Home
Artists
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register
Partychan Telegram ThePornDude
Home Artists Posts Import Register

Sacred Symbols+, Episode 157: Why Activision Should Unionize (Video) (Patreon)

Published:
2022-01-22 17:02:00
Edited:
2022-01-27 17:05:20
Imported:
Tags:

Content

For your viewing pleasure.

Files

Why Activision Should Unionize | Sacred Symbols+ Episode 157

Please welcome Jessica Gonzalez to the show. For years, Jessica worked at various places across the Activision-Blizzard-King (or ABK) label, and she led (and still leads) the charge in highlighting the mega-publisher's seemingly copious worker-related infractions. Indeed, you may know the A Better Activision initiative, which she founded. Her goal? To unionize game development, both at the publisher-slash-developer level and by discipline. To what end? To ultimately offer workers more security, better pay, benefits, and treatment and a seat at the table. Are her goals realistic and in-line with what's best for gaming? That's subjective. But in an effort to supply our audience with as much information as possible about all topics relevant to our hobby -- and to offer a hand to anyone willing to talk about their ideas -- here's a decidedly pro-union pitch from a decidedly pro-union developer. As always, listen with an open mind and draw your own conclusions. Note: This was recorded before Microsoft announced its intent to buy ABK. Jessica on Twitter: https://twitter.com/_TechJess A Better ABK on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ABetterABK

Comments

Caz

Couldn’t even be bothered to make her bed, eh?

Kendall Helmstetter Gelner

Sure seems like all a union will get them would be two bureaucratic organizations to be mad at instead of one, only one is paying you and the other one you are paying for. Good luck to them though whatever they decide. If I were working at a place that was having enough problems they were considering getting a union, I'd just go somewhere else that treated you better... now that working from home is so well accepted in the tech industry seek other other game companies with better reps. That's the real way things improve, when companies have an exodus of workers.

Anonymous

Good talk. You raised a great point about trumpers and she agreed but she said it herself it is a political movement. If this was about populist policy most would be on board, but they want to fix the actual problems only if everyone moves farther to the left. She made it sound like unions aren't political that they are just about the the worker. It also seems that she thinks her far left opinion is mainstream, people need to stop living in their bubbles.

Tristen Wilbers
>>76235878

Sounds like you're projecting a bit. She really didn't even imply any of the things you are saying.

Tristen Wilbers

I'm a proud leftist and work in video production/film, so I'm a pretty big proponent of unionizing in general and am glad you had her perspective on the show. I think in regards to smaller devs a solution to Colin's question about the cost of unions could be worker co-ops? In other words, structure the bureaucratic makeup around the benefit of all the workers to create a more equitable system built in. Something to think about possibly.

Anonymous

I'm guessing the impromptu episode about the Activision Blizzard purchase bumped all the previously recorded episodes by 1. Bet that hurts the ole OCD that the episode number you state will be incorrect for the rest of the SS+ episodes in the can. I know I'd be bothered by it 😔

RenegerGraeme

I will preface this by saying that I come from the UK where I think Union culture is significantly different. I obviously don't know Jessica and so cannot speak to her or her personal experiences. All I can say is that in my personal experience (working in insurance for a decade, exclusively for global companies), the overwhelming majority of pro union people I have worked with have been those who are frankly lazy and / or incompetent and this is why they have butted heads with the company. They'd get pulled up for not doing their job and play the victim, making out that the company was corrupt and out to get them. I appreciate however that every organisation will be different and I'm sure in some (perhaps a lot of) cases companies are really out to screw people, thus the complaints are merited. Therefore, despite my own disdain for unions, I try to approach these conversations with an open mind. That said, I lose my patience for these discussions at the point where, when asked; "so what do you want". Jessica is unable to provide a clear answer beyond some vague concept of "more protection" or "hand massages". With fairness to Jessica, this is not something which is unique to her. I see it time and time again with every strike, protest or walkout which happens in the industry. Essentially none of the people fighting against the company know what they want beyond for things to be "better". I appreciate that your intentions are pure however, nobody is ever going to take you seriously and you are never going to make any headway unless you can formulate a clear list of actionable demands. In this example, if you were to be put in front of Bobby Kotick and he says to you "ok, tell me what you want and we'll do it"... you need to have more than these vague ideologies. You need to be able to say with authority that, for example: "we only want to work X hours per week and any hours we work out with the normal working day we want paid over time a Y rate". Or "We want these specific benefits (i.e. healthcare or whatever)". Just saying loosely that "we want some sort of democratic process is" is of no use to anyone... it's just not clear and actionable enough. You say you want the company to "listen" to you... but if they do you have nothing of any actual worth to say to them... Again, I understand the intentions here are good but if you can't achieve that level of organisation, talk of unions etc. is frankly a waste of time. TLDR: If you want companies to take you seriously you need to figure out and be prepared to outline clearly and in detail what is is you actually want. Without doing that, it will be nigh on impossible to make any meaningful impact.

Garry
>>76245754

As someone from the uk I think that is very subjective regarding union like all unions there is good and bad. Working with companies with no representation and then companies that do recognise unions there is usually far more balanced benefits. Remember this is a group still trying to form I agree with you that they need actionable demands, but they still trying to build up a membership once they have enough members you will find what is needed to be far more clearer . But anyone can see it is an industry that is needing representation it can’t keep going on as is.

MJ SKA BOI
>>76235456

"just find another job" isn't a very good solution, if it is one at all. Unions are objectively good. When workers collectively agree that their employers do not have their backs, the correct solution is to have each other and organize, and show their bosses who is really doing the work. Workers need to understand the sheer power they have when they stand together. Running away and giving up just perpetuates these issues.

