blizzard Bobby Kotick Asks Board for Reduced Salary in a Letter Sent to Employees

[solitha 84]

21 hours ago, Dia said:

And that is absolutely fine. No one will ever have same advantages. Tough luck. It means you have to try harder, work better so your children will have more advantages in life. This is how life worked for the last millennia. 

Okay, let's review what you're calling "absolutely fine".

Quote

When looking for the "best applicant" it has been documented, over and over again, that if you have completely equal applicants, minorities are passed over. Systematically.

And you're good with this. Thank you for making your position clear.

Edited October 30, 2021 by solitha

[Devylknyght 83]

On 10/29/2021 at 10:22 AM, solitha said:

Not every group has had the same advantages and disadvantages.

When looking for the "best applicant" it has been documented, over and over again, that if you have completely equal applicants, minorities are passed over. Systematically.

Opportunity is not enough. It was a great idea, but it has been shown not to work out in practice. Focusing on outcome works.

"It has been documented" huh? Well it must be true then. I guess that's pretty much every boss I have ever had in IT for the last 15 years has been Female or some "Minority". 

If 2 people are equally qualified then why should the non-minority NOT be chosen? It would be Racist to specifically not hire them because they are white. 

Race, *filtered*, and orientation should have NOTHING to do with a hiring process unless it is specifically important to the job. (Like needing a female actor).

So I am going to go ahead respectfully disagree with your opinion. Even though you did state that it has been documented. Which is admittedly a hard argument to overcome. Lol

[Devylknyght 83]

On 10/29/2021 at 10:47 AM, solitha said:

Last spring I took a college course, Psychology of Prejudice and Discrimination...

It's kind of scary and I can't really blame anyone for being afraid to face it. Having one's world-view shaken is not a good feeling.

You have a weak mind and have been indoctrinated. That's all. One day hopefully you learn that not everything everyone tells you is true. Even if they seem to be a reputable source such as ones people like you still trust, like Colleges and the Mainstream Media. 

Edited October 30, 2021 by Devylknyght

[Dia 7]

1 hour ago, solitha said:

And you're good with this. Thank you for making your position clear.

Who are you considering a minority? There are more women in my country, should I be considered a minority as a male?

[solitha 84]

21 hours ago, Devylknyght said:

You have a weak mind and have been indoctrinated. That's all. One day hopefully you learn that not everything everyone tells you is true. Even if they seem to be a reputable source such as ones people like you still trust, like Colleges and the Mainstream Media. 

Yeah, sorry. You get added to my ignore list, because I really don't have time in my life to argue with someone who can only offer ad hominem and baseless "anti-elitism" when they hear an opposing view.

[solitha 84]

20 hours ago, Dia said:

Who are you considering a minority? There are more women in my country, should I be considered a minority as a male?

I think you're aware of the social connotations of the word. But if you like, use "historically oppressed group" or whatever gets the concept through better.

[Fireboy92k 0]

It's funny the most vitrol is focused on item #2 and all from a bunch of obviously white males.  LOL  

Clearly what they are saying is we are going to increase our outreach to make sure we are seeking and interviewing the best talent, no matter where it comes from.  That includes, but would not be exclusive to, all female colleges, HBCUs, or institutions with a high percentage of LGBTQ+ people.  It doesn't mean hiring those folks at the expense of white people (ahem, white males).  It means making sure you, as a company, are giving opportunities in the right places for folks to find you so you can find them.  Going to places you wouldn't have invested before to do campus recruiting, going to conferences you might otherwise have ignored, etc.  The natural tendency is to maximize your investment in expensive outreach to places where you get the most applicants (i.e. maybe a large university or a really large trade show).  But those are not always the best places to find the BEST talent, they tend to be the best places to find the MOST applicants. 

Any of you ever been to a place or in a situation where you interviewed 20 people and you really needed to fill a job, but you also really didn't feel like any of them were great candidates?  That's draining, and it sucks.  Is that because you didn't find a good fit?  Or is it because you weren't in the right spot or advertising in the right location to maximize your opportunity to find the best people?  I think they, like a lot of companies, have looked at their hiring practices and finally asked, are we really going to all the places we can to find the best candidates? 

And are there other ways they can contribute to outside institutions that are focused on increasing access to good educational and enrichment activities in these areas such as STEM, the arts, etc. that support our business goals?  That's the investments they are talking about. It's not a question of this or this, it's a question of this AND this.  

And good god, it doesn't mean hiring unqualified people for jobs or promoting people that are unqualified for jobs.  THAT reading is the bias you bring to the discussion in applying your filter to what you read.  We all do it.  But it's a narrow way to look at the world.

