Unionization across the US in various industries is unlikely due to the common right-wing “Right to Work” rhetoric and related laws they push under the deceptively named concept. The short version is that it’s illegal to force workers to join unions and/or pay dues, but the general effect is that a workplace can try to avoid union labor and their higher demands in pay and conditions, such as jobs not being accepted unless everyone involved is also within the union. Tying way back earlier in the thread and the capitalistic assumption that participation within the economy is voluntary, the reality is that it’s more coercive because non-participation leads to suffering and inevitable death. As a result, such anti-union legislature compels that choice of “work or starve” where a given skill may demand higher pay within a unionized environment, but since employers aren’t compelled to play ball, you’re likely to have to settle if moving is not an option. If there is even another area where the skill set shines. The irony is often that these same proponents are against the minimum wage, but in the more well-to-do countries where MW doesn’t exist, it turns out it’s because they’ve embraced union culture and are overall better poised to guarantee better conditions for workers as they actually have the government’s backing.
That said, union busting and similar anti- propaganda is also common. I recall a good number of entry level jobs when I was younger that had us watch cheesy videos pushing the narrative that the company was family, and in not-so-subtle terms, anyone that so much as whispered anything about unions was a crazy uncle that needed to be uninvited from gatherings. This usually gets the ball rolling on finding creative ways to fire people to avoid legal countermeasures, as it’s generally difficult for people in these positions to afford lawyers for long-term litigation. The gains are also minimal even if they do succeed, and by that point, any willingness to work at such a job is also tanked. This further serves to keep people from stepping forward, as the “work or starve” reality strongarms them from doing the right thing if they don’t have a reliable safety net or even the personality to be combative about workplace issues. If it’s a job like in fast food where you’re also treated like garbage by customers who think you don’t deserve a livable wage, it’s also that much easier to just go somewhere else if it turns out your boss (and their bosses) is an unsavory human being.
So, this comes back to why the MW was implemented to begin with and how RtW legislation was an offshoot rebuttal in line with the perversion of the concept. Guaranteeing a prosperous standard of living for its citizens should be a focal point for any country’s government, and for a while, the US had a decent facsimile of that if you could look past the racism, sexism, and homophobia of the era. Enter Reagonomics, and the glorification thereof, with a wink and nod to the War on Drugs as racist dogwhistling, and so began the failure of MW keeping up with inflation, becoming repeatedly litigated against, and essentially hitting the point where we’re like 10 years past a leftist push for $15/hr and even that is $10 behind now. Multiply this against the skyrocketing cost of higher education and the massive debt many have been forced to take on in the past few decades and it shouldn’t be surprising anyone that people can’t buy homes or start families of their own because the American Dream was basically lobbied out of existence by the upper class.
One thing to note, however, is that Blizzard is in the advantageous position of being consider a dream job for many aspiring game designers and artists. With that reputation comes the luxury of being able to chew through low-tier workers while dangling that carrot of promotion and hope that maybe one day they could push the idea of their own hit game/franchise. Rock the boat? You’re easily replaced by someone else as naively starry-eyed. Again, this is where unionization would be to the employee’s benefit, as firing people becomes more difficult and issues can be relegated to people who actually have the means to address them and threaten walk-outs if ignored. Dues collected over time also help to serve as a war chest to keep people within the union paid during strikes so they’re not starving or facing eviction.
Anyway, when I heard they were hiring an outside firm to look into the collective issues, my obvious concern was that it would be a biased maneuver and essentially be a case of “we investigated ourselves and found nothing wrong” with an extra step added. I expect a few token firings, but this is just feeling like the push for business as usual is going to win out as the bigwigs hope we forget about all this months from now.
