this was blizzards intention anyway, soft layoff but instead of the company laying people off the people quit instead. 2 birds with one stone. and no severance pay!
I do too. In answer to your question, the problem as I see it, is there’s been no effort to have balance in the force as it were. If there was I’d be totally for it because discriminating is bullcrap. But that means discriminating against anyone. Fact is, equity for one group inevitably means exclusion for another group. We can’t separate those trends, because they come in a pair.
That’s where the problem lies. Because in the case of Blizzard and other gaming companies which already have issues with nepotism, nine out of ten times, it leads to extreme reverse nepotism where unless you checked the box, by being a part of whatever group is desired; you simply don’t get hired.
Even if you outclass the other candidates, you are of the maligned and undesired group. But then those candidates who are chosen work to weed out anyone that does not share their world views, and some of them are not above outright lies or slander to achieve those goals.
You’ll note I outlined the entire issue without race, orientation or anything else. That is because this issue applies to all walks equally across the human race. Everyone does it. Current problem we face is that in the game of Red vs. Blue, Blue has the flag, Tucker is dead and Church has no idea what the hell to do with it and Caboose is missing.
Current iteration of Blue has no interest in coexisting with Red. It only will accept it’s complete destruction and surrender. Yet then they cry foul when Red takes basic self-preservation steps and Sarge calls in the Scorpion.
Blizzard won’t as they need butts in the office due to their property value and costs. It’s hard to justify it if the offices are empty.
This decision is purely driven by greed due to suits above and Middle management who serve no purpose with empty offices and are desperate to cling to their cushie useless position and power.
You subjectively think it’s stupid because you’re denying reality. Might want to re-evaluate calling something stupid there if you’re coming from emotion here.
If saving money is the name of the game, then get a remote worker. Problem sloved.
Pink slip for what? Being productive at work like you wanted? Getting your company money by working? Are you that salty over that? Do you want productive workers or what?
But that has nothing to do what I posted, which was my point.
What you posted was in response to a comment about saving money on a mortgage by moving, which you seemed to misunderstand even though I’m pretty sure all of us have sat in traffic to get to work at some point in our lives, wasting time, money and gas commuting to a job.
So, he laid out what he did and how it turned out for him. That he was not motivated solely by financial matters doesn’t matter. Lots of people aren’t.
“He chose to work poor.” He’s making less, but that’s only relative to what he made before. He’s happier in general, happy with his job, happy with his land, and he doesn’t sound “poor” at all. Again, happiness is the theme running throughout his posts.
I guess money can’t buy you the ability to understand subtext.
Well, if you are telling me I haven’t experienced what I have these last several years at my job, then ok I guess. I guess you can’t imagine people might play a trump card when their livelihood is on the line. My experience has shown otherwise.
WFH doesn’t produce more productive workers. That’s a myth. Most businesses can’t have WFH regardless, especially developer studios like Blizzard because the infrastructure to develop games is centralized in the office building.