General Gaming Activision discrimination against old white guys?

[SuperSpreader]

Activision Blizzard has been accused of discriminating against "old white guys"

WWW.EUROGAMER.NET

---

A former Activision Blizzard executive has filed a discrimination claim with the company, alleging it of discriminating…

 

[Paperclyp]

"Activision placed profits over people by terminating the older, higher-paid executives."

 

This is very funny. 

[AbsolutSurgen]

The layoffs I went through hit overwhelming white men in their 40s. The department I was in had 8 people at my level - 5 of us white men. All 4 who were laid off were white men. 
This is nothing new in corporate America. 

[nublood]

Does Activision have a DEI department or whatever? Because the hiring and firing practices that go through those channels are FAR from inclusive or equitable or whatever else they’re trying to achieve. 

[Brian]

Lololololol pretty sure this guy didn’t mind firing employees in the past to get his bonus. 

[AbsolutSurgen]

6 minutes ago, Brian said:

Lololololol pretty sure this guy didn’t mind firing employees in the past to get his bonus. 

He’s clearly a low level manager. 

[stepee]

He was let go as part of the transition to MS of course they are going to have a lot of redundant executives that are no longer needed but this is funny 

[XxEvil AshxX]

Ageism is definitely a thing; I've experienced it first-hand.

 

That said, I don't think that was the case here.

[TUFKAK]

[crispy4000]

15 hours ago, Paperclyp said:

"Activision placed profits over people by terminating the older, higher-paid executives."

 

This is very funny. 

 

That's exactly what happened at Bungie recently. And I don't think anyone found this funny:

 

Bungie fans outraged as beloved Destiny composers and other veteran employees are put out of work | PC Gamer

WWW.PCGAMER.COM

---

Composers Michael Salvatori and Michael Sechrist were both let go in yesterday's layoffs, along with numerous other long-time staff.

 

If their contributions are more visible to us, do we care more?

[CitizenVectron]

This is more likely a case of a certain level of mid-level-management being laid off (which happen to be predominately white men in their 40s-50s) rather than a targeting of white men in their 40s and 50s. The better question to ask is, why are the mid-level-managers mostly white men in that age range? But I bet this dude wasn't worried about that before.

[Paperclyp]

4 hours ago, crispy4000 said:

 

That's exactly what happened at Bungie recently. And I don't think anyone found this funny:

 

Bungie fans outraged as beloved Destiny composers and other veteran employees are put out of work | PC Gamer

WWW.PCGAMER.COM

---

Composers Michael Salvatori and Michael Sechrist were both let go in yesterday's layoffs, along with numerous other long-time staff.

 

If their contributions are more visible to us, do we care more?

 
if we find out this is a beloved employee who made grand contributions to a game I’ll gladly eat crow lol. 
 

The claims he is making are based on some offhand comments made by Bobby K. The article is so absurd I couldn’t tell if it was satire at first. 

[crispy4000]

57 minutes ago, Paperclyp said:

 
if we find out this is a beloved employee who made grand contributions to a game I’ll gladly eat crow lol. 

 

I'll be a contrarian here then.  It's rare that individuals are highlighted for their particular contributions to a game outside of general categories in credits.  It shouldn't matter if he individually made that grand thing about a game you liked.  Longstanding staff getting laid off for cost cutting reasons denigrates the culture and morale of a studio.  In general terms, its a bullshit thing to do, and decidedly not funny.

 

The wrinkle here is his DEI complaint saying that factored into him losing his job.  That's a more controversial topic.  But I don't think it should distract from the basic idea that Activision, of all companies, shouldn't be laying off long time employees because they're more expensive to keep on the payroll.

[Paperclyp]

42 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

 

I'll be a contrarian here then.  It's rare that individuals are highlighted for their particular contributions to a game outside of general categories in credits.  It shouldn't matter if he individually made that grand thing about a game you liked.  Longstanding staff getting laid off for cost cutting reasons denigrates the culture and morale of a studio.  In general terms, its a bullshit thing to do, and decidedly not funny.

