D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
And that doesn't mean they aren't happy, they may just be keeping quiet because of the ongoing legal actions. It's an unknown at this point.
Microsoft acquired Activision Blizzard King for $69 Billion on 2023-10-13
- Thread starter Rangers
- Start date
Silent_Buddha
Legend
I could see some that would be afraid to say anything in case the acquisition gets denied and then they are stuck with their current employers who now might not look so kindly on them if they talked at length about how much better it would be to work under the MS umbrella. Especially if they are part of the group attempting to form a Union and if the ABK deal doesn't go through and it gets squashed.
Regards,
SB
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
I find the US labour laws perplexing. If people have a legal right to form a union, why are so many US employers opposed to it and how do employers legally prevent it if it's a legal right?
As a European, unions are just a thing.
As a European, unions are just a thing.
Metal_Spirit
Regular
Exactly...
If there are laws in the US about this, how can Activision oppose a union? Can't the workers sue, and advance anyway?
If in the US a union has to be approved by the company, then there are no laws and everyone does as it pleases.
I just don't understand this, because as you say, in Europe, unions are just a thing.
Goes back to like the 1930s. American businesses realized the country was headed for European style socialism if they let the labor movement get any kind of momentum.
They made sure to kill it.
Tech companies started up in the '70s and 80s as non union shops. They do everything they can to keep unions out.
They made sure to kill it.
Tech companies started up in the '70s and 80s as non union shops. They do everything they can to keep unions out.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Federally, it's not a legal right, but it's not illegal. There's no prohibition to forming a Union, but businesses aren't legally bound to allow a union. There are however, laws about whether or how a business can oppose the formation of a union. These came about due to some violent confrontations between some (a small minority) businesses and workers attempting to form a union which resulted in the death of some of the workers.
So, while there is nothing preventing workers from trying to start a union, there's also nothing preventing Businesses from just hiring other people that are willing to work without being part of a union. And there's a lot of people in the US who would prefer not to work as part of a Union since being a member of a Union means tithing some percentage of their pay as membership dues.
Now some states may make it a legal right but others do not. I'm obviously not familiar with all the laws on the books for all 50 states.
As well, some states force workers to be part of a union if a union exists at a job site. In other words at a unionized job site, it is illegal to work there unless you are a member of the union(s) involved at that job site. Some states on the other hand allow workers the freedom to choose whether they want to be part of the union or not.
Also, some companies may force workers to be part of a Union as part of the negotiated deal between the Union and the business.
Regards,
SB
Last edited:
BTW, MS retracted one of their arguments that the FTC is unconstitutional.
arstechnica.com
Microsoft admits it should not have argued the FTC is unconstitutional
Microsoft's case for Activision Blizzard merger leans more on market shares now.
arstechnica.com
A lot of articles are presenting what I take as the wrong view of this. They originally filed with it to preserve their ability to appeal any decisions should they desire on those grounds.BTW, MS retracted one of their arguments that the FTC is unconstitutional.
Microsoft admits it should not have argued the FTC is unconstitutional
Microsoft's case for Activision Blizzard merger leans more on market shares now.
Many take the view that this move was done for expediency and they are working towards an agreement. Whether that's the reality is not known right now.
This is exactly why they did it. It was 100% intentional to include it.. and it's 100% intentional to retract it.
Some general talk was moved into a more general topic @
forum.beyond3d.com
Who should buy what studios for what purpose? *splat*
This dosent shock me and I am not surprised. Just wanted to add it here in the context of sending message buy ps5/Xbox if you want to play exclusives etc
forum.beyond3d.com
iceberg187
Regular
Here's a pro-merger op-ed from The Washington Post's Editorial Board
Google, Nvidia Express Concerns to FTC About Microsoft’s Activision Deal
The two companies joined Sony in raising issues with the $69 billion transaction, which the FTC has sued to block
www.bloomberg.com
Probably.
VERY high probability.
but to be fair...
ABK never signed with GFN and would never move their services to streaming without this type of acquisition, so seems like a moot point.
A lot of folks pulled on GFN.
Bethesda pulls out of NVIDIA’s GeForce NOW game streaming service
On the heels of Activision pulling its games from NVIDIA's GeForce NOW game streaming service, Bethesda has joined in on the fun removing its games too.
9to5toys.com
Last edited:
It makes sense. Nvidia is basicly charging a subscription to access other companies games. I would imagine that any dev/publisher would want a cut of the sub fee.Probably.
VERY high probability.
but to be fair...
ABK never signed with GFN and would never move their services to streaming without this type of acquisition, so seems like a moot point.
A lot of folks pulled on GFN.
At about the same time.Bethesda pulls out of NVIDIA’s GeForce NOW game streaming service
On the heels of Activision pulling its games from NVIDIA's GeForce NOW game streaming service, Bethesda has joined in on the fun removing its games too.
Similar threads
