Activision Blizzard Won't Recognize Proletariat Unionization, Sending Dispute to the NLRB | MMORPG.c

System

Activision Blizzard Won't Recognize Proletariat Unionization, Sending Dispute to the NLRB | MMORPG.com

Activision Blizzard refuses to voluntarily recognize Proletariat unionization efforts, which will send the dispute over voter eligibility to the NLRB.

Read the full story here

Slapshot1188

"Proletariat’s own official statement from yesterday, January 9th, states that they submitted a request for an anonymous voting process over unionization."

Now I haven't followed this very closely but was the first vote not anonymous?
If they did a "card-check" that's just sleezy.

Kyleran

All just part of the master plan, Activision Blizzard plays the bad guy to encourage regulators to approve the merger so "good guys" Microsoft can come to the rescue of these down trodden workers.

Iselin

Kyleran said:

All just part of the master plan, Activision Blizzard plays the bad guy to encourage regulators to approve the merger so "good guys" Microsoft can come to the rescue of these down trodden workers.

There's nothing "bad guy" about wanting to have a secret ballot vote supervised by the LRB.

Voluntary recognition of unions in a new place is extremely rare here in Canada and I can't imagine it being more common down your way,

Supervised secret ballot votes are common and a good thing... after they fight it out about whether the boss' son-in-law who last worked 1 week 3 years ago should be allowed to vote as a current, active employee that is.

OG_Solareus

Good on Blizzard, #F unions

Quizzical

Slapshot1188 said:

"Proletariat’s own official statement from yesterday, January 9th, states that they submitted a request for an anonymous voting process over unionization."

Now I haven't followed this very closely but was the first vote not anonymous?
If they did a "card-check" that's just sleezy.

Card check is just the process that a union has to follow in order to demonstrate that there is enough support for the union to be worth having an election.  It would make no sense to have constant unionization elections in which there was no reason to believe that very many employees wanted to unionize.  So long as it is followed by a secret ballot election in which everyone is able to vote his true preferences without fear of intimidation, there's nothing wrong with card check in itself.

Where card check becomes sleazy is if it isn't followed by a secret ballot election.  Democrats have pushed some laws to make this the case, though at least nationally in the United States, they've never come close to passing any.  I'm not sure if left-wing states tend to have such card-check laws on the books.  If card check is enough to certify a union without a secret ballot election, then union officials can intimidate or trick employees into signing up for a union that most of the employees oppose.

However, if there is a secret ballot election coming, then a union that tries to intimidate employees into signing up will likely convince some who would otherwise have opposed the union to vote against it.  In that case, it backfires.

Blizzard is doing the right thing for their employees by refusing to recognize the union without a secret ballot election.  That protects employees who are against unionization, especially if it's a majority who were intimidated or tricked into signing up for the union.  If the majority of the employees vote to unionize, then Blizzard's declining to recognize it without a secret ballot election won't stop it.

Iselin

Quizzical said:

Slapshot1188 said:

"Proletariat’s own official statement from yesterday, January 9th, states that they submitted a request for an anonymous voting process over unionization."

Now I haven't followed this very closely but was the first vote not anonymous?
If they did a "card-check" that's just sleezy.

Card check is just the process that a union has to follow in order to demonstrate that there is enough support for the union to be worth having an election.  It would make no sense to have constant unionization elections in which there was no reason to believe that very many employees wanted to unionize.  So long as it is followed by a secret ballot election in which everyone is able to vote his true preferences without fear of intimidation, there's nothing wrong with card check in itself.

Where card check becomes sleazy is if it isn't followed by a secret ballot election.  Democrats have pushed some laws to make this the case, though at least nationally in the United States, they've never come close to passing any.  I'm not sure if left-wing states tend to have such card-check laws on the books.  If card check is enough to certify a union without a secret ballot election, then union officials can intimidate or trick employees into signing up for a union that most of the employees oppose.

However, if there is a secret ballot election coming, then a union that tries to intimidate employees into signing up will likely convince some who would otherwise have opposed the union to vote against it.  In that case, it backfires.

