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

121–130 of 328 posts

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

#121

Post by awb »

intunderflow wrote: post #12
JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they call Blizzard checking references, does Blizzard say “we fired them for sexual harassment.”

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

Many companies I consult for in the US won’t provide a negative reference but instead answer all reference questions with: “I can confirm that they were employed here from MM/YY to MM/YY”. If you hear that it means it didn’t end well.

Otherwise, many managers are happy to give a positive reference.

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

#122

Post by xwdv »

dehrmann wrote: post #45
framecowbird wrote: post #33

How did it get this bad?

Lots of people want to work in the video game industry, so they'll put up with low pay, long hours, and apparently sexual harassment for a really long time.

What is the nature of the sexual harassment? Everyday it seems the bar gets lower and lower.

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

#123

Post by amyjess »

etchalon wrote: post #63
CheezeIt wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The U.S. Bill of Rights [1] protects giving negative references. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

Personal references are protected, to the extent that liable and slander laws would apply. Any HR person / lawyer will tell you providing a negative review of an employee, let alone with amount of detail, opens you up to liabilities that aren't worth it. As an employer, I've been told that, if called, I should only provide the date a person started with the company, the date a person left, their starting and ending s…

> whether they'd be eligible to be re-hired

"Bob isn't eligible for rehire. Wait, I think the line cut out a bit there, I said Bob isn't eligible for rehire. Just wanted to make sure you got that: Bob is not eligible for rehire, no way, no how, nosirree."

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

#124

Post by birdyrooster »

pm90 wrote: post #110
vsef wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a cultural problem but the game industry is not SV based. Blizzard Activision is SoCal, Ubisoft is French (with studios in many locations). I worked at a studio owned by Activision (in SoCal) in the early 2000s and the culture was certainly toxic. I just find it funny how often commenters here assume all broism originates in SV.

To be fair most broism does originate in SV though doesn’t it?

Crypto Broism is from SV

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

#125

Post by thakoppno »

itsdrewmiller wrote: post #44
ALittleLight wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I agree with both your points. To be honest if the same signal is sent by merely confirming employment dates but not literally disparaging the former employee, I fail to see how there’s any additional legal protection. The implication is tortious interferus in both cases.

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

#126

Post by awb »

teh_klev wrote: post #89
CheezeIt wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The U.S. Bill of Rights [1] protects giving negative references. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

Would be more useful if you pointed out which part of the Bill of Rights provides this protection.

Impossible because it doesn’t

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

#127

Post by nohr »

awb wrote: post #118
tablespoon wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A lot of companies will also say if the former employee is eligible to be employed there again. A negative on that plus a January separation date won't look good for those folks. I suppose that may mean something if you're playing detective with a former Blizzard employee's resume, but I'd be cautious in reading too much into "if the former employee is eligible to be employed there again" generally. I know of a com…

Why would you be ineligible for rehire after a downsizing?

Because someone made a shitty policy.

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

#128

Post by barkingcat »

awb wrote: post #118
tablespoon wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A lot of companies will also say if the former employee is eligible to be employed there again. A negative on that plus a January separation date won't look good for those folks. I suppose that may mean something if you're playing detective with a former Blizzard employee's resume, but I'd be cautious in reading too much into "if the former employee is eligible to be employed there again" generally. I know of a com…

Why would you be ineligible for rehire after a downsizing?

You'd be surprised at the kinds of hr policies that makes their own sense, but has no common sense.

Most likely to avoid someone returning on false pretenses to retaliate against being downsized in the firstplace.

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

#129

Post by refurb »

awb wrote: post #121
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

Many companies I consult for in the US won’t provide a negative reference but instead answer all reference questions with: “I can confirm that they were employed here from MM/YY to MM/YY”. If you hear that it means it didn’t end well. Otherwise, many managers are happy to give a positive reference.

Huh. My company won’t do anything more than confirm date of hire and salary.

You could probably get a manager to give an informal reference “off the books”, not on company time.

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

#130

Post by [deleted] »

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."

[deleted]
Post reply on HN