and II on GoG, at least now.) In case of
| Overwatch, they WOULD have to continue to run the servers.
| But surely, the majority of players would switch to the new
| game anyway, right?
|
| My opinion should be taken as a grain of salt because
| Warcraft III is one of the last games I really liked that
| much from Blizzard, to be honest. But still, something stinks
| over at Activision Blizzard, and it's somehow not just Bobby
| Kotick.
| SpaceManNabs wrote:
| WCIII TFT is quite easily blizzard's greatest game simply
| because of the world editor.
|
| I have played a bit of WoW, SCII, and Overwatch, and
| nothing will come close to finding a new custom game Sunday
| morning at 2 am and having fun with a random lobby.
|
| The "melee" (standard mode) matches were great too.
|
| I have played a lot of games and genres and nothing will
| ever top that experience for me.
| tylerhou wrote:
| I think there is a reasonable explanation for removing OW1.
| Queue times were already a huge problem (which is a large
| reason why they moved to one tank, as nobody wanted to play
| tank). Keeping around OW1 would have fragmented the player
| base and would have hurt the OW2 launch.
|
| That said, there are plenty of more cynical reasons why
| Blizzard removed OW1 which are likely also true...
| gigaflop wrote:
| I have no sources on hand and no desire to find any, but
| I think that OW2 was a partial refactor of OW1, if that
| makes sense. They'd always planned to sunset OW1 for the
| release of 2.
|
| Ages ago, there was a large update to OW1, which I
| believe had something to do with 'readiness' for OW2 in
| the form of major engine changes, etc. Nothing was really
| _new_ after that patch, but it was massive, and may have
| actually been a full reinstall. Memory is flaky there,
| and I don 't want to look for details while at work.
|
| I'd bet $1 that the megapatch (and patches since) would
| have been designed with OW2 in mind, since OW2 took a
| long time in the oven. Extrapolating a bit, I think of it
| as running the OW2 engine in OW1 compatibility mode, or
| something.
| LawTalkingGuy wrote:
| Sure, that's their motives of course - to move people to
| a newer game and not have any distractions like lingering
| old stuff.
|
| If you only played for free then it may sting but you
| have no right to compensation, only to annoyed venting.
|
| But people are saying they paid $60 for it. They have a
| right to compensation. Moreover, it feels like this
| should not only be handled by individual damages related
| to the value of the product but also a fine or punitive
| damages related to what they thought they would gain from
| the scheme.
| lghh wrote:
| But I paid for OW1, right? They don't come and repossess
| my car when a new model comes out.
| hotpotamus wrote:
| I mean, that's the SaaS model, and I suppose it does make
| sense for multiplayer games which require ongoing
| maintenance, but I agree, it's not what I'm looking for for
| my gaming.
| jchw wrote:
| It certainly isn't unprecedented, which is probably the
| worst part of the whole thing. That said, I think that it
| is at least a partial component of the OW2 backlash, so
| it's hard to ignore here :(
| jimbob45 wrote:
| It's not just that the old guard are gone, it's that they've
| been gone for a very long time. Here's a chart from 2011
| showing where everyone went.
|
| https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HZGjc0LkXXw/UYwB9YaXFRI/AAAAAAAAA...
| willis936 wrote:
| That chart must be from before 2011 because the wikipedia
| entry for Flagship Studios (the single largest receiver of
| Blizzard talent in the chart) says it went belly up in 2008.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagship_Studios
| goosedragons wrote:
| There's lines leading out from Flagship Studios to where
| people went next. Sims 3 didn't come out until 2009 so it's
| post Flagship Studios.
| Sakos wrote:
| Guild Wars is the only game made by an "ex-Blizzard" staffed
| studio that I feel has had any significant amount of success.
| Just goes to show how much these things are collaborative
| efforts that rely on a particular environment to come
| together.
| dudus wrote:
| Marvel Snap is doing pretty well lately.
| kevingadd wrote:
| GW was very much a result of the founders attempting to
| recreate all the good things (at least in their opinion)
| about Blizzard's work environment without carrying over the
| bad things. They put a lot of thought into things like code
| ownership policies, schedules and even office floor plans.
| jerglingu wrote:
| Not quite the same as an entirely ex-Blizzard staffed group
| of people, but Riot Games and League of Legends as well.
| Tom Cadwell[0] was there from the very beginning of
| League's life and has had considerable influence over the
| development and growth of the game. Before that, he was on
| Warcraft 3's development team and supposedly (supposedly
| because I can't remember despite being on the War3 forums,
| and can't find evidence of it) had a hand in developing its
| fairly successful esports scene. And before that, he was
| actually one of the first Starcraft pro gamers in the late
| 90's, just before the explosion of esports in South Korea.
