Microsoft Axed 650 Gaming Employees Two Days After Hosting 'AI Labor Summit' (geekwire.com) 46
"A two-day AI Labor Summit between AFL-CIO leaders and Microsoft executives this week reflects the tech giant's revamped approach to unions," writes GeekWire, "which includes a pledge by the company to incorporate feedback from labor unions and their members into the development of artificial intelligence."
But just two days later, "Microsoft Gaming CEO Phil Spencer announced it was game over for the jobs of another 650 Microsoft staffers (on top of an earlier 1,900 employee staff reduction)," writes long-time Slashdot reader theodp, "cuts that Spencer made clear were related to Microsoft's $69B acquisition of Activision Blizzard in 2023." Interestingly, Microsoft's Smith in October 2023 affirmed a "groundbreaking neutrality agreement" with the Communications Workers of America union (CWA) — designed to go into effect if Microsoft was successful in its acquisition of Activision Blizzard — in which Microsoft acknowledged the rights of its employees to unionize and pledged to work constructively with any who did. At the same time, Microsoft made it clear that it hoped its employees wouldn't feel the need to form or join unions, saying they would "never need to organize to have a dialogue with Microsoft's leaders."
In July 2023, the AFL-CIO applauded Microsoft's Activision Blizzard acquisition and the Microsoft-CWA agreement, which AFL-CIO union federation president Liz Shuler said "sets a new standard for respecting workers' rights in the video game industry and the larger technology sector." And in December 2023, Shuler thanked Smith for Microsoft's "absolutely historic partnership" on AI and the Future of the Workforce, which Shuler suggested "can be mutually beneficial for workers, for businesses, and for our country as a whole."
Thursday the CWA union issued critical remarks about the layoffs at Microsoft Gaming (which were later retweeted by the @AFLCIO Twitter account).
"While we would hope that a company like Microsoft with $88 billion in profits last year could achieve 'long-term success' without destroying the livelihoods of 650 of our colleagues, heartless layoffs like these have become all too common."
But just two days later, "Microsoft Gaming CEO Phil Spencer announced it was game over for the jobs of another 650 Microsoft staffers (on top of an earlier 1,900 employee staff reduction)," writes long-time Slashdot reader theodp, "cuts that Spencer made clear were related to Microsoft's $69B acquisition of Activision Blizzard in 2023." Interestingly, Microsoft's Smith in October 2023 affirmed a "groundbreaking neutrality agreement" with the Communications Workers of America union (CWA) — designed to go into effect if Microsoft was successful in its acquisition of Activision Blizzard — in which Microsoft acknowledged the rights of its employees to unionize and pledged to work constructively with any who did. At the same time, Microsoft made it clear that it hoped its employees wouldn't feel the need to form or join unions, saying they would "never need to organize to have a dialogue with Microsoft's leaders."
In July 2023, the AFL-CIO applauded Microsoft's Activision Blizzard acquisition and the Microsoft-CWA agreement, which AFL-CIO union federation president Liz Shuler said "sets a new standard for respecting workers' rights in the video game industry and the larger technology sector." And in December 2023, Shuler thanked Smith for Microsoft's "absolutely historic partnership" on AI and the Future of the Workforce, which Shuler suggested "can be mutually beneficial for workers, for businesses, and for our country as a whole."
Thursday the CWA union issued critical remarks about the layoffs at Microsoft Gaming (which were later retweeted by the @AFLCIO Twitter account).
"While we would hope that a company like Microsoft with $88 billion in profits last year could achieve 'long-term success' without destroying the livelihoods of 650 of our colleagues, heartless layoffs like these have become all too common."
$88 billion in profits last year (Score:1)
Microsoft with $88 billion in profits last year
Sorry, there just isn't enough money to go around.
Re: (Score:2)
Companies don't "Find something else" anymore (Score:1, Offtopic)
The reason a company would "find something else" is that hiring and training are expensive.
They bring in cheap overseas labor so they don't have to train anymore, and it's easy as hell to hire.
