5 ms·

I read the email on that Twitter page. This headline makes it sound as if Blizzard threatened their employees. That’s actually not the case. It says if you sig

I read the email on that Twitter page. This headline makes it sound as if Blizzard threatened their employees. That’s actually not the case. It says if you sign the document, you’re handing certain rights over to an outside organization. It’s legally binding. Regardless of your thoughts about Blizzard, unions, or whatever views you have — the headline is misleading clickbait trying to manufacture outrage. They know most people will look at this headline and not read the lengthy email.

ocdtrekkie 5y ago
You have to understand that it's as close to a threat as they can legally write, likely after significant consultation with an anti-union consultant. And much of it is an outright lie: If folks fail to pass a unionization vote now, they probably can't just go and vote for it later, it doesn't work that way.
- SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
  It's not in the same universe as a threat! The only negative thing the letter says is that unionizing will mean the CWA has exclusive representation rights. They don't suggest that there will be any negative effects on wages or employment practices or retention. I'm not sure what the "it" you're referring to is, but I'm pretty confident it's possible to continue a unionization drive indefinitely or drop it and restart it later. Restrictions come into play only at later steps in the process; until the CWA gets enough union authorization cards to petition for an election or ask for voluntary recognition, there's no deadlines or cooldown periods involved.
- ozzythecat 5y ago
  I don’t see how it’s a “threat” or anywhere near a threat. Many people will sign a document because someone else says, “it’s good for you”. It’s good to know that you’re signing a legally binding document. >If folks fail to pass a unionization vote now, they probably can't just go and vote for it later, it doesn't work that way. That’s besides the point. Should people sign a document without knowing it’s legally binding or understanding what it entails, simply because the union vote might not happen again later? Btw your post makes it sound as if the company is inherently evil or trying to screw its workers. Many capitalist businesses don’t want a union. And many unions are actually not effective. I’m not in favor nor against this unionization, but there’s a clear bias here and attempt to manufacture outrage.
  - assbuttbuttass 5y ago
    > Many capitalist businesses don't want a union. understatement of the year
  - brightstep 5y ago
    Every decision a company makes is about maximizing profit. that necessarily means saving on labor costs, which means firing people, paying as little as possible, extracting unpaid overtime (e.g. "crunch"), etc. That being the case, most every decision made by a company is about screwing its workers. You can argue about whether that's "evil", but it's an economic fact.
    - kcplate 5y ago
      How amazing is it that I have served on the ELT for multiple companies and not once in a single meeting was it ever discussed how we could screw over the folks that worked for us?
philote 5y ago
The headline makes it sound like Blizzard is throwing shade on unionizing by pointing out only the potential negative side of unions. And you don't find it odd that Blizzard is only concerned about their employees' welfare when they're trying to unionize?
- bsjks 5y ago
  Unions are throwing shade on not unionising by pointing out only the potential positive side of unions.
  - lbotos 5y ago
    "News at 11... parties on both sides of the issue choose facts that support their argument. More after the commercial break"
- Aunche 5y ago
  Blizzard also only points out the potential positive side of playing Overwatch too. Oh the horrors!
lbotos 5y ago
I mean, that message is a threat: "Hey employees, this isn't some petition.org type thing, you sign that paper and there are legal ramifications." How many people do you think will read that and hesitate?
- cronix 5y ago
  Hopefully everyone hesitates and reads legal contracts. Why is "hesitation" a bad thing here? Even if you fully agree with the sentiments of the goal, it's still obligatory to read the legalese in the damn thing and understand what it means for your life. I find all sorts of things in contracts I don't agree with, and they require careful reading and sometimes outside legal opinion. Had I not, I would have been barred from the niche industry I work in for 5 years after completing a contract job.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- notahacker 5y ago
  Many people will read it and hesitate, which is the purpose of the email. Which still doesn't make it a threat. They're warning about something the piece of paper does, not something Blizzard might do (and employees actually signing up for the right reason - a belief that the CWA will negotiate much better terms than they've been able to negotiate themselves - should be able to dismiss that warning with the same eyeroll they dismiss all the fluff at the beginning about the things Blizzard does for its staff without a union). It's "We think X wont help you in the way you think it might [although we're obviously biased here] but it's your decision and we couldn't stop you even if we wanted to" not "If X, the consequences will be punishment"
  - wombatpm 5y ago
    Blizzard is running the typical anti union playbook. IF a certain threshold of cards are signed, a vote can be held. The best way to prevent a union is prevent the vote
  - 5y ago
stefan_ 5y ago
Well yes, it is FUD, fear uncertainty and doubt. The title here, meanwhile, is entirely factual. I flagged this post because you went from a pure projection of yours to "misleading clickbait trying to manufacture outrage".
advisedwang 5y ago
A union is not some "outside organization". Union locals are led by people that come out of the workforce and are democratically elected. Bargaining committees are elected by the workers, contracts are subject to ratification to workers, strikes can only be called with a strike authorization votes. Union nationals do have problems (e.g. UAW only just voted to move to a true one-person-one-vote system), but the nationals aren't really that important in the important areas. A union binds you to working together with your colleagues, not to some outside entity.

ocdtrekkie 5y ago

You have to understand that it's as close to a threat as they can legally write, likely after significant consultation with an anti-union consultant. And much of it is an outright lie: If folks fail to pass a unionization vote now, they probably can't just go and vote for it later, it doesn't work that way.

SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
It's not in the same universe as a threat! The only negative thing the letter says is that unionizing will mean the CWA has exclusive representation rights. They don't suggest that there will be any negative effects on wages or employment practices or retention. I'm not sure what the "it" you're referring to is, but I'm pretty confident it's possible to continue a unionization drive indefinitely or drop it and restart it later. Restrictions come into play only at later steps in the process; until the CWA gets enough union authorization cards to petition for an election or ask for voluntary recognition, there's no deadlines or cooldown periods involved.
ozzythecat 5y ago
I don’t see how it’s a “threat” or anywhere near a threat. Many people will sign a document because someone else says, “it’s good for you”. It’s good to know that you’re signing a legally binding document. >If folks fail to pass a unionization vote now, they probably can't just go and vote for it later, it doesn't work that way. That’s besides the point. Should people sign a document without knowing it’s legally binding or understanding what it entails, simply because the union vote might not happen again later? Btw your post makes it sound as if the company is inherently evil or trying to screw its workers. Many capitalist businesses don’t want a union. And many unions are actually not effective. I’m not in favor nor against this unionization, but there’s a clear bias here and attempt to manufacture outrage.
- assbuttbuttass 5y ago
  > Many capitalist businesses don't want a union. understatement of the year
- brightstep 5y ago
  Every decision a company makes is about maximizing profit. that necessarily means saving on labor costs, which means firing people, paying as little as possible, extracting unpaid overtime (e.g. "crunch"), etc. That being the case, most every decision made by a company is about screwing its workers. You can argue about whether that's "evil", but it's an economic fact.
  - kcplate 5y ago
    How amazing is it that I have served on the ELT for multiple companies and not once in a single meeting was it ever discussed how we could screw over the folks that worked for us?

philote 5y ago

The headline makes it sound like Blizzard is throwing shade on unionizing by pointing out only the potential negative side of unions. And you don't find it odd that Blizzard is only concerned about their employees' welfare when they're trying to unionize?

bsjks 5y ago
Unions are throwing shade on not unionising by pointing out only the potential positive side of unions.
- lbotos 5y ago
  "News at 11... parties on both sides of the issue choose facts that support their argument. More after the commercial break"
Aunche 5y ago
Blizzard also only points out the potential positive side of playing Overwatch too. Oh the horrors!

lbotos 5y ago

I mean, that message is a threat: "Hey employees, this isn't some petition.org type thing, you sign that paper and there are legal ramifications." How many people do you think will read that and hesitate?

cronix 5y ago
Hopefully everyone hesitates and reads legal contracts. Why is "hesitation" a bad thing here? Even if you fully agree with the sentiments of the goal, it's still obligatory to read the legalese in the damn thing and understand what it means for your life. I find all sorts of things in contracts I don't agree with, and they require careful reading and sometimes outside legal opinion. Had I not, I would have been barred from the niche industry I work in for 5 years after completing a contract job.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
notahacker 5y ago
Many people will read it and hesitate, which is the purpose of the email. Which still doesn't make it a threat. They're warning about something the piece of paper does, not something Blizzard might do (and employees actually signing up for the right reason - a belief that the CWA will negotiate much better terms than they've been able to negotiate themselves - should be able to dismiss that warning with the same eyeroll they dismiss all the fluff at the beginning about the things Blizzard does for its staff without a union). It's "We think X wont help you in the way you think it might [although we're obviously biased here] but it's your decision and we couldn't stop you even if we wanted to" not "If X, the consequences will be punishment"
- wombatpm 5y ago
  Blizzard is running the typical anti union playbook. IF a certain threshold of cards are signed, a vote can be held. The best way to prevent a union is prevent the vote
- 5y ago

stefan_ 5y ago

Well yes, it is FUD, fear uncertainty and doubt. The title here, meanwhile, is entirely factual. I flagged this post because you went from a pure projection of yours to "misleading clickbait trying to manufacture outrage".

advisedwang 5y ago

A union is not some "outside organization". Union locals are led by people that come out of the workforce and are democratically elected. Bargaining committees are elected by the workers, contracts are subject to ratification to workers, strikes can only be called with a strike authorization votes. Union nationals do have problems (e.g. UAW only just voted to move to a true one-person-one-vote system), but the nationals aren't really that important in the important areas. A union binds you to working together with your colleagues, not to some outside entity.