Microsoft's Activision-Blizzard Acquisition Deal Prevents ABK from recognizing unionization, though MS can approve

[Good_Day!]

A.) I fail to understand why a company that won't own another company for another year and half and hasn't even been approved yet could say they have the decision making matters when it comes to unionization.

B.) If somehow MS can make this decision, then did they also decide to delay CoD 23.

Click to shrink...

You're failure to understand is most likely because of this thread. Most here haven't a clue what they're talking about. MS has no say in whether or not these people unionize. No one needs MS's permission to form a union and they don't have to wait for the deal to become final before they start discussing unionization.

This is just about Activision not being allowed to negotiate or make major changes without MS.

 

[The Lord of Cereal]

I've seen some people say that this is normal wording or a normal clause, and while this is probably true, I wanted to compare it to the wording from the SEC Filing for Microsoft's Acquisition of Nuance, given I noticed one key difference...

MS/Nuance: SEC Filing

In addition, Nuance has also agreed that, except (1) as expressly contemplated by the merger agreement; (2) as approved by Microsoft (which approval will not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed); (3) for certain actions or omissions that may be taken in response to COVID-19 (following reasonable prior consultation with Microsoft); or (4) as disclosed in the confidential disclosure letter to the merger agreement, during the period of time between the date of the merger agreement and the effective time of the merger (or earlier termination of the merger agreement), Nuance will not, and will cause each of its subsidiaries not to, among other things:

... except as required by law, voluntarily recognize any labor union, works council or similar employee organization or enter into a collective bargaining agreement

Click to shrink...

The wording here is almost entirely word for word, except for the bolded part. "Except as required by law" at the beginning of the section about unionization, which is missing from the same section in the Activision Blizzard. Considering the active unionization efforts going on at Activision Blizzard, if the inevitable NLRB union election is successful then Activision will be required by law to recognize the union.

This makes sense to include with Nuance, since there were no active unionization efforts going on, but with Activision Blizzard, it makes sense to exclude that line.

Essentially, from my (albeit limited) understanding of this, the fact that the "except as required by law" section basically means that if the unionization efforts at Raven are successful, Activision Blizzard would be violating their acquisition agreement with Microsoft and give MS reason to back away from the deal.

 

[sangreal]

I've seen some people say that this is normal wording or a normal clause, and while this is probably true, I wanted to compare it to the wording from the SEC Filing for Microsoft's Acquisition of Nuance, given I noticed one key difference...

MS/Nuance: SEC Filing

The wording here is almost entirely word for word, except for the bolded part. "Except as required by law" at the beginning of the section about unionization, which is missing from the same section in the Activision Blizzard. Considering the active unionization efforts going on at Activision Blizzard, if the inevitable NLRB union election is successful then Activision will be required by law to recognize the union.

This makes sense to include with Nuance, since there were no active unionization efforts going on, but with Activision Blizzard, it makes sense to exclude that line.

Essentially, from my (albeit limited) understanding of this, the fact that the "except as required by law" section basically means that if the unionization efforts at Raven are successful, Activision Blizzard would be violating their acquisition agreement with Microsoft and give MS reason to back away from the deal.

Click to shrink...

When it is required by law, it isn't voluntary. That is just a redundant statement

 

[arsene_P5]

ATVI is much larger than Zenimax and Microsoft is spending 75b, or 10x the amount they paid for Zenimax, so they will probably want to recoup their cash outflow much more aggressively, aka layoffs.

Click to shrink...

MS won't recoup their money by firing the devs making those profitable games. They are part of the reason the price was so high and imo the acquisition was made.

 

[Odesu]

Activision wouldn't have recognized them either way, Microsoft also won't. This is the American tech industry.

 

[christocolus]

Well, yea. You're not going to allow a company you're working to acquire to make major changes to the way staffing is handled while you're going through the process of acquiring them.

Click to shrink...

This.

 

[christocolus]

I'm going by their past history of laying people off after acquisitions

Microsoft announces biggest-ever job cuts: 18,000 in the next year

The Verge is about technology and how it makes us feel. Founded in 2011, we offer our audience everything from breaking news to reviews to award-winning features and investigations, on our site, in video, and in podcasts.

www.theverge.com

Microsoft-owned LinkedIn cuts 960 jobs as coronavirus slows hiring

Microsoft's professional networking site LinkedIn said on Tuesday it would cut about 960 jobs, or 6% of its global workforce, as the coronavirus pandemic is having a sustained impact on demand for its recruitment products.

www.cnbc.com

Click to shrink...

This doesn't prove your point. lol. as bsigg, vixolus and ThatNerdGUI have already explained.

 

[stormfire]

The lawsuit calls into question potential conflicts of interest, specifically that the deal "is not in the best interest" of Activision Blizzard, Watson, nor company stockholders, and "will produce lucrative benefits for the [Activision Blizzard's] officers and directors." It also referenced the "golden parachute" that some executives, like CEO Bobby Kotick, would receive should he be fired. The SEC filing, called a 14A, includes information necessary before shareholders vote in agreement.

Click to shrink...

More Activision Blizzard stockholders sue over Microsoft sale

Shareholders bring suit against Activision Blizzard and its board of directors

www.polygon.com

 

[Yerffej]

Any and everyone can put away the faintest idea of unionization under MS ownership. That goes for any of the rest of them as well.