Workers say Microsoft must commit to unions at Xbox after acquiring Activision Blizzard to be 'groundbreaking'

[Windows Central]

Microsoft is remaining neutral toward unions as part of its bid to acquire Activision Blizzard, but the real test comes after the acquisition goes through.

Workers say Microsoft must commit to unions at Xbox after acquiring Activision Blizzard to be 'groundbreaking' : Read more

 

[GraniteStateColin]

It is generally harmful to a company's growth with a diminished trajectory if its employees unionize, so neutrality is a pretty generous move. I do fully support the rights of aggrieved workers to unionize for greater bargaining power to address those grievances but also of companies to do what they can to protect themselves against that.

A union, by its nature, is combative with the company where its people work. It's fundamentally a divisive organization, telling its members that "workers" and "managers" are different kinds of people, which is not necessarily true. Of course, poor management can create conditions like this too, which makes the employees want to unionize, and so they should in such a situation. From what I've read, the ABK workers appear to have been in such a situation, so I support their efforts.

What is less appropriate is when there is external pressure and sewing discontent to drive unionization among people who were previously mostly content with their working conditions (at no organization are 100% of the people at any level fully happy). This happens because the external union wants more leverage through increased membership. I have no sympathy for those unionization efforts, as they are far more destructive than helpful, like stock short sellers on the capital side.

Overall, I would prefer to see a more collaborative approach with fair management, a culture of caring for all team members, and a greater focus on co-ownership by all employees through stock plans so profits are shared and incent everyone to work together and row in the same direction for shared success. This drives all team members to work together to overcome shared obstacles instead of working against each other to extract the maximum possible concessions from their co-workers. Unlike unionization, these models also tend to change layoffs from the first cost-cutting move to one of the last.

 

[RabidPedagog]

If a union is created, the employees themselves will have to do it in secret. I doubt that a corporation like Microsoft would approve of anything which would prevent them from easily dismissing an employee who is either unproductive or incompetent.

 

[GraniteStateColin]

If a union is created, the employees themselves will have to do it in secret. I doubt that a corporation like Microsoft would approve of anything which would prevent them from easily dismissing an employee who is either unproductive or incompetent.

Private sector union rules generally don't protect against firing for cause. There are public sector unions that require severe transgressions before a firing and a series of appeal processes, but public sector union are fundamentally different from private sector unions.

Public sector unions should not exist. That's basically union vs. taxpayers and are fundamentally corrupt: public sector union dues primarily go to political lobbying, which is just a form of bribery for legislation to benefit the bribers. In cases where membership is mandatory and those fees used for political lobbying, that's also arguably a Constitutional Violation of the "Free Association" clause of the First Amendment. All despicable. Some are even worse with international backing, which means there are effectively foreign influences gaining substantial lobbying power over major facets of the US government. Very different from private sector unions, which may still lobby the government, but at least they are not lobbying for legislation that can create their jobs and then use those jobs to further fund the politicians in vicious circle with taxpayers and anyone who disagrees with the union effectively having no say.

 

[RabidPedagog]

Private sector union rules generally don't protect against firing for cause. There are public sector unions that require severe transgressions before a firing and a series of appeal processes, but public sector union are fundamentally different from private sector unions.

Public sector unions should not exist. That's basically union vs. taxpayers and are fundamentally corrupt: public sector union dues primarily go to political lobbying, which is just a form of bribery for legislation to benefit the bribers. Despicable. Some are even worse with international backing, which means there are effectively foreign influences gaining substantial lobbying power over major facets of the US government. Very different from private sector unions.

Speaking as a teacher, I wholeheartedly agree with you. My own union will fight for what it wants, get it the next day, and restart the complaining process one day hence. It's disheartening.