Activision Blizzard Hires Notorious Union-Busting Firm WilmerHale • Hacker News Board

Re: Activision Blizzard Hires Notorious Union-Busting Firm WilmerHale

#151

Post by a1pulley » Thu, Jul 29, 2021, 6:36 PM UTC

filmgirlcw wrote: post #92

a1pulley wrote: post #38

> "At WilmerHale 1st year counsel makes $350,000. The 24 year old 1st year summer associate still in law school walks into the office in a $1,500 Burberry suit and makes $202,500 that year. Those Amazon workers they swindled out of higher wages make less than $30,000 a year." The 200k figure is for a first-year associate who has graduated and passed the bar exam [1]. It's interesting to me that you can only hope to c…

The majority of SWEs at FAANG companies do not make that. Depending on company and location, they might get a sign-on stock grant that could theoretically get them approaching that, but that doesn’t take into account vesting schedules and cliffs. It’s assuming a best-case scenario and certainly not “the majority.” And even then, a new hire low level SWE straight out of college isn’t often going to get a $500k stock g…

Perhaps "majority" wasn't the right word. Other than Levels (see below), I don't have evidence to back that up.

However, you're not comparing apples to apples. The pools of students who are targeted for FAANG or top law firm recruitment go to the same universities. People who would be able to get through law school and get an offer from a top firm can get a solid FAANG offer. I believe that those students get > $200k total comp offers from FAANG right out of college.

Vesting cliffs have been replaced with immediate monthly vesting at many companies, including at least two FAANGs, making that part of your package as similar to cash as stock compensation can get.

I agree that Levels has a data problem: sometimes people report numbers from W-2s (counting stock appreciation), sometimes they report offer letter numbers. Moreover, the numbers there suffer from selection bias; people with high numbers are more likely to report them.

But let me offer some anecdotal evidence: everyone on my team and sister teams received > 200k offers right out of college; we are generalist SWEs at a FAANG. Same for all my friends at similar companies.

Re: Activision Blizzard Hires Notorious Union-Busting Firm WilmerHale

#152

Post by acituan » Thu, Jul 29, 2021, 6:37 PM UTC

brainfish wrote: post #122

acituan wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I for one will never again fire up those games that I loved so much That is a very confusing argument to me. Not only you’ve already given your money to them and received your end of the transaction, whether you make use of it or not, is this the most robust way to conceptualize the identity of a corporation? No temporal limitations, no account for the actual people that make up the corporation at a given time? Don…

> Sounds like this is less about the identity of the corporation you affiliated with and more about identity of you through what you choose to/not to affiliate with. There is certainly an element of this, I am sure. But frankly it is that I don't want to give them even the millionth-of-a-cent of value that they could derive from my +1 to their active player numbers. I don't want to contribute anything to their advant…

You can play Diablo I and II offline.

I don’t think there is anything inherently wrong with demonstrations of purity in protest, for the record, as long as we’re honest about what they are.

Re: Activision Blizzard Hires Notorious Union-Busting Firm WilmerHale

#153

Post by Ericson2314 » Thu, Jul 29, 2021, 6:38 PM UTC

aksss wrote: post #124

runawaybottle wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The irony of what you are saying here is too much friend. Americans consumed Chinese goods at the expense of Chinese workers. I’m no CCP apologist by any measure.

> Americans consumed Still a voracious consumer of Chinese goods, as is the world.

I would like a tarrif that goes down as wages of the exporter goes up. Screw nationalism. Help all the workers.

Re: Activision Blizzard Hires Notorious Union-Busting Firm WilmerHale

#154

Post by cratermoon » Thu, Jul 29, 2021, 6:39 PM UTC

rl3 wrote: post #79

cratermoon wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does any of that have to do with whether or not the firm is notorious for union-busting? Representing a polluting corporation against citizens suing it for making them sick is 100% compatible with busting unions. [Originally I had gotten this backwards and stated that WilmerHale represented the citizens]

> What does any of that have to do with whether or not the firm is notorious for union-busting? I'm wondering the same. I suppose it comes down to the semantics of where notoriety begins, but they're representing some slimy clients regardless.[0] > Representing citizens in a lawsuit against a polluting corporation is not incompatible with busting unions. Oh no, they were defending the polluter—Beatrice Foods—against…

Whoops, I got that 100% wrong. I skimmed the section in wikipedia too fast. Perhaps I could make an argument that, as currently worded, it's a bit too easy to misparse.

I have corrected my original comment.

Re: Activision Blizzard Hires Notorious Union-Busting Firm WilmerHale

#155

Post by kelnos » Thu, Jul 29, 2021, 6:39 PM UTC

RangerScience wrote: post #100

adkadskhj wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

`

AFAICT, this is one of those counter-intuitive cases. Mission-driven companies tend to (AFAIK) do better than pure profit-driven companies; similarly, AFAIK, companies that take morality seriously tend to do better. A significant aspect of this (IMHO) is employee empowerment, which relates to the common theories as to why Silicon Valley happened rather than the Boston corridor (legal situation advantageous to employe…

> Mission-driven companies tend to (AFAIK) do better than pure profit-driven companies; similarly, AFAIK, companies that take morality seriously tend to do better.

