Is it another day ending in 'y'? Yes? Then Activision must be in the
news again, and not for anything game related.

So, you might have heard Activision has been having a bit of a to-do
regarding its 'fair and ethical' treatment of its employees: you know,
discrimination, harassment, workplace abuse. Its gotten them into a
bit of legal problems in California, and the stockholders (and the
SEC) are concerned because of how it affects the value of the company.

Thus, New York State has suggested that the company release a yearly
report detailing how many complaints vis-à-vis these issues the
company is dealing with, how much money they spend settling these
issues, pending issues, stuff like that.

All the sort of thing that the company would - obviously - like to
keep quiet about, but that stockholders (and employees, for that
matter) have necessary interest in. Activision's C-level is urging its
stockholders to vote no on the proposal.*

Who wants transparency, after all? The best way to move on from issues
like this, after all, is just to bury your head in the sand and
pretend it never happened.

Oh, Activision.

Also, they're working hard at excluding a representative of the
AFL-CIO onto the board, because obviously the last thing you'd want is
to let any of those lowly employees (who have no trust in management
given recent events) have a voice in how the company is managed. That
the company has reputedly threatened employees with termination for
discussing working conditions** is just the icing on the cake.

Oh, Activision.

Meanwhile, the stockholders approved Microsoft's buy-out of the
company (largely based on promises that the stock price would go up by
about 25%)***. The deal isn't final yet, though, since it still has to
be approved by the various regulatory agencies. Given all these issues
- and the fact that Activision has lost 30%**** of its active players
in the past year and has seen declined revenue***** - I'm surprised
Microsoft is still interested in the purchase. But maybe they're just
intending to do a clean-sweep and fire every member of the C-level,
keeping only the talent and IP. It is probably the only way to make
this dumpster-fire of a corporation worth anything again.

But look, it's not all negative. Apparently they're making a new
Warcraft game, so that's cool. It's for mobile, but... what?!? You all
have phones, dontcha?******

Oh, Activision.

------------------------------------------------
* https://www.axios.com/activision-advises-stockholders-to-vote-against-harassment-report-0435e575-b0d5-4666-a3de-27533b1470a4.html
**
https://www.engadget.com/cwa-accuses-activision-nlrb-unfair-labor-practices-complaint-212835329.html
***
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20220428005998/en/Activision-Blizzard-Stockholders-Approve-Proposed-Microsoft-Transaction
****
https://www.eurogamer.net/activision-lost-a-third-of-its-active-players-in-past-year
*****
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20220422005665/en/Activision-Blizzard-Announces-First-Quarter-2022-Financial-Results/

******
https://www.polygon.com/23055141/warcraft-universe-mobile-game-reveal-blizzard-entertainment

On 04/05/2022 01:44, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>
> Is it another day ending in 'y'? Yes? Then Activision must be in the
> news again, and not for anything game related.
>
> So, you might have heard Activision has been having a bit of a to-do
> regarding its 'fair and ethical' treatment of its employees: you know,
> discrimination, harassment, workplace abuse. Its gotten them into a
> bit of legal problems in California, and the stockholders (and the
> SEC) are concerned because of how it affects the value of the company.
>
> Thus, New York State has suggested that the company release a yearly
> report detailing how many complaints vis-à-vis these issues the
> company is dealing with, how much money they spend settling these
> issues, pending issues, stuff like that.
>
> All the sort of thing that the company would - obviously - like to
> keep quiet about, but that stockholders (and employees, for that
> matter) have necessary interest in. Activision's C-level is urging its
> stockholders to vote no on the proposal.*
>
> Who wants transparency, after all? The best way to move on from issues
> like this, after all, is just to bury your head in the sand and
> pretend it never happened.
>
>
> Oh, Activision.
>
>
> Also, they're working hard at excluding a representative of the
> AFL-CIO onto the board, because obviously the last thing you'd want is
> to let any of those lowly employees (who have no trust in management
> given recent events) have a voice in how the company is managed. That
> the company has reputedly threatened employees with termination for
> discussing working conditions** is just the icing on the cake.
>
>
> Oh, Activision.
>
>
> Meanwhile, the stockholders approved Microsoft's buy-out of the
> company (largely based on promises that the stock price would go up by
> about 25%)***. The deal isn't final yet, though, since it still has to
> be approved by the various regulatory agencies. Given all these issues
> - and the fact that Activision has lost 30%**** of its active players
> in the past year and has seen declined revenue***** - I'm surprised
> Microsoft is still interested in the purchase. But maybe they're just
> intending to do a clean-sweep and fire every member of the C-level,
> keeping only the talent and IP. It is probably the only way to make
> this dumpster-fire of a corporation worth anything again.
>
> But look, it's not all negative. Apparently they're making a new
> Warcraft game, so that's cool. It's for mobile, but... what?!? You all
> have phones, dontcha?******
>
>
> Oh, Activision.
>

Unfortunately the whole ethos of if you ignore problems hard enough they
will go away is alive and kicking. So you realise you have a problem
with low moral so you get some outside firm in to sit down over the week
with groups of people and get their uncensored views - that's a good
idea right. When the results are less than flattering and it's clear
there are some problem people then that's what you need to address.

Alternatively you could move the person who organised this sideways and
then don't address any of the issues raised. That just made the problem
even worse.

Kotick sounds pretty toxic. No doubt this microsoft deal was shoved through
to let someone else manage the shitstorm.

rms

On Sun, 8 May 2022 10:02:38 -0600, "rms" <rsquiresMOO@MOOflashMOO.net>
wrote:

>Kotick sounds pretty toxic. No doubt this microsoft deal was shoved through
>to let someone else manage the shitstorm.

Well, Kotick is being sued for allegedly rushing the Microsoft merger
in order to have the company (and him?) avoid liability for all the
other lawsuits they're currently engaged in. After all, you can't sue
a corporation if that corporation legally doesn't exist anymore.

But Kotick is definitely a piece of work. I don't know if he's
personally a horrible person (doubtlessly he comes across as friendly
and charismatic), but reports are that - when it comes to business -
he's unscrupulous. He doesn't necessarily do anything illegal, but his
goal seems 'more money' above any othe priority, be it ethics,
workplace happiness, customer satisfaction, or what have you. At least
so its claimed by employees and investigators.

But that's what Americans apparently want. You don't get to be the CEO
of a corporation that rakes in billions in profits yet ends up with a
negative tax bill in the same year it fire hundreds of staff unless
that sort of thing is considered acceptable by the populace at large.
If it were otherwise, there'd be a huge clamor for him (and other,
similar executives) to be held accountable... but at best we give them
a minor 'tsk-tsk' and go back to buying their products.