Wizards of the Coast declines to voluntarily recognize Magic Arena union by May 1st deadline

Wizards of the Coast has not voluntarily recognized a new union being formed by Magic: The Gathering Arena employees. A post on United Wizards of the Coast's webpage states that the company has not voluntarily recognized the union by the May 1st deadline put forth by the union when it announced its attempt to form. Per the post, Wizards has had no contact with union representatives at all, with their only statement about the planned filing being released to media sources instead.

Developers tied to Magic Arena announced last week that they were forming a union, citing a need to protect workers from layoffs, guardrails over generative AI usage and crunch time, and protections for remote work. This union is limited to Magic Arena developers only and does not encompass other areas at Wizards of the Coast.

As Wizards has not chosen to voluntarily recognize the union, the next step would be an election overseen by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), in which all qualifying employees can choose to vote on whether or not to form a union. Per the United Wizards of the Coast's page, the group's voluntary recognition letter contained a super-majority of the Arena team, meaning they would have the votes to create the union as long as their membership holds firm. The union organizers state that they expect the election to be held within the coming weeks.

 

[saviirkad]

Yes and it protects those bad people too. Just because it protected you, doesn't mean it did not protect bad employees as well. This is what I have been saying all along.

It did not protect "those bad people" too. It very specifically made it easier to deal with them.

Except that they were not charged (or even fired) because the union backed them.

Do you have a source to cite that shows the engineers who were involved with the creation of the device but were not part of the conspiracy of fraud were given a plea deal just because their union backed them?

 

[ECMO3]

Your very own cite says they don't get the protections for union activity that employees get under the NLRA. Independent contractors are not going to be folded into the WotC union.

Read a little further down. It is exactly like I said. Here is the quote for you:

"Yes, independent contractors can unionize like all other workers can. US labor law doesn’t protect them, but the power of organizing comes from workers, not the government. If this is confusing, it might help to look at some history."

The people unionizing at WOTC are being recognized by Communications Workers of America. They have stated they want to unionize the entire gaming industry.

CWA also does allow freelancers to join and has been encouraging them join for 10 years now:

Freelancers of the World, Unite!

Independent writers, photographers, videographers and graphic designers are signing up for Guild Freelancers, a growing part of the Pacific Media Workers Guild and the NewsGuild-CWA, to build stability in a rapidly changing industry.

cwa-union.org

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Well that is fine. I am totally fine with leaving non-union workers out of a CBA and not having them be eligible for union insurance or anything else. If the union can arrange so only their represented members get benefits, that is great.

Union members don't think that way.

But if things the union does do benefit others as an aside, that does not mean those others should have to pay for something they didn't ask the union to do on their behalf in the first place.

They can go get a non union job. Have fun get taken advantage of because you have essentially no power.

Also, I do feel it is necessary to mention that if you are leaving non-union employees out then you aren't really striving to improve conditions for all workers but rather only those that pay for it. That is fine and ok morally and ethically, but you really should admit that it is transactional instead of cloaking it in language about improving conditions for all workers.

It is about helping all workers. That parasites arent respected by the people they freeload off of does not make those union workers any less dedicated to the benefit of all.
And no, it would not be okay morally or ethically to only support workers who understand what a union is.

I am not anti-labor, I am anti-oppression.

You may think so, but you are incorrect. Your actual words are anti-labor and in actual effect if implemented as policy, would lead to greater oppression.

This is at best a stereotype and at worst prejudice. This may be true sometimes, but it certainly is not always true.

This is literal fact from direct experience.

This is my problem with a lot of people in this type of discussions, they make claims that are not universally true. Unions are good for some workers, unions are not good for all workers.

Any worker who thinks unions are bad for them is simply incorrect. Objectively. You are not better off negotiating alone.

I don't care what country workers board of supervisors said. I am not them. I never said that and I never meant that. It is up to individuals if they want to join a union and their reason for joining or not joining for paying dues or not paying dues is their own. It is not yours and it is not mine.

You arent readinf what you reply to. I illustrated why having open shops where people can opt out of the union and pay for nothing they benefit from harms all the workers. That quote is literally a normal thing for managers and owners to say to weakened unions.

And someone' reasons for being a selfish parasite who is happy to benefit from the dues of their compatriots while skipping out on their part of the bill are irrelevant. No one cares why someone skips out on their part while making their friends pay their part for them on top of their own.

 

[ECMO3]

They can go get a non union job. Have fun get taken advantage of because you have essentially no power.

They should be allowed to have any job. They are a worker, if someone wants to hire them and pay them what business is it of yours.

Isn't it up to them to do what they want and what they think is best for them? Why do you think you know better?

It is about helping all workers.

No it is not. Right up above you said they should not be helped and should "have fun being taken addvantage of"

Which is it? Should they get helped if they don't want to pay dues or should they get taken advantage of?

You may think so, but you are incorrect. Your actual words are anti-labor and in actual effect if implemented as policy, would lead to greater oppression.

No they aren't they are anti-oppression. I am against people putting their boot heel against me and telling me what to do. Whether that is my boss, the Popo or a union.