 

The wrinkle here is his DEI complaint saying that factored into him losing his job.  That's a more controversial topic.  But I don't think it should distract from the basic idea that Activision, of all companies, shouldn't be laying off long time employees because they're more expensive to keep on the payroll.

Listen I understand what you’re saying, but this man is saying he was fired for being old and white because Bobby K said offhandedly that they need fewer old white executives. 
 

You can clown on this guy while still being sensitive to the issues you're bringing up. 

 

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

Layoffs often target those making the most salary in positions a company can justify trimming. That usually is heavily employees in their 40s and 50s, especially if they’ve been at the company long enough to get multiple promotions, and the white guys who have been thrown more money and promotions by other white guys. 
 

middle management being the easiest to eliminate because their responsibilities can be absorbed by people above and below. Whenever I saw a person get promoted from manager to senior manager I cringed. Sure enough, in a year or two they were part of a lay off to “trim the fat”. 

[crispy4000]

30 minutes ago, Paperclyp said:

Listen I understand what you’re saying, but this man is saying he was fired for being old and white because Bobby K said offhandedly that they need fewer old white executives. 

 

The GI article said his boss left “based, at least in part, on Kotick's ageist remarks," and he was denied that position after being recommended to it.

 

I won’t pretend to know much about the legal case here, but to get to the bottom of things at least, talking to the former boss could clarify a lot.  One broad comment from Kotick wouldn’t make his arguement.  Also from the GI article, it seems there’s a lot of infighting among employees under the new manager to sift through.

[Paperclyp]

6 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

 

The GI article said his boss left “based, at least in part, on Kotick's ageist remarks," and he was denied that position after being recommended to it.

 

I won’t pretend to know much about the legal case here, but to get to the bottom of things at least, talking to the former boss could clarify a lot.  One broad comment from Kotick wouldn’t make his arguement.  Also from the GI article, it seems there’s a lot of infighting among employees under the new manager to sift through.

I just think it’s safe to make light of this particular situation and the language like I initially quoted without tying yourself in knots trying to be respectful 

[Dexterryu]

It's kind of 2 fold right now. 

 

1. You have the normal process of corporations pushing out older, higher compensated employees for younger that they feel will perform at a similar level.

2. You have all of the ID&E efforts going on that effectively protects anyone that is not a white male, regardless of performance.

 

The combination makes job security and finding opportunities a challenge for white males aged 40-55, regardless of their ability to perform.

[crispy4000]

36 minutes ago, Paperclyp said:

I just think it’s safe to make light of this particular situation and the language like I initially quoted without tying yourself in knots trying to be respectful 

I don’t owe any respect, other than liking video games and being saddened by the layoffs lately.

[Paperclyp]

5 minutes ago, Dexterryu said:

It's kind of 2 fold right now. 

 

1. You have the normal process of corporations pushing out older, higher compensated employees for younger that they feel will perform at a similar level.

2. You have all of the ID&E efforts going on that effectively protects anyone that is not a white male, regardless of performance.

 

The combination makes job security and finding opportunities a challenge for white males aged 40-55, regardless of their ability to perform.

I’m sorry but I’m going to need to see some hard data before I believe this narrative that white males are being disproportionally targeted. I am guessing any data you can find will show you quite the opposite.

 

8 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

I don’t owe any respect, other than liking video games and being saddened by the layoffs lately.

I take no joy in people being laid off… but I did find the language used by this man and his legal team to be quite funny. 

[crispy4000]

15 minutes ago, Dexterryu said:

It's kind of 2 fold right now. 

 

1. You have the normal process of corporations pushing out older, higher compensated employees for younger that they feel will perform at a similar level.

2. You have all of the ID&E efforts going on that effectively protects anyone that is not a white male, regardless of performance.

 

The combination makes job security and finding opportunities a challenge for white males aged 40-55, regardless of their ability to perform.

That’s what the ADEA is supposed to be there for, even if it’s a high burden of proof.

 

Kotick’s alleged remark about having too many old (white) execs could fall under that if this guy can reasonably demonstrate his termination and/or lack of promotion was acted on as such.