[Devylknyght 83]

11 hours ago, solitha said:

Yeah, sorry. You get added to my ignore list, because I really don't have time in my life to argue with someone who can only offer ad hominem and baseless "anti-elitism" when they hear an opposing view.

LOL. YOU are adding someone to the ignore list because THEY can't handle an opposing view. Hilarious. 

[Ashadelo 1]

Who cares about how salary, his bonuses are insane

[Migeru71 15]

Yeah, what consumers really want in a game is affirmative action! That's what gets 'em to buy and play. Has nothing to do with the content of the game, how fun it is, or any of that silliness. I demand the person who is coding my game has tits, or at least identifies as having them!!!!

[Migeru71 15]

On 10/31/2021 at 9:27 AM, Fireboy92k said:

It's funny the most vitrol is focused on item #2 and all from a bunch of obviously white males.  LOL  

Clearly what they are saying is we are going to increase our outreach to make sure we are seeking and interviewing the best talent, no matter where it comes from. 

 

Please explain what the color of a person's skin, or their gender, have to do with an objection to a policy? It seems like assuming their skin color somehow determines their opinion is, well...racist. If you disagree, I'd love an explanation as to why it isn't. Furthermore, most gamers in this country....hold on to your pantaloons now cuz this is gonna shock you....are...white males. As such, anyone objecting to any of these points is most likely a white male. "LOL"

 

"Clearly what they are saying is..."

No, that is clearly NOT what they are saying. We've had employment laws in this country for decades that REQUIRE companies to strive for equal opportunities in hiring. Failure to hire protected classes can and will get you in a whole lot of trouble with big brother, not to mention expose you to lawsuits. Companies already are, and have been for decades, required to have a plan in place to ensure they are striving to hire under-represented groups (females and minorities in this case). The reason most IT pros are males is because most people graduating with IT degrees are males and that is because most people interested in IT careers are males. You can't hire 50 women for 100 positions if only 20 women apply. That trend is changing, but only because more women are now entering the field. I wonder if it ever occurs to some people that a lot of what you see in the workforce is a reflection of personal choice and interests, rather than just defaulting to inane assumptions of racism and misogyny. I also wonder why nobody is up in arms that 50% of nurses aren't men, or that 50% of construction workers aren't women. It's very curious how the only time anyone wants to see equity in hiring is when it's a relatively safe and physically undemanding job.

Anyway, what Blizz is now saying is that they are NOT going to just hire whoever is most qualified, but rather quite the opposite. Their focus is going to be getting more women and LGBT people hired, which necessitates less focus on qualifications and more focus on gender and sexual orientation. Anyone who thinks what makes a better game is more vaginas, or more people who have a particular sexual orientation over another, is profoundly unintelligent. In and of itself, neither of those things necessarily makes a gaming company worse, either, but that's hardly the point. You hire people with the best talent and experience irrespective of immutable characteristics or sexual preferences.

Being that Blizz is gonna do what they're gonna do...I sincerely hope that their plan is a fantastic success. I doubt it will be and I think it's just pandering bullsh*t, but I hope it works out for the better, because honestly I just would like to see them producing some great content that I can enjoy while I am definitely 100% not thinking about whether the team that created it is comprised of the politically correct percentages of women and LGBT people.

[Fireboy92k 0]

23 hours ago, Migeru71 said:

Failure to hire protected classes can and will get you in a whole lot of trouble with big brother, not to mention expose you to lawsuits. Companies already are, and have been for decades, required to have a plan in place to ensure they are striving to hire under-represented groups (females and minorities in this case).

Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about, or if you do, you explain it very poorly.  EEO laws have nothing to do with having to hire a diversified set of people.  What EEO laws are here:  Laws Enforced by EEOC | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and see Affirmative Action Plans - FindLaw

And I quote: 'Some government agencies and most government contractors (those with more than 50 employees and government contracts worth more than $50,000) are required to use affirmative action plans when hiring. Private companies are generally free to decide on their own, but employers that discover a lack of diversity in their ranks after performing an audit may find such plans useful.'

What they say is that you can't discriminate in a hiring decision against someone based on a protected class.  Is says obsoletely NOTHING about WHO you have to hire, what the composition of your workforce has to be, or how many people from any class you have to hire unless you are a federal agency or are a government contractor (which is not the same as doing business with the government).  If someone wants to sue a company because they believe the company violated EEO laws, the burden of proof is on the person doing the suing.  Provide a link to a factual source that shows otherwise.  

The rest of your argument completely falls apart after the mis-statement.