|
| He's kind of a one-man army, but his influence definitely
| has shaped the more popular games and industry landscape
| today.
|
| [0]: https://www.riotgames.com/en/who-we-are/riot-games-
| leadershi...
| AlexandrB wrote:
| Guild Wars was great, arguably better than the sequel. I'm
| glad the servers are still up.
| throwaway742 wrote:
| Obsidian and Fallout: New Vegas don't rate for you?
| JamesBarney wrote:
| I'm not usually pro-union, but if there is any industry that
| needs to be unionized it's game development.
| none_to_remain wrote:
| Feels like the demand to be a Game Developer means they'll end
| up with one of those setups where the union is big on putting
| up a barrier to entry
| AlexandrB wrote:
| Is that better or worse than an industry that burns through
| and discards young talent as standard operating procedure?
|
| I would argue that the product would only improve if it's
| harder to enter, but someone can have a 30 year career
| instead of a 5 year crunchfest. Who knows though.
| none_to_remain wrote:
| I don't know! Don't intend to go into the field either way
| so luckily I don't have to figure it out
| kevingadd wrote:
| There's already a big barrier to entry: low wages and even
| entry-level roles demanding lots of experience
|
| When I started in the industry I couldn't afford a bed on my
| salary for about a year, and I only got my "in" by having a
| lot of experience doing indie development during high school
| and college - many people don't have the free time and
| resources to build up that portfolio.
| PuppyTailWags wrote:
| Could you explain what you mean by this? How does demand to
| be a game developer require the _union_ to put up barriers to
| entry? And also, how does this compare with the demand to be
| in hollywood vs the actor 's union?
| jedberg wrote:
| The actor's union is a huge barrier to entry. Any movie
| that includes a union actor is not allowed to have non-
| union actors if the budget is over some small amount (like
| $2MM or something).
|
| The only way to get into the union is to be nominated by
| someone who is already in. The only way to get seen by
| those people is to work in adjacent jobs to acting, or get
| lucky and get on a small film with both union and non-union
| actors.
|
| Once you're in the union it's great. It's a great example
| of how to form a union for creative people that mandates
| minimum pay and working conditions but no maximum, allowing
| for stars to get huge checks while making sure everyone
| gets good conditions and living wages.
| none_to_remain wrote:
| Protection of incumbent union members from masses of
| competitors.
|
| Acting, stage acting, not Hollywood, is actually where I'm
| most familiar with this through friends. If you want to be
| an actor, move to NYC, and try to find a role, you get sent
| to the back of the line at every audition and probably they
| don't even get to you. There was another way in (this may
| be outdated now) where you got points towards joining by
| working for certain employers. That's why some of my
| friends played characters for an abusive boss at a now
| defunct space travel theme restaurant - just for points to
| join the union
| Dracophoenix wrote:
| > space travel theme restaurant
|
| Planet Hollywood?
| michaelleslie wrote:
| Sounds like Mars 2112 in Times Square.
| Raidion wrote:
| It's supply and demand. Kids don't grow up wanting to be
| CRUD app developers, they grow up wanting to be game
| developers. This means that working conditions are
| notoriously bad (bad pay, terrible hours). To raise pay
| they need to constrict supply, to constrict supply they
| need to put up barriers to entry.
|
| Actors union is a definite barrier to entry: you need to
| either be a notable independent actor/performer (rare), get
| a job on a SAG AFTRA because you have a talent that they
| can't find in union (rare), or show that you've worked in
| the field (non-union commercials/films) enough to be
| notable. Then you need to apply, pay $3k, pay ~$200 a year
| dues, and give up ~1.5% of all your contracts to the union.
| Then you can't take a non-union job (again restricting the
| talent pool).
|
| I honestly don't see a ton of difference between the two:
| both establish choke points and collective bargaining in
| high demand fields to improve working conditions for the
| people that are in the union.
| guywithahat wrote:
| Game developers are paid well above the average income for the
| country and you work in an office where nobody would possibly
| get hurt. Why would they need to be unionized over another
| industry? Especially coming from someone who's not pro-union?
| Tiktaalik wrote:
| The game developers that are trying to unionize here are the
| QA department, and their pay is not at all similar to
| programmers and other game developers. Their pay is likely
| closer to minimum wage than anything.
| nitrixion wrote:
| While they may make above average in the overall assessment
| of income for a country, they make _well below_ average for
| the type of work they are doing. Many game companies know
| they can pay below market wages because of demand for the
| jobs.