[Dexterryu]

4 minutes ago, Paperclyp said:

I’m sorry but I’m going to need to see some hard data before I believe this narrative that white males are being disproportionally targeted. I am guessing any data you can find will show you quite the opposite.

 

I take no joy in people being laid off… but I did find the language used by this man and his legal team to be quite funny. 

 

I can tell you that I am in a role where these factors are actively discussed and play directly into decisions for ratings/reviews and potential layoffs.

[Paperclyp]

Just now, Dexterryu said:

 

I can tell you that I work for a company and am in a role where these factors are actively discussed and play directly into decisions for ratings/reviews and potential layoffs.

I don’t doubt those conversations happen, but conversations are a far cry from impact on a systemic level. 

[Dexterryu]

1 minute ago, Paperclyp said:

I don’t doubt those conversations happen, but conversations are a far cry from impact on a systemic level. 

 

I should probably be more clear. There are not conversations about targeting white males. There absolutely conversations about protecting others for ID&E reasons. Higher performing people (with the data to back it up) are let go due to protecting lower performing  (also with data) employees that fit an ID&E statistic.

[Paperclyp]

“Hey guys our executives are 75 percent white.  We’ve got to bump that down to 70. Sorry frank?” 

[Paperclyp]

Just now, Dexterryu said:

 

I should probably be more clear. There are not conversations about targeting white males. There absolutely conversations about protecting others for ID&E reasons. Higher performing people (with the data to back it up) are let go due to protecting lower performing  (also with data) employees that fit an ID&E statistic.

This does not move the needle much for me in the “middle aged white guys have it tough right now” argument. 

[Paperclyp]

Apropos of nothing white male unemployment age 45-55 rate is 2.1 right now, a full point below the national average. 

[Dexterryu]

9 minutes ago, Paperclyp said:

This does not move the needle much for me in the “middle aged white guys have it tough right now” argument. 

 

If you're waiting for data you'll never find it because no one will ever say it and will actively hide it for a multitude of reasons. As you saw with the Bud Light fiasco last year, businesses don't want to piss of a major demographic. So it's something that you can consciously ignore if you wish.

[Paperclyp]

6 minutes ago, Dexterryu said:

 

If you're waiting for data you'll never find it because no one will ever say it and will actively hide it for a multitude of reasons. As you saw with the Bud Light fiasco last year, businesses don't want to piss of a major demographic. So it's something that you can consciously ignore if you wish.

Wait what does bud light have to do with this? If anything that whole situation would encourage these companies to release the “real” data that proves the white guys are getting the short end of the stick.

[stepee]

34 minutes ago, Paperclyp said:

Wait what does bud light have to do with this? If anything that whole situation would encourage these companies to release the “real” data that proves the white guys are getting the short end of the stick.

 

Actually I have antidotal evidence on many things you wouldn’t believe and all of them have hidden data you’ll never find so keep burying your head in the sand if you want but let’s just say there is a reason why water is cheaper than soda even though soda has less water.

[AbsolutSurgen]

1 hour ago, Dexterryu said:

 

I should probably be more clear. There are not conversations about targeting white males. There absolutely conversations about protecting others for ID&E reasons. Higher performing people (with the data to back it up) are let go due to protecting lower performing  (also with data) employees that fit an ID&E statistic.

I also have personal experience with these conversations with HR.  HR made it clear that in coming up with the list of people to be "reduced" to hit HR's target, only white males were allowed to be included.

There were also targets given that required some areas to fire a white male, while promoting a non-white male.  A friend of mine who was working an "alternate work schedule", had her mentor fired, was promoted from Manager to Senior Manager to fill his role, and told she had to return to a "normal work schedule".  Only time I can remember a person being livid at receiving a promotion.

[Dexterryu]

1 hour ago, Paperclyp said:

Wait what does bud light have to do with this? If anything that whole situation would encourage these companies to release the “real” data that proves the white guys are getting the short end of the stick.