While everyone's freaking out over a bunch of refugees at the border they people yelling the loudest about illegal immigrants are busy bringing in legal ones to take your job.
Re: (Score:2)
They bring in cheap overseas labor so they don't have to train anymore
Why do Americans require training, but foreigners do not?
Re:Companies don't "Find something else" anymore (Score:5, Interesting)
Windows is spaghetti code because they outsource, the people that work at the outsource place do what is directed, and then you get spaghetti code and vulnerabilities because they arent actively looking/thinking for vulnerabilities. They are just doing the task to get the paycheck and keep costs down.
The problem is, this isnt unskilled labor, but labor that is told to do a specific task, which they do without much thought or care in correct development.
This is literally what "sprints" came from.
Well if these fired people need a job... (Score:1)
...maybe they should learn to code.
Oh wait...
Re:Companies don't "Find something else" anymore (Score:4, Interesting)
It's a mistake to bring "foreign" into it. They just want the cheapest round peg for the nicely defined round hole, and they don't care where the peg comes from. Training is not seen as an investment, but only as a cost. You know, like support. (However for support the "solution approach" they favor is to focus on "good" customers, the docile ones who are easily persuaded to buy whatever round widget has the best profit margin. (But I haven't yet seen any solid evidence about hurting the competitors by deliberately driving the "bad" customers to the competitors.))
However, there are reasons why so many of the cheapest pegs are foreigners. Top two that come to mind are the subversion of public education in America (with a long history, but the elbow in the trend was probably during Reagan's time) and the student debt thing that saddles so many recent graduates with salary demands that cannot be justified by experience.
Re: Companies don't "Find something else" anymore (Score:2)
That kind of make sense Over the years, we went from a system where employee and companies were working on aligned values and goals. The company trained the employer, wanted to retain them to promote historical knowledge, and the employee rewarded the company with loyalty, working hard and not jumping ship every $2 increase per hour
And we moved to a system where companies only ever care about share holders, treat employee as disposable crap, hire and fire by the thousands in a day; and employee no longer g
Re: (Score:2)
Mostly belated ACK and concurrence, but I would note that the (anthropomorphized) corporation does not want to depend on any human being as irreplaceable. (No time for more Slashdot today. Just a couple of quick checks for Funny...)
Re: (Score:1)
they haven't done that in ages. The reason a company would "find something else" is that hiring and training are expensive. They bring in cheap overseas labor so they don't have to train anymore, and it's easy as hell to hire. While everyone's freaking out over a bunch of refugees at the border they people yelling the loudest about illegal immigrants are busy bringing in legal ones to take your job.
OK, so when a brown person jumps the wall, and steals some redneck farmer's job - that's great, refugees welcome, no human is illegal, etc etc - but when a different-shade-of-brown person lands in Los Angeles, H1B visa in hand and heads for Silicon Valley to steal some hipster techie job - now all of a sudden it's totally scandalous, this needs to end immediately, and all of them need to be immediately booted back where they came from, for their own good of course, they're just to stupid to see it, but than
Re: (Score:2)
Immigration has improved the GDP of the U.S. according the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas:
https://www.dallasfed.org/rese... [dallasfed.org]
"GDP will be higher by about $8.9 trillion and federal government tax revenues by $1.2 trillion over the 2024-34 period. Deficits will be lower by $900 billion."
Last we checked, the bankers were not leftists.
Re: Companies don't "Find something else" anymore (Score:1)
Why does Trump need to gather any money. He's a billionaire businessman and that's why he can't be bought.
Re: (Score:2)
That's gonna be a hard sell. It's not hard to see where you're going with that (and why), just know that there will be resistance.
Re: $88 billion in profits last year (Score:4, Interesting)
It's impossible to profitably employ someone who is retarded. i.e. they're incapable of even taking care of themselves properly because they lack the intellectual capacity.
A retarded person used to be able to perform at least some basic work. For example he could carry parcels from one place to another. But that is increasingly not the case because automation has eliminated those jobs. Things that need to be moved from one spot to another in a warehouse, for example, now are sent via conveyor belt or forklift. A retarded person is not capable of handling these devices safely, and so cannot even perform that task efficiently enough to pay for his cost of living.