Anonymous

Will always respect Colin for talking about bold subjects, but the timing of this interview combined with the guest's unlettered argument makes it all look a bit forced and is a rough look. I'm curious what Colin deems insightful from what is essentially a post-exit interview with an entry-level employee.

Anonymous
>>76242125

Most unions that have jurisdiction over multiple sectors usually have different Pay scales and benefit packages.

Gunnerzaurus

Thanks for having people who think differently than yourself on and giving them a platform with a respectful discussion Colin! Massive respect for that to LSM

Derek Alcott

So interesting to hear more about this issue. I'm in two unions and I definitely see the negative along with positives. At times it can feel like you are just paying union dues with feeling of the union is not really doing much to fight for you. Many times the union forgets the future employees who don't work there yet. I've seen union contracts that were great 10 years ago but as each new contract negotiation comes up there seems to be less in the contract that benefits the worker.

Dave Carsley

I definitely don't think it was intentional, but I find it pretty funny that she said "If your employer is telling you that you don't need a union, you probably need a union" about two seconds after Colin (an employer) just got done explaining that he pays and treats people so well at LSM that they don't need a union. Lol

Dave Carsley

She mentions "democracy" and "democratic process" many times, and I find that really interesting. I'm not a business owner and never have been, and I absolutely think workers should be treated fairly, but it's extremely difficult for me to get into the mindset of thinking that a company should be a "democracy" where the workers get to vote and tell the owner/ owners of the company what direction the company should take. I just feel like that's bound to fall apart every time, and that's why companies aren't democracies.

Nigel

Great discussion, Colin, Jessica. This was a bit of an eye opener for me. My 8 years in AAA have been challenging but incredibly positive, especially during “crunch” periods. Its unfortunate many cannot say the same. It’s true, companies can always do more, there is a part of me, however, that believes some of these items of concern are at least in part, the nature of the industry and should be considered before entering. The point was well stated here though, it behooves employers to take good care of their staff. Great interview as always.

Matthew Cooper

Interesting conversation. I don't have very strong feelings about unions one way or the other. I've never worked a job where I could be in a union, so I have no personal experience. That being said, I do think you bring up an interesting point about the right wing in American politics becoming more aware of the perils of big corporations. I've been waking up to this issue as well over the past few years, it isn't just big government that's a threat to liberty. I do take some issue though with the idea that once someone makes a certain amount of money they must be somewhat evil or unethical. I don't really think that's true, except for the fact that nobody is perfect. We've all made mistakes and committed wrongs. I think the difference with the uber wealthy is that they've made a lot of decisions that have affected thousands, maybe millions of people, combined with some level of jealousy for their success, makes it easy for people to focus on the negatives. But they have probably also made decisions and done things that have greatly benefitted many others as well; sometimes for profit and sometimes not.

LastStandMedia
>>76379688

Yeah. Businesses aren't democracies. However, with a big enough workforce, one may function more as a republic (per se). That's why I think the idea of having a worker representative on the board -- say, one of eight or 10 -- is totally fine. Maybe even lowballing, really. Last Stand isn't a democracy. It's a dictatorship. But a benevolent one. =) (And for real, I always listen to my people, and they often determine our course, not me.)

LastStandMedia
>>76388580

I don't think one necessarily corelates to the other, I agree. However, I would say that -- when it comes to corporations -- there's a relationship between size, money, power, and outcome. When Google quite literally got rid of its "Do No Evil" tagline, that was a sign. People made fun of it and thought it was ominous, but it was more than that. Amazon, Google, Microsoft... these are companies that have made all of our lives better. But it's not been a clean relationship, or one with neat edges and only positives and only negatives. And I think there are some large corporations, particularly Facebook, Twitter, and others that are nefarious.

James McGivern

Bravo for this discussion. Thank you.

Michael Welter

Colin how uncomfortable were you when she mentioned microaggresions? Also when she mentioned bosses picking their friend to keep and getting rid of a person based on their sexual identity. You've said many times employees shouldn't be chosen because of immutable characteristics. Surprised you fidnt push back on that but probably not the time or place.

Wayne Moss

Great discussion guys SS+ keeps delivering them banger episodes.

Joban

I think all the people picking apart her arguments are missing the point. She states in the beginning that she isn't an expert, she's an organizer. The perspective of an "entry level" employee is extremely valuable in this conversation because it tells us quite a bit about the perception and experience from that level. I feel like Colin likely didn't mean this to be a super technical and legally accurate interview as much as it's meant to give a ground-level feel for what is going on at ABK and how employees are fighting back. If you want legal expertise, go look up any number of other conversations on the topic, maybe?

LastStandMedia
>>76514091

Yes, I would agree. She's the grassroots, as it were, to the bigger problems that others would conceivably deal with. Taking the baton, as it were.

Greg Hommel

I have a real issue with the terms “legal minimum” and “ethical maximum”. There is nothing wrong with seeking to change the terms of the legal minimums through the proper means. However, you do not have the right to compel your employer to bend their workplace structure to fit you. Not any more than I do to compel you to agree with my statement. You are voluntarily employed and the only barrier that should stand between a business owner and their ability to do business is just that, THEIR ABILITY TO DO BUSINESS. If things are really so bad the businesses will fail.

LastStandMedia
>>76594398

It's a complex dance. I don't think many participants on 'either side' truly look at it with the gravity it deserves, good or bad.