Blizzard is doing the right thing for their employees by refusing to recognize the union without a secret ballot election.  That protects employees who are against unionization, especially if it's a majority who were intimidated or tricked into signing up for the union.  If the majority of the employees vote to unionize, then Blizzard's declining to recognize it without a secret ballot election won't stop it.

No, not political, biased, or full of right-wing innuendo at all. LMAO.

agentsi1511

OG_Solareus said:

Good on Blizzard, #F unions

I agree 100%.

Every union I've seen personally has been a total cesspool of lazy degenerates waiting for the day their pension pays out. Always doing the minimum required to not get fired from their job.

ragethebeast

agentsi1511 said:

OG_Solareus said:

Good on Blizzard, #F unions

doing the minimum required to not get fired from their job.

A job hires you to do X at a job, if the minimum to not get fired is satisfying the X condition that's just called doing the job you were hired to do you exploited twit. If you are doing more than the minimum and not receiving additional compensation then you are exactly the perfect slave and the reason why collective bargaining is so necessary.

corrosivechains

An old union joke my grandpa used to tell; "How can you tell someone has never worked for a union? They support unions."

Xiaoki

I worked for the UAW for years and I saw a little good and a lot bad.

Labor unions could work if they weren't run by people because people suck.

LeCreaux

I think she accidentally left comments on, she rarely allows dissent about her articles. In theory, unions are good for workers. But in practice the humans that run them mess it up with greed and corruption. When I was a teenager my father wouldn’t allow me to join the union where I worked. This was in the 1980s. The union officials were nice to me at first, trying to convince me my father was wrong. But after a while they started slashing my tires and my hours got cut so low it wasn’t worth the gas money to show up. If I wouldn’t pay dues — and I was 16 years old — they terrorized me until I quit to free up a job for a union employee. Imagine being a kid in school having to endure that. Unions are scary once they get control and employees are under their boot.

BrotherMaynard

It's a tough job and no mistake...

giantessfan

In other news. Sounds like rumors are abound from various reliable sources that Vince just sold WWE to Saudi Arabia. 

Since he has 80% of the voting power he really made a backstage deal, came back, sold the company, and all so he could stay in charge again.

One rumor I hope is not true but I have a feeling it is. FUCK ME. At least i have AEW...

I know not gaming related news but shit blew my mind and I have nobody to talk about it with

KnightFalz

ragethebeast said:

agentsi1511 said:

OG_Solareus said:

Good on Blizzard, #F unions

doing the minimum required to not get fired from their job.

A job hires you to do X at a job, if the minimum to not get fired is satisfying the X condition that's just called doing the job you were hired to do you exploited twit. If you are doing more than the minimum and not receiving additional compensation then you are exactly the perfect slave and the reason why collective bargaining is so necessary.

You could instead be someone that wants to get ahead by demonstrating to those higher up your merit in comparison to the slackers that surround you.

That's another path to receiving additional compensation, showing you're worth it.

Kyleran

KnightFalz said:

ragethebeast said:

agentsi1511 said:

OG_Solareus said:

Good on Blizzard, #F unions

doing the minimum required to not get fired from their job.

A job hires you to do X at a job, if the minimum to not get fired is satisfying the X condition that's just called doing the job you were hired to do you exploited twit. If you are doing more than the minimum and not receiving additional compensation then you are exactly the perfect slave and the reason why collective bargaining is so necessary.

You could instead be someone that wants to get ahead by demonstrating to those higher up your merit in comparison to the slackers that surround you.

That's another path to receiving additional compensation, showing you're worth it.

Three or four times a year the firm I work for riffs employees who quite often are  performing at an average level, all while continuing to hire regularly.

Bonuses and compensation are also tied to performance but isn't quite the ranked meritocracy management tries to make it out to be, often because it's difficult to distinguish who really stands out when most everyone is giving it their all.

I'm coming up on 20 years now but each year get more challenging to stay in the race, eventually I know they'll come for me.  

It's interesting to note that quite a few of the people who are riffed go down the road to our largest competitor and get jobs which they stay at for years with no problem.

Talin

Xiaoki said:

I worked for the UAW for years and I saw a little good and a lot bad.

Labor unions could work if they weren't run by people because people suck.