I am not anti-labor or even anti-union. I am anti people claiming they know what is best for me and everyone else without considering their individual circumstances.

This is literal fact from direct experience.

Then it is a stereotype based on your personal direct experience with a very small subset of the population you are making a judgement about. Many stereotypes and prejudices are based on direct personal experience, that does not make them true.

Your statement was "The same people who don' understand the value of a union complain the loudest when the union cannot effectively bargain"

You can not possibly have seen enough people to make that statement true from a factual basis. It is millions (or maybe billions) of people you are talking about. Also I assume you think I am one who "does not understand the value of unions" and I as a point of fact have never complained about ineffective bargaining at all.

Any worker who thinks unions are bad for them is simply incorrect. Objectively.

Objectively, the union I was forced to join back in high school to work in a grocery store was bad for me. I got no benefits at all from it and I am worth slightly less today than I would be if I had been allowed to not join.

I am not incorrect about this. You are.

You arent readinf what you reply to. I illustrated why having open shops where people can opt out of the union and pay for nothing they benefit from harms all the workers. T

No you did not illustrate it, not factually any way.

Further there is a difference between "all the workers" and "every worker". Theoretically it may harm "all the workers" but it does not harm "every worker" and individuals matter.

Your argument is if all of us paid, we all, including me, would be better off but you are not in a position to state what is and isn't better for me. Up above someone gave a great example - telework. What if the union forces the company to allow telework and I personally do not do well in that environment or it frustrates me. That is not better for me!

What if the union gets us health benefits, but they come at a cost, and I already have health benefits from my parents? That is not better for me, it is worse for me (and this is a real life example too)!

What if the union gets company matching on a 401k, but I don't want to invest in their options and having that available makes me ineligible for other federal programs. That does not make it better for me.

People are individuals, with varying desires, needs, and even reasons for having a job. Your claim that a union will result in circumstances that are always the best for each one of them individually is simply not true.

And someone' reasons for being a selfish parasite who is happy to benefit from the dues of their compatriots while skipping out on their part of the bill are irrelevant. No one cares why someone skips out on their part while making their friends pay their part for them on top of their own.

If their friends ordered dinner for them without asking and when they said they don't want to buy dinner then it is their friends who should pay the bill.

 

[Staffan]

I agree that is what unions strive for, but all of that documentation as a point of fact makes it more difficult, FAR more difficult to discipline workers for unethical or illegal behavior. It can even make it impossible if you do not have that documentation.

If you don't have proof the worker in question engaged in malfeasance, how do you know they did? Vibes?

 

[GreyLord]

They should be allowed to have any job. They are a worker, if someone wants to hire them and pay them what business is it of yours.

I think if a worker wants a union job, they should pay union dues.

If you want a car, you should pay for the car.

If you don't want a union job, don't try for one and you don't have to pay the dues.

Just like if you don't want a car and want a cheaper motorbike, buy a motorbike instead.

It's not a difficult concept to understand.

If workers are upset enough that they want to form a union, then it's understandable that they will form a union.

In that instance, I'm all in favor of the company treating union and non-union workers differently. The non-union workers can get their treatment, and the union workers can get theirs according to what the union agrees to with the company.

If the non-union worker wants the union agreements though, they need to join the union and pay union dues.

 

[mamba]

Look at what happened at Volkswagon 10 years ago with the engines on Diesel vehicles that were programmed to fake emissions compliance. These cars spewed out 100 times the allowable pollutants. The company was fined Billions of dollars (not enough, but they were fined), top executives went to prison for fraud, even though some they claimed to not know about it. You know who got off scott free? The engineers who purposefully programmed the vehicles to cheat on the emissions test. Do you know why they got off? They were represented by a Union.

pretty sure being represented by a union does not help you much in court. Being charged with fraud and going to prison is not something VW decided to do to their executives

 

[mamba]

If I am your boss and I tell you to go kill someone I should probably be arrested and charged for conspiracy to murder, but if you pulled the trigger you darn sure should go to prison as well!

up to the prosecution, they have cooperated with murderers and drug dealers and let them get away free if they felt like it was in the interest of their overall strategy

 

[abazaba]

What, protecting workers from discipline for unethical actions relating to their work??

Huh?

If you are asking about worker protection laws . . . we have them in the US, but they are pretty weak. It's part of the reason why we need unions. Heck, even in Europe where worker protections are stronger, workers still need unions.

Ah. I now see I misread the post I was responding to. I meant to say that I feel there should be laws to protect workers when the company they work for is being unethical, not protect the workers when the workers are behaving unethical. Sorry for that.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

their friends ordered dinner for them without asking and when they said they don't want to buy dinner then it is their friends who should pay the bill.

If you happily eat the food, and the whole dinner has an explicit understanding of everyone paying an equal share of the bill, you have a moral obligation to pay your part of the bill. Everything else is smoke.

Your individual bad experience doesn't change the nature of unions. And since you refuse to acknowledge the difference between someone arguing the general case and soemone making universal declarations, we are done.