More tasks are being automated. While there are many things only a human can do the number of things which no longer pay enough to do for a person to live off of the profit is decreasing.
At this point a non-retarded person is running out of tasks he can perform profitably.
The number of kinds of tasks a person can profitably perform is decreasing, and will continue to decrease as automation improves.
It's inhumane to let a person starve or be homeless even if he's unable to perform profitable work.
Re: (Score:1)
These employees are paid incredibly well. They will land anywhere they want, after a nice vacation.
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent Funny, though only somewhat related to the joke I was looking for. It is a story with lots of targets for humor, and it's freshly posted, so let's see what happens...
Re: (Score:1)
Sorry, there just isn't enough money to go around.
You're not owed employment. It's not a right. Employment is a business decision, and just because a company makes a profit doesn't mean that all employees are positive contributors to that profit.
If you want to money from profits to go around to you then you need to be a shareholder not an employee.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft with $88 billion in profits last year
Sorry, there just isn't enough money to go around.
It is much better to use the salaries of a bunch of poor devils to give a few executives their annual bonuses.
Funny (Score:4, Funny)
AI can take a person's job but it can't find one for them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, you see, that's consistent.
Labor unions are about justice and fairness. God is all about injustice and arbitrariness. So it makes sense those who bow to Supreme Torturer wouldn't want anything to do with the first, preferring instead to side with their psychopathic and sociopathic nemeses: megacorp CEOs.
It's as in the old alchemical formula: as above, so below.
Re: (Score:2)
These guys were Blizzard employees. Supposedly they were management and support staff (Blizzard already wiped out a bunch of their artists, designers, and customer support staff months ago). Are you sure you know their type?
Re:Funny (Score:4)
They were arrogant cunts who were paid too much.
In the view of those CEOs, you are paid too much. Their wet dream is you outputting $1 million/yr for the company, and taking home $15k/yr.
Proof: Microsoft's market cap is $3 trillion, with 221k employees, so about $13,6 million/head. Simplifyingly assuming 45 years of employment per head, that's $300k/year that each of its employees brings to the company. How much do they earn? On average $130k/year, or 43% of what they make.
And CEOs absolutely hates it such a huge percentage! This is why they keep trying to make salaries go down by flooding everywhere with cheap programmers. Once the split becomes 5% for the employees, 95% for the company, only then they'll be happy. Maybe.
Ready to please your overlords? Doesn't matter. Ready or not, they don't care.
Conditions For A Merger (Score:2)
should be that no one loses jobs. If you have to fire people to satisfy union requirements; then the union needs to be put in line. But firing people and saying it's related to a merger proves you didn't have the money and that the merger is ill-advised.
If the people screaming about jobs actually gave a fuck about them; they wouldn't allow this to happen. They would be putting the brakes on this merger and saying "absolutely not. if you can't merge without laying people off then you are not in a position to
They just use tricks to get around it (Score:1, Troll)
So they offer to sell 550 stores.... to a company that doesn't run grocery stores. Thanks to subpoenas and discovery process we have the CEOs on tape saying they plan to sell the stores to a company they know will screw up and sell them right back in a year or two.
The conditions for a merger is and must always be the same: will this increase or reduce competition. And 99%
Re: Conditions For A Merger (Score:2)
If they pay into a pension then they do own a part of many businesses.
Re: (Score:2)
The only way to implement that is a cap on market share of established markets. Allow no corporation to provide more than a third of products or services in a predefined class in a domestic market, with rapidly escalating punitive taxes making it extremely unprofitable to try it.
You won't stop mergers, and you'll spend a lot of time defining market segments, but it would stop effective monopolies like ISPs.
You're going to become a lot more concerned about infrastructure and having government manage it (th
Re: (Score:2)
should be that no one loses jobs.
Why? Society doesn't owe you a job at the expense of efficiency.
But firing people and saying it's related to a merger proves you didn't have the money and that the merger is ill-advised.