|
| Source: When I quit game dev, I got a 60% raise and I was on
| the higher end of the pay scale at that game dev job. I know
| lead developers with nearly 10 years of experience making
| under 70k in games. I frequently offer them roles that would
| double their salary and they turn it down because they like
| working in games.
| throwayyy479087 wrote:
| I bet they make less than warehouse workers per hour
| lifthrasiir wrote:
| Oh, I joined the union back when I was a gamedev precisely
| because some employees (of the company's subsidiary, to be
| clear on this matter) were not granted a paid vacation nor
| remote work in spite of a heavy flood that almost paralyzed
| the entire region. When you are not unionized _someone_ will
| get hurt.
| enasterosophes wrote:
| Protection from abusive management is always going to be
| important no matter how much you earn.
| kevingadd wrote:
| "Game developers are paid well above the average income for
| the country and you work in an office where nobody would
| possibly get hurt" is a claim that falls apart if you do much
| research. The industry is full of horror stories of people
| ending up hospitalized as a result of aggressive schedules
| (salaried roles with no OT pay or constraints on time! people
| sleeping in the office, working 6-7 day weeks for months at a
| time, etc!) and the pay really is NOT that competitive at
| most studios. There are outliers that pay really well, mostly
| ones backed by silicon valley investment money, but the
| median is not that good.
| DEADMEAT wrote:
| The game industry is notorious for expecting way, way above
| 40hrs/wk of work, especially as deadlines to release
| approach. Stories of game devs sleeping under their desks at
| night are shockingly common.
| JamesBarney wrote:
| I know a few non-union construction workers, and a few game
| developers. And the construction workers seem so much less
| abused than the game devs. (though the game devs do make more
| money)
| wccrawford wrote:
| I think the employers of carpenters have to be pretty aware
| that a union is likely if they step too far out of line,
| though. Game development companies don't really have that
| threat yet. It's _possible_ , but it hasn't really happened
| before.
| willcipriano wrote:
| The construction workers also generally benefit from living
| in areas that they can afford to buy a home in. The game
| dev has the higher salary but if you are living in a
| apartment its of little consolation.
| alistairSH wrote:
| This doesn't make any sense.
|
| The game developer could just move out to the suburbs and
| commute alongside the construction worker (construction
| happens downtown[1], and those workers sure as shit
| aren't living anywhere nearby).
|
| 1 - Pick your major city.
| willcipriano wrote:
| You get to escape the city if you work residential
| construction and commute to the suburbs from a more rural
| area.
| Broken_Hippo wrote:
| Only if you live in the city, and sometimes "the city" is
| 45,000 people total. Sometimes it is smaller.
| Construction places exist lots of places.
|
| You don't just get to go to new places just because you
| are a construction worker. I think you might be viewing
| it through a somewhat romantic lens.
| [deleted]
| googlryas wrote:
| Unionization is fine, but I think a better outcome would be
| these individuals having enough self-respect to move to other
| areas of the industry where their skills are still relevant,
| and they are not abused but are actually treated with dignity.
|
| Though, it might be easy for me to say this, because I
| naturally delineate my passion from my paycheck.
| skyyler wrote:
| Are you actually suggesting that abused employees should just
| get a different job?
|
| I'm trying to figure out how else to interpret "move to other
| areas of the industry".
| kevingadd wrote:
| As it happens, people churn out of the game industry - or at
| least individual studios - quite frequently due to these bad
| work environments! But due to the massive numbers of people
| who want to work in games, they just get replaced and the
| cycle of abuse continues.
|
| The fix is to fix the workplaces.
| skyyler wrote:
| >existing legal precedent fails to account for the uniquely
| collaborative nature of game development
|
| This argument is very shaky. Aren't Hollywood films the product
| of union labour?
| yamtaddle wrote:
| Pro sports, too. Talk about collaboration.
|
| [EDIT] Incidentally, I think there's some interesting cross-
| over here between Hollywood and video games: it's my
| understanding that part (though only part) of why modern movies
| lean so heavily on CGI/VFX is that that's one of the only major
| parts of movie-making that's _not_ very, very unionized, along
| with that industry 's cousin and the topic of this article,
| video games. I'd expect that when one of those unionizes, the
| other won't be far behind.
| SQueeeeeL wrote:
| Obviously, but these arguments are basically just there to give
| a semblance of authenticity to the illegal union busting. A lot
| of rhetoric in these spaces just serve to confuse and enable
| anti-worker ideologes to feel a sense of legitimacy in denying
| people maternal leave and decent healthcare
| pyuser583 wrote:
| Aren't they literally saying the law isn't on their side?
| xbar wrote:
| Yes.
| VoodooJuJu wrote:
| Goodbye Blizzard. No king rules forever.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-11-15 23:01 UTC)