I have a clear bias against unions from personal experience. One of my first jobs was running IT and Telecom projects in a major city using union contractor employees (I was not Union as a "business" project manager). I saw numerous examples of individuals taking any and all opportunities to do the minimum amount of work, at sometimes dubious quality, in order to drag out projects longer and try to force overtime pay.

These individuals (those I worked with, which do not necessarily mean all) did not care at all about the company they worked for, the customers who were contracting their services, because in their view they worked for the union. The subculture that can be created through unionization actually allows for contradictory behaviors regarding success and outcomes for a business.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, I have seen friends benefit from collective bargaining agreements that help increase their standard of living/wages in ways they might have hard a harder time accomplishing on their own.

I do think in a Union you have to accept what you are told your work is worth, where in a free market economy your value is how you can demonstrate value and ultimately what someone is willing to pay you.

(Broad generalization) I like Unions in principle as "protecting" workers but in practice they too often seem to be political, corrupt, and focused on their own well being versus actually balancing employee and business needs together.

GamingPath

If employees would be open about their salary/benefits and job expectations with one another across their industry/profession there would be far less of a need for unions and more balance in the employee/employer financial relationship. Employers and Union leaders see themselves as benevolent entities providing jobs and opportunities for their employees. When really the are just a middleman with a business degree that connects the supply created by the employee with the demand of the consumer. It is the selfish narcissist tendencies of human that see themselves as powerful and having more worth based on arbitrary materialist mindset of the world.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Iselin

Warhawke80 said:

A union with a name that has socialists connotations... idiots.

That's the name of the studio, not the union lol.

Ensifer

Worked in a state prison for 3 years before my child was born, union based. Was the best job I ever had. Great pay, 3 months off paid paternity leave, insane health benefits, actually got more then 50 cent a year bonuses, as much overtime as you could possibly want, 12 sick days a year, and 3 weeks' vacation. Not counting the overtime, you could convert to time off.

OldKingLog

BrotherMaynard said:

It's a tough job and no mistake...

Farcical as it seems this is pretty much a bang on criticism of the absurdity of union bargaining and abuse of power in the UK in the early 1980s. I hear it hasn't gotten much better, but can't speak from first hand experience as I decided I'd rather leave my home land rather than watch it languish under the sinister rein of Mad Maggie Thatcher.

My personal experiences with American labor unions in the early to mid 1980s weren't far off these examples.

Quizzical

ragethebeast said:

agentsi1511 said:

OG_Solareus said:

Good on Blizzard, #F unions

doing the minimum required to not get fired from their job.

A job hires you to do X at a job, if the minimum to not get fired is satisfying the X condition that's just called doing the job you were hired to do you exploited twit. If you are doing more than the minimum and not receiving additional compensation then you are exactly the perfect slave and the reason why collective bargaining is so necessary.

If you're never doing anything more than the bare minimum not to get fired, then why should your employer ever promote you or give you a raise?  If there are layoffs, why shouldn't you be the first one gone?

The many millions of people who can be bothered to care if they do their job well are the ones who make society work.  A society of people who were only trying not to get fired would quickly collapse.

Kyleran

Quizzical said:

ragethebeast said:

agentsi1511 said:

OG_Solareus said:

Good on Blizzard, #F unions

doing the minimum required to not get fired from their job.

A job hires you to do X at a job, if the minimum to not get fired is satisfying the X condition that's just called doing the job you were hired to do you exploited twit. If you are doing more than the minimum and not receiving additional compensation then you are exactly the perfect slave and the reason why collective bargaining is so necessary.

If you're never doing anything more than the bare minimum not to get fired, then why should your employer ever promote you or give you a raise?  If there are layoffs, why shouldn't you be the first one gone?

The many millions of people who can be bothered to care if they do their job well are the ones who make society work.  A society of people who were only trying not to get fired would quickly collapse.

It did collapse, was called the USSR, you might have heard of it.

OG_Solareus

Ensifer said:

Worked in a state prison for 3 years before my child was born, union based. Was the best job I ever had. Great pay, 3 months off paid paternity leave, insane health benefits, actually got more then 50 cent a year bonuses, as much overtime as you could possibly want, 12 sick days a year, and 3 weeks' vacation. Not counting the overtime, you could convert to time off.

 Police Unions and the like are bit different then a communication union imho.