Err no it doesn't. When two companies (or even departments) merge you have duplication in support jobs that become unnecessary. Money has nothing to do with it. Why would you pay for two receptionists, two assistants, two cleaners, two document managers, etc.
Lemon pledge (Score:2)
a pledge by the company to incorporate feedback from labor unions and their members into the development of artificial intelligence.
Yeah: it politely listens to the feedback and then ignores it completely.
Jimmy Hoffa must be spinning in his concrete slab...
Sad, but normal (Score:2)
Re:Sad, but normal (Score:5, Interesting)
This common reaction of moral judgment and public shaming of companies that lay off people by the hundreds...accomplishes absolutely nothing. Nothing at all. It doesn't motivate the companies to change their ways in the slightest, it doesn't motivate people to choose other companies to do business with, it doesn't motivate politicians to take regulatory action, it does absolutely utterly nothing. Those words aren't worth the paper they are printed on.
If we are interested in preserving those jobs, and hence the livelihoods of the people who hold them, then we must stop allowing these mergers. Corporate mergers cause layoffs like fire causes smoke. The layoffs are a primary objective of the mergers. Buy the competition so that you can eliminate it. That's the goal.
What creates jobs? Competition does! Having companies compete against each other for business is what creates an economic need for duplicates of all the jobs that each company needs. It's the one and only thing that keeps the economy moving at all, in fact. No competition leads to monopolism which robs everyone of literally all the benefits of capitalism.
This is pretty basic stuff, and yet, the very regulatory authorities that are there to protect competition and disallow monopilism keep rubber-stamping these mergers.
If we want to be mad at someone for this destruction of livelihoods, we should call-to-task the federal trade commission and our elected representatives who appoint and direct them. They are the ones failing us, and these destroyed livelihoods are on their hands.
Re: (Score:2)
Stopping mergers is ridiculous, and keeping on jobs that are redundant is ridiculous. Yes, it is crap if it happens to you, but it's just reality. Should we keep people on when they are not needed anymore? of course not.
Let's not forget, the newsarticle mentions 650 jobs being cut in these departments, but it doesn't mean those people are not relocated to other departments or jobs within the company.
Re: (Score:2)
Stopping mergers is not ridiculous. Neither is breaking up monopolies. Both are necessary to maintain a healthy economy. That's basic economics. I learned it in high school.
Re: (Score:2)
But mergers are needed to keep companies running. A lot of times a merger is done because another company can't keep its head above water, so a merger is better then having that company go bust.
Monopolies can be a problem, but sometimes a monopoly is even better as having a lot of single companies.
A healthy economy depends on more then not having monopolies.
One Ferengi rule applies... (Score:4)
One Ferengi rule of acquisition applies here, " Rule 48. The bigger the smile, the sharper the knife."
http://marvin.cs.uidaho.edu/Ab... [uidaho.edu]
Bill Gates et. al. learned that early on when dealing with IBM...
Joshk.
A comment/assessment of MSFT Gamer skill base? (Score:2)
That's one way to interpret this: Microsoft doesn't think the game developer employees have the smarts to learn AI. Now I'm sure some of that is the typical management desire to hire "purple unicorns" whose resumes match the desired set of buzzwords. But I also suspect there's some acknowledgment that the game developers are "warm bodies thrown at the game development problem." (That being said, the one guy I know who worked for Microsoft on X Box was brilliant, but he didn't last long there before mov
Re:A comment/assessment of MSFT Gamer skill base? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think it's that they are not smart enough to learn, but rather MS doesn't want to pay for retraining. They did the math and figure it's cheaper to pump and dump. Education is "society's problem", not theirs.
AI is not taking these jobs. (Score:4, Informative)
There are hard limits on what current AI is capable of, but the people who want to sell you AI don't want you to look into it too hard. They just want you to think that somewhere out there, there is nebulous and vague "AI" that might take over. Except it doesn't exit.
More gaming devs laid off....no surprise (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's usually the point of a merger...to find "synergies" (i.e., jobs that are duplicated between the two companies and can be eliminated).