[Migeru71 15]

16 hours ago, Fireboy92k said:

Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about, or if you do, you explain it very poorly.  EEO laws have nothing to do with having to hire a diversified set of people.  What EEO laws are here:  Laws Enforced by EEOC | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and see Affirmative Action Plans - FindLaw

And I quote: 'Some government agencies and most government contractors (those with more than 50 employees and government contracts worth more than $50,000) are required to use affirmative action plans when hiring.

EEO laws have nothing to do with diversity, but EEO laws enforce affirmative action? What do you think affirmative action laws are designed to do, exactly? They are an effort to increase diversity in the workforce due to historical discrimination against minorities and women in hiring. The entire foundation of affirmative action laws is to ensure racial and gender equality in hiring (if that's not a diversity issue, then what is?). Blizzard's "new" policy is no different, with the unimportant distinction that LGBTQ people aren't yet a protected class in the federal EEO law unless you are a federal contractor. However, there's also the Civil Rights Act, which explicitly prohibits discrimination in hiring for the following protected classes:

From Title VII of the Civil Rights Act: "age, disability, gender reassignment, race, religion or belief, *filtered*, sexual orientation, marriage and civil partnership, and pregnancy and maternity are now to be known as protected characteristics under Title VII."

From a prominent legal firm in California (Odell Law) that deals with discrimination cases: "In simple terms, affirmative action is a set of policies or practices that work to increase diversity, typically in education or employment."

What is Blizzard vowing to do? Hire more women and.....and.....members of a minority, protected class. While LGBTQ people are not a protected class in the federal EEO law for private employers, they are still considered a minority group (just ask them) AND Title VII covers that.

None of my argument "falls apart", as there was no "mis-statement", but rather a lack of understanding on your part. I hope this clears it up for you.

Edited November 3, 2021 by Migeru71

[Fireboy92k 0]

And I showed you where Affirmative Action only applies to the government and government contractors and not private businesses (more links provided at the bottom of this response to someplace other than a law firm, who by the way does MOST of their business on wrongful termination if you look at their website).  Private companies CAN have affirmative action plans and policies, but they are not REQUIRED to have them by Federal law.  EEO laws do make it illegal for all to discriminate in hiring practices based on the stated protected classes, which does not include LGBTQ+ members as you note.  They are separate yes, but they overlap.

No federal government agency or any other federal government group is going to come and give you crap as your statement as follows implies: 'Failure to hire protected classes can and will get you in a whole lot of trouble with big brother, not to mention expose you to lawsuits. Companies already are, and have been for decades, required to have a plan in place to ensure they are striving to hire under-represented groups (females and minorities in this case).'  That statement is just not true.  It may very well expose you to lawsuits from private organizations and individuals, but the burden of proof that they were discriminated against is on them, not the business being sued.

At the Federal level, Affirmative Action laws, in the case of employment, only apply to government agencies and government contractors.  There are other requirements in education, etc. and you state may very well have them, but in general what your saying about affirmative action requirements FOR A PRIVATE COMPANY form the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT is not correct.

Activision/Blizzard does business in many states, so they may be subject to difference requirements at a state level and they may in fact CHOOSE to use those more restrictive practices company wide to but down on administrative burden.  But there is nothing illegal about the statements they have made or the programs they have suggested from the information provided.

If you don't like it, then take your subscription money someplace else.

Affirmative Action Laws: Everything You Need to Know (upcounsel.com)

Affirmative Action | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)

Affirmative action in the United States - Wikipedia

[albabe 33]

On 10/30/2021 at 8:52 AM, Devylknyght said:

You have a weak mind and have been indoctrinated. That's all. One day hopefully you learn that not everything everyone tells you is true. Even if they seem to be a reputable source such as ones people like you still trust, like Colleges and the Mainstream Media. 

A "Fake News" impresario, I see.  Damn... you're a real [bad word]... in so many ways.

Edited January 22, 2022 by albabe

[Devylknyght 83]

On 1/22/2022 at 2:35 PM, albabe said:

A "Fake News" impresario, I see.  Damn... you're a real [bad word]... in so many ways.

A very intelligent necro response. Thanks bro. Have a good one.

[albabe 33]

On 1/24/2022 at 9:35 AM, Devylknyght said:

A very intelligent necro response. Thanks bro. Have a good one.

You're welcome, "Bro."  Compared to your insipid Pseudo-Corporate-Minded MAGAt dissertation, my response was Shakespeare.

xoxo

Edited January 25, 2022 by albabe

[Devylknyght 83]

1 hour ago, albabe said:

You're welcome, "Bro."  Compared to your insipid Pseudo-Corporate-Minded MAGAt dissertation, my response was Shakespeare.

xoxo

Baaaaaah Baaaaaaah