8 ms·

WilmerHale is not a notorious union-busting firm. The older set might know their work from A Civil Action, and their grandparents might remember the phrase tha

WilmerHale is not a notorious union-busting firm. The older set might know their work from A Civil Action, and their grandparents might remember the phrase that turned the red scare, "At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"[1] The marketing material is unfortunate, though, and the connection with Amazon labor work is notable. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilmer_Cutler_Pickering_Hale_and_Dorr https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilmer_Cutler_Pickering_Hale...

juped 5y ago
yeah they're just biglaw, any biglaw firm does everything
- xbar 5y ago
  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, AL were monitored and reported as disgusting. If they repeat those at ActiBlizz, there may be pressures for regulators to increase protections against corporate interference of unionization efforts.
  - slownews45 5y ago
    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.
    - leereeves 5y ago
      I was curious, and just in case anyone else was as well, the vote was 1,798 against unionizing, 738 in favor.
      - slownews45 5y ago
        I heard the union also tried to get 400+ ballots thrown out. Does anyone know anything more about that - were they ever counted? Or was it Amazon that protested ballots?
- johnnyanmac 5y ago
  yup. Unfortunately I think the clickbait headline did its job. Even here on HN where I'd expect better. I guess no site is immune to kneejerk reactions.
cratermoon 5y ago
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]
- rl3 5y ago
  >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 said lawsuits.[1] [0] https://therevolvingdoorproject.org/jamie-gorelick-amazons-anti-union-shadow-adviser-at-the-doj/ https://therevolvingdoorproject.org/jamie-gorelick-amazons-a... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilmer_Cutler_Pickering_Hale_and_Dorr#A_Civil_Action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilmer_Cutler_Pickering_Hale_a...
  - cratermoon 5y ago
    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.
- lacker 5y ago
  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.
  - seoaeu 5y ago
    > 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
disposableuname 5y ago
They're a biglaw firm, which has its hands in many, many fields. If WilmerHale had anything resembling a specialty, it would corporate/finance law.
- walshemj 5y ago
  Real white shoe big law wont really want to do union busting
  - m-ee 5y ago
    Sullivan and Cromwell helped overthrow an entire government to avoid unions.
  - johnnyanmac 5y ago
    Thats not how lawyers work. No more so than "REAL tech companies wouldn't work on crappy javascript libraries".
tapoxi 5y ago
Also, what is this news source? Who are its writers? I am by no means taking Activision's side here, but this website is sketchy.
- tinus_hn 5y ago
  The website ‘Wikipedia’ is sketchy? Or who is? edit I guess you mean the news site this article is on, that is pretty sketchy indeed.
  - 1f60c 5y ago
    Additionally, the site wouldn't load for me. Turns out NextDNS blocked it because it's less than 30 days old, and indeed, it is[0]: Dates 30 days old Created on 2021-06-29 Expires on 2022-06-29 Updated on 2021-07-04 [0]: https://whois.domaintools.com/promethean.news https://whois.domaintools.com/promethean.news
    - kelnos 5y ago
      NextDNS blocks sites because the domain registration hasn't existed for long enough? That sounds... useless.
      - 1f60c 5y ago
        I think I t's meant as a first line of defense in (spear-)phishing attacks. It's also off by default.
belorn 5y ago
Looking at the Wikipedia article, I guess that the primary reason they were hired were their connection to government. When you are sued by the government, it useful to have lawyers that has experienced from working inside the government (and possible have political connections). The connection with Amazon labor work could be part of the decision, but I wonder if there aren't then more optimal choices if that was blizzards primary concern.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

juped 5y ago

yeah they're just biglaw, any biglaw firm does everything

xbar 5y ago
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, AL were monitored and reported as disgusting. If they repeat those at ActiBlizz, there may be pressures for regulators to increase protections against corporate interference of unionization efforts.
- slownews45 5y ago
  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.
  - leereeves 5y ago
    I was curious, and just in case anyone else was as well, the vote was 1,798 against unionizing, 738 in favor.
    - slownews45 5y ago
      I heard the union also tried to get 400+ ballots thrown out. Does anyone know anything more about that - were they ever counted? Or was it Amazon that protested ballots?
johnnyanmac 5y ago
yup. Unfortunately I think the clickbait headline did its job. Even here on HN where I'd expect better. I guess no site is immune to kneejerk reactions.

cratermoon 5y ago

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]

rl3 5y ago
>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 said lawsuits.[1] [0] https://therevolvingdoorproject.org/jamie-gorelick-amazons-anti-union-shadow-adviser-at-the-doj/ https://therevolvingdoorproject.org/jamie-gorelick-amazons-a... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilmer_Cutler_Pickering_Hale_and_Dorr#A_Civil_Action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilmer_Cutler_Pickering_Hale_a...
- cratermoon 5y ago
  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.
lacker 5y ago
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.
- seoaeu 5y ago
  > 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

disposableuname 5y ago

They're a biglaw firm, which has its hands in many, many fields. If WilmerHale had anything resembling a specialty, it would corporate/finance law.

walshemj 5y ago
Real white shoe big law wont really want to do union busting
- m-ee 5y ago
  Sullivan and Cromwell helped overthrow an entire government to avoid unions.
- johnnyanmac 5y ago
  Thats not how lawyers work. No more so than "REAL tech companies wouldn't work on crappy javascript libraries".

tapoxi 5y ago

Also, what is this news source? Who are its writers? I am by no means taking Activision's side here, but this website is sketchy.

tinus_hn 5y ago
The website ‘Wikipedia’ is sketchy? Or who is? edit I guess you mean the news site this article is on, that is pretty sketchy indeed.
- 1f60c 5y ago
  Additionally, the site wouldn't load for me. Turns out NextDNS blocked it because it's less than 30 days old, and indeed, it is[0]: Dates 30 days old Created on 2021-06-29 Expires on 2022-06-29 Updated on 2021-07-04 [0]: https://whois.domaintools.com/promethean.news https://whois.domaintools.com/promethean.news
  - kelnos 5y ago
    NextDNS blocks sites because the domain registration hasn't existed for long enough? That sounds... useless.
    - 1f60c 5y ago
      I think I t's meant as a first line of defense in (spear-)phishing attacks. It's also off by default.

belorn 5y ago

Looking at the Wikipedia article, I guess that the primary reason they were hired were their connection to government. When you are sued by the government, it useful to have lawyers that has experienced from working inside the government (and possible have political connections). The connection with Amazon labor work could be part of the decision, but I wonder if there aren't then more optimal choices if that was blizzards primary concern.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]