Do you have links to any studies backing this up? The idealist in me really wants this to be true, but the cynic in me believes capitalism is set up to reward the most ruthless, unscrupulous people.

Re: Activision Blizzard Hires Notorious Union-Busting Firm WilmerHale

#156

Post by brendoelfrendo » Thu, Jul 29, 2021, 6:45 PM UTC

Interesting fact: the current director of World of Warcraft, Ion Hazzikostas, worked for WilmerHale before joining Blizzard.

Re: Activision Blizzard Hires Notorious Union-Busting Firm WilmerHale

#157

Post by _gd3l » Thu, Jul 29, 2021, 6:45 PM UTC

cs702 wrote: post #81

Clickbait title for a highly opinonated piece that would never see the light of day in a respectable publication like the Washington Post, WSJ, NYT, Economist, etc. WilmerHale is a well-known top-100 law firm with a long history -- it's definitely not a "notorious union-busting firm." I'm flagging this story because it doesn't belong on the front page of HN, IMHO.

[flagged]

Re: Activision Blizzard Hires Notorious Union-Busting Firm WilmerHale

#158

Post by Terr_ » Thu, Jul 29, 2021, 6:46 PM UTC

seoaeu wrote: post #135

lacker wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their Wikipedia page doesn't mention anything about union-busting. If you are "notorious" for something in this day and age, it should at least show up in ten paragraphs of Wikipedia. The main controversy mentioned there is them representing people who are held in Guantanamo under suspicion of terrorism. It seems more like Wilmer Hale is a huge bunch of lawyers doing all sorts of things, than some union-busting hacks…

> If you are "notorious" for something in this day and age, it should at least show up in ten paragraphs of Wikipedia. That is placing way too much trust in Wiki pages not being manipulated to portray their subjects in an unfairly positive light

Especially when it's on a page which is super-niche and obscure to most people but vitally important to a single company's HR department.

Re: Activision Blizzard Hires Notorious Union-Busting Firm WilmerHale

#159

Post by danaris » Thu, Jul 29, 2021, 6:47 PM UTC

golergka wrote: post #139

danaris wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not really any more a monopoly than the business itself is. The business/management is a group of people acting under a common umbrella seeking (naïvely, and oversimplifiedly) to trade the least money possible for the most production possible. The employees/union are a group of people acting under a common umbrella seeking (naïvely, and oversimplifiedly) to trade the least production possible for the most money…

If I cannot work for a company without joining a union, it is a monopoly. What if I'm a junior worker on a labour market that is saturated by more experienced and skilled workers, and lowering my rate is the only chance to make it in the industry that I have? Existing union and it's members are my natural competitors.

If you're a junior worker in a field dominated by unions, I'm not sure how you can have "rate" to lower that hasn't already been set based on the market rate—which is already taking those unions into account.

And the evidence is overwhelming that unionized workers make more than non-union workers of equivalent skills/qualifications. So it sounds like this boils down, once again, to the argument, "I am amazing and exceptional, and I'm afraid that if there were unions, I wouldn't be able to get more money for being amazing and exceptional."

First of all, this argument cannot be true for the majority of workers—by definition, most people in any given field are not exceptional. So even if it would benefit you to not have a union, it would not benefit most people.

Second of all, there is absolutely no requirement for unions to prevent compensation from being increased based on actual performance. Some unions may have strict seniority-based pay schedules, but not all that currently exist do, and if we were to create a brand new union for tech workers (or just for game devs), then the people actually forming that union would be the ones to decide what its priorities would be.

Re: Activision Blizzard Hires Notorious Union-Busting Firm WilmerHale

#160

Post by XMPPwocky » Thu, Jul 29, 2021, 6:48 PM UTC

kelnos wrote: post #142

brainfish wrote: post #26

I cut my teeth on Diablo, and played Diablo II for probably fifteen years after its release off and on as a way to stay connected with a friend who loved it similarly. More recently, I have consistently played Starcraft II since its release and enjoy a sense of mastery over that game unparalleled by my experience in any other. I haven't purchased new Blizzard products since the Hong Kong censorship debacle[1] and qui…

I don't really understand this attitude, or line of reasoning, or whatever you want to call it. Sure, if a company does something that you find reprehensible, not giving them further money (or attention) is certainly a reasonable -- and honorable! -- thing to do. But if you've already purchased a standalone[0], non-subscription product from that company, and that company doesn't gain any benefit from your further use…

I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to feel weird about watching old DVDs of the Cosby Show, for example. With the "benefit" of context, the vibes are sort of irrevocably off.