Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Activision Blizzard Hires Notorious Union-Busting Firm WilmerHale

promethean.news

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 379 posts

Re: Activision Blizzard Hires Notorious Union-Busting Firm WilmerHale

#171

Post by leereeves »

r00fus wrote: post #166
leereeves wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What world is this were companies hire union-busting mercenaries? Is this the Pinkertons in 2021? Excellent example of how this headline can mislead people. They're lawyers "hired to review Activision’s policies", not armed thugs who bust union skulls.

No, they just advise what internal tactics to use, and where to hire said external resources.

> they just advise...where to hire said external resources [mercenaries]

Do you have some evidence for that allegation or are you just making things up?

That would be quite serious, and illegal, if it's true. If it's true.

Re: Activision Blizzard Hires Notorious Union-Busting Firm WilmerHale

#172

Post by donmcronald »

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…

Maybe it’s just a normal thing as you get older, but knowing the company mistreated people sucks the fun out of it for me. I’m not completely against playing the stuff I’ve already paid for, but they won’t get another penny from me.

I’d like to have a database that tracks the C-Suite employees. I’d personally boycott any company that hires any of them. Their careers should be over IMO. I wish we could take away Bobby’s money too, but that’ll never happen.

Re: Activision Blizzard Hires Notorious Union-Busting Firm WilmerHale

#173

Post by ctrl-j »

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…

One of the things that companies rely on these days is engagement and playerbase. If you don't find that compelling, that's up to you, but Blizzard invests millions every year into maintaining their playerbase - so at least they find it compelling.

Just by being a part of the starcraft community, you are providing support to activision blizzard.

If we were talking about offline-only non-community driven content, sure... but this is a company that is almost entirely driven off of multiplayer games.

Re: Activision Blizzard Hires Notorious Union-Busting Firm WilmerHale

#174

Post by [deleted] »

ehnto wrote: post #131
azornathogron wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Turn-about is fair play, right? Less tongue-in-cheek, I'm really not sure it's China's responsibility to ensure good working conditions in the foreign companies that produce the goods they want to buy, and I'm not sure it's the west's responsibility to ensure good working conditions for the Chinese workers who produce the goods we buy either. I feel I may be in the minority with that view though.

I don't entirely disagree, pointing out that their workers are at least the producing country's responsibility is fair, since some seem to forget. But the consuming country is still participating in the exploitation knowingly. It's not like we're unaware, so it's definitely a conscious choice being made to ignore it. It's worth considering the weight of that, since being loud about it has been cause for quite a lot o…

[deleted]

Re: Activision Blizzard Hires Notorious Union-Busting Firm WilmerHale

#175

Post by ctrl-j »

dnzkw wrote: post #168
kelnos wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's called virtue signalling. See how virtuous this guy is, giving up the precious entertainment he already paid for a decade ago for no reason other than internet points - it's not like these girls are going to be ungroped by this guy's actions, if the allegations are to be believed.

Is your comment just anti-virtue signaling then?

Sometimes people just want to share their opinions, and they actually feel those feelings. Sometimes those feelings are about ethical issues.

Re: Activision Blizzard Hires Notorious Union-Busting Firm WilmerHale

#176

Post by ashtonkem »

failuser wrote: post #45
ashtonkem wrote: post #23

Union busting behavior is not that surprising, but talk about awful timing. Do the people at the top not consider the PR implications of this stuff?

The might be banking on the “crush the SJWs” crowd. Who knows what their market research showed, but I think we will see soon enough.

Given that their first response to the lawsuit was to complain about “unelected bureaucrats”, I think their response is being driven more by their id than by careful market research.

Re: Activision Blizzard Hires Notorious Union-Busting Firm WilmerHale

#177

Post by afavour »

Phenomenit wrote: post #165
XMPPwocky wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yet Michael Jacksons music is still played on the radio and in other media contexts.

The allegations against Jackson surfaced while he was still very famous so you could argue it’s already been “priced in”, for want of a better phrase.

Re: Activision Blizzard Hires Notorious Union-Busting Firm WilmerHale

#178

Post by aaronbrethorst »

ctrl-j wrote: post #175
dnzkw wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's called virtue signalling. See how virtuous this guy is, giving up the precious entertainment he already paid for a decade ago for no reason other than internet points - it's not like these girls are going to be ungroped by this guy's actions, if the allegations are to be believed.

Is your comment just anti-virtue signaling then? Sometimes people just want to share their opinions, and they actually feel those feelings. Sometimes those feelings are about ethical issues.

Claiming 'virtue signaling' always feels like a presumption of bad faith by the claimant.

Re: Activision Blizzard Hires Notorious Union-Busting Firm WilmerHale

#179

Post by rtkwe »

leereeves wrote: post #117
jdmoreira wrote: post #97

What world is this where companies hire union-busting mercenaries? Is this the Pinkertons in 2021? What kind of lawless place is the US where you can hire services to stop unionisation?

> What world is this were companies hire union-busting mercenaries? Is this the Pinkertons in 2021? Excellent example of how this headline can mislead people. They're lawyers "hired to review Activision’s policies", not armed thugs who bust union skulls.

The modern equivalent is much less violent but it's still very aggressively union busting by disrupting organization.

Re: Activision Blizzard Hires Notorious Union-Busting Firm WilmerHale

#180

Post by leereeves »

slownews45 wrote: post #143
xbar wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems accurate. Contextually, ActiBlizz is responding to the DFEH situation with a new biglaw firm. Will ActiBlizz use WH's union-response services? I would be surprised if they don't. WH will likely sell guidance about what can be legally done to chill early unionization pressures. If unionization efforts really get rolling at ActiBlizz, no doubt they will spend more at WH. What is good: WH's tactics at Amazon,…

We need to be crystal clear here that the unionization drive at Amazon, AL FAILED - and it wasn't close. This was a BLOWOUT loss by the unions. I mean, the vote wasn't even close even though they protested something like 500 votes? I didn't know WH was involved on company side - but if so it was a mighty effective campaign.

I was curious, and just in case anyone else was as well, the vote was 1,798 against unionizing, 738 in favor.
Post reply on HN