 

Nothing directly beyond this: Companies care about their brand/image more than anything else. That's what brings in both customers and talent in potential hires. They are in an interesting spot right now in trying to attract new graduates (who place a high value on ID&E) and top talent (who primarily care about $$ and getting stuff done). The bud light campaign last year pissed off their primary customers and hurt their brand, costing them billions in sales and market value.

Most companies really don't care about ID&E (they care about $$ and share value), but they do care about it from the perspective that not being ID&E friendly gets them killed by the media. So they pander (which blew up in Bud Lights face).

[AbsolutSurgen]

5 minutes ago, Dexterryu said:

 

Nothing directly beyond this: Companies care about their brand/image more than anything else. That's what brings in both customers and talent in potential hires. They are in an interesting spot right now in trying to attract new graduates (who place a high value on ID&E) and top talent (who primarily care about $$ and getting stuff done). The bud light campaign last year pissed off their primary customers and hurt their brand, costing them billions in sales and market value.

Most companies really don't care about ID&E (they care about $$ and share value), but they do care about it from the perspective that not being ID&E friendly gets them killed by the media. So they pander (which blew up in Bud Lights face).

Companies "don't care" about anything -- because they are intangible things, that aren't sentient.

The priorities of companies are set by their Board, and by the management team.  Their personal agendas and objectives coalesce around what they do.

ESG ratings are now a very visible way that companies can be measured around diversity.  Since there are very few board members that want to be viewed as being "against" ESG, almost every company will set a target for the management team for achievement of ESG.  This causes management bonuses to be tied to achievement of ESG -- which are largely easily controllable -- so senior management will ensure their targets are hit to maintain their bonuses.

[Dexterryu]

3 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

Companies "don't care" about anything -- because they are intangible things, that aren't sentient.

The priorities of companies are set by their Board, and by the management team.  Their personal agendas and objectives coalesce around what they do.

ESG ratings are now a very visible way that companies can be measured around diversity.  Since there are very few board members that want to be viewed as being "against" ESG, almost every company will set a target for the management team for achievement of ESG.  This causes management bonuses to be tied to achievement of ESG -- which are largely easily controllable -- so senior management will ensure their targets are hit to maintain their bonuses.

 

Bingo. Perfectly said.

[Paperclyp]

57 minutes ago, Dexterryu said:

 

Nothing directly beyond this: Companies care about their brand/image more than anything else. That's what brings in both customers and talent in potential hires. They are in an interesting spot right now in trying to attract new graduates (who place a high value on ID&E) and top talent (who primarily care about $$ and getting stuff done). The bud light campaign last year pissed off their primary customers and hurt their brand, costing them billions in sales and market value.

Most companies really don't care about ID&E (they care about $$ and share value), but they do care about it from the perspective that not being ID&E friendly gets them killed by the media. So they pander (which blew up in Bud Lights face).

 

The bud light "campaign" was a single tik tok or something that was targeted by grifters acting in bad faith to run a nonsense hate campaign at trans people and the stupid beer company, which, you're right, sure did work real well. Which is something. But it has little or nothing to do with what we're talking about. 

 

Let's not stray too far from the point I'm pushing against. I mean wtf are we even talking about at this point. Here's what I took issue with: 

 

Quote

The combination makes job security and finding opportunities a challenge for white males aged 40-55, regardless of their ability to perform.

 

This is baseless nonsense - the evidence being that you guys "are in meetings" and the real data is being hidden. Essentially every metric says you're wrong. White men in that age group have some of the lowest unemployment in the history of the tracking of that statistic. Activision's demographics are easily surfaced. In 2022 (the next report will come out in March) their workforce was 73 percent male. 68 percentage of their hires were male. 56 percent of their hires were white. 

 

Now, if you want to sell me the idea that a white male making a lot of money is more likely to be laid off than a black woman making a fraction of that, I would totally believe that! But it is not a challenge for white males 40-55 to find a job by any metric, and they in fact have the LOWEST unemployment rate of any demographic except for white women 55-64. 

 

You're operating on "I'm right because I can feel it."