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

Activision Blizzard pushes out dozens of employees over workplace misconduct

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 328 posts

Re: Activision Blizzard pushes out dozens of employees over workplace misconduct

#41

Post by ocdtrekkie »

ALittleLight wrote: post #19
Overtonwindow wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blizzard won't say that, too much liability.

What does it mean that there is too much liability? What liability do you have for saying true things? "That person was fired because an investigation conducted by our company suggested they participated in sexual harassment."

Because no corporate investigation has to meet the same standard as a court of law. You can fire someone if you think they did something wrong. But when you make statements, it's possible the employee will claim it is libel and you will suddenly need to prove their misconduct at a higher standard in a court of law.

IANAL, but basically it's not worth it. The company already has what they want: Not working with that employee. Anything past that is unnecessary risk.

Re: Activision Blizzard pushes out dozens of employees over workplace misconduct

#42

Post by twblalock »

ALittleLight wrote: post #19
Overtonwindow wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blizzard won't say that, too much liability.

What does it mean that there is too much liability? What liability do you have for saying true things? "That person was fired because an investigation conducted by our company suggested they participated in sexual harassment."

Imagine that a previous employer said something bad about you during a reference check, and what they said wasn't true, and it caused you to lose a potential new job. You'd definitely have a good reason to sue them.

Now, imagine the same scenario, except what your previous employer said was true. But you sued them anyway.

In both cases, you have the ability to sue. In both cases, unless there is some very strong and obvious evidence against you, a judge and/or jury might take your side.

From the perspective of one of your former employers, it's just not worth the risk to give details about why someone was separated from a company.

Re: Activision Blizzard pushes out dozens of employees over workplace misconduct

#43

Post by TedDoesntTalk »

ALittleLight wrote: post #19
Overtonwindow wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blizzard won't say that, too much liability.

What does it mean that there is too much liability? What liability do you have for saying true things? "That person was fired because an investigation conducted by our company suggested they participated in sexual harassment."

The liability to Blizzard or the firing company is that the fired employee sues Blizzard, “I did not get these jobs because they tarnished my name to potential employers.”

Re: Activision Blizzard pushes out dozens of employees over workplace misconduct

#44

Post by itsdrewmiller »

ALittleLight wrote: post #19
Overtonwindow wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blizzard won't say that, too much liability.

What does it mean that there is too much liability? What liability do you have for saying true things? "That person was fired because an investigation conducted by our company suggested they participated in sexual harassment."

People exaggerate the amount of risk for this kind of thing, but the benefit to the company giving the bad reference is also essentially zero.

Re: Activision Blizzard pushes out dozens of employees over workplace misconduct

#46

Post by chii »

harles wrote: post #38
chii wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

while i do understand the plight of HK's fight, it does make sense that a non-affiliated individual should not be able to make political statements on someone else's platform, unless with prior consent. The competitor should be free to make his case in his own platform(s), but not on a platform he doesn't own if the owners of that platform doesn't want to affiliate themselves with the political discourse.

Which platforms are left to make statements on?

I do believe making a website is still cheap and easy. Not to mention some platforms like twitter do allow for political discourse on them (even if spotty).

The idea is that if the platform owners don't want it, a platform user should respect that choice.

Re: Activision Blizzard pushes out dozens of employees over workplace misconduct

#47

Post by VWWHFSfQ »

JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #37
intunderflow wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure if its the same in the USA, but in Europe there are massive legal liability issues to giving a negative reference - most places give no reference or a standard set of terms because of this

What in the world? What is the point of a reference if it can only be good?

hardly anybody actually asks for references now because they most likely won't get anything interesting out of it. they just do employment verification and that's it

Re: Activision Blizzard pushes out dozens of employees over workplace misconduct

#49

Post by pcurve »

claaams wrote: post #6
mysterydip wrote: post #3

And the CEO remains the CEO.

He needs to be fired. I want to play one of their games but I won't until bobby kotick is no longer the CEO. So never.

It's embarrassing how he still has his job. Really shame on the board of directors at this point.

Re: Activision Blizzard pushes out dozens of employees over workplace misconduct

#50

Post by seattle_spring »

harles wrote: post #38
chii wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

while i do understand the plight of HK's fight, it does make sense that a non-affiliated individual should not be able to make political statements on someone else's platform, unless with prior consent. The competitor should be free to make his case in his own platform(s), but not on a platform he doesn't own if the owners of that platform doesn't want to affiliate themselves with the political discourse.

Which platforms are left to make statements on?

I'm personally not sure where to stand on this. On one hand, you're right: you can probably come up with an excuse for every platform as to why "making a statement" shouldn't be permitted.

On the other hand, do we really want everyone able to make political statements in unrelated arenas? Literally everyone feels strongly about something. Letting all causes be elevated via unrelated venues would be untenable, which means you must draw a line somewhere.

I suppose it's not totally unreasonable to draw that line by saying, "all content must be related to the topic at hand" when it comes to, for example, a gaming competition.

Post reply on HN