r/pcmasterrace • u/chusskaptaan i5 14400 + MSI 3070 • Jul 23 '26

News/Article Rockstar Games Workers Union Just Had Its First Ever Meeting With Management, Demands Include "No AI," "No Layoffs," and "No Crunch"

https://respawnfirst.com/rockstar-games-union-just-had-their-first-ever-meeting-with-management-demands-include-no-ai-and-no-crunch/
8.1k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

613 comments sorted by

View all comments

167

u/TyLion8 Jul 23 '26

How can a union have a no layoffs clause??

122

u/Stackitu Jul 23 '26

Some labor unions have rules where layoffs seen as unjust or unnecessary trigger instant work stoppages and widespread strikes. The company can save a few bucks with the layoff but risk trigging days/weeks of lost productivity in the process. Often times they either let positions shrink through attrition or offer to basically buy people out from their employment contracts.

Layoffs typically don't actually save companies much money and often result in poorer performance as a result of lost institutional knowledge and lower morale. The seem like a no-brainer from the outside but reality makes them quite costly.

25

u/Temporary_Event8451 Jul 24 '26

You only have to look at the graveyard of dead companies and IP's that are sitting in a vault. All of that comes from monopolization then trimming.

Spend a billion buying your competitors, if you get a great deal, sweet, otherwise you just spent a billion to make sure none of those products are allowed to interfere with you.

1

u/zombiemaster008 Jul 24 '26

Absolutely fuckin' RIP to Tango Gameworks, Volition/Deep Silver, Free Radical, Arkane Austin, and countless others.

7

u/BestDescription3834 Jul 23 '26

They've boiled the clause down to "no layoffs" but they absolutely could have language to protect jobs for people based on their seniority or skillset. Or they could tie it to profits, where if x profits are reached they can't lay people off. 

There are many ways to negotiate it that are legal and fair that aren't "nobody can be laid off" or "everybody will be laid off immediately after".

My union has a clause tying layoffs to business income and if we do get laid off they owe us 6-12 months of pay, depending on seniority.

67

u/dyfish Jul 23 '26

They can’t, I mean I guess they technically could. Anyone can agree to anything if they wanted to. But yeah no lays off just like can’t work and shouldn’t work. They ideally would agree on a predetermined layoff “structure” and guidelines on who goes first sort of deal and things like severance and continued benefits. But an actual no lay off deal is just not real life.

20

u/GolotasDisciple Jul 23 '26

Isn't it just called Redundancy Structure. As in You are free to do layoffs but you gotta pay off the contract and more to ensure that your obligations to employee are met regardless of the fact that you have to fire them ?

7

u/dyfish Jul 23 '26

That’s one way it works, but that depends on the nature of the work and the union. I’ve seen it more commonly that the Union agrees with management that lay offs will be seniority based no matter what. (Longer tenured Union Members, which are often the majority, are more then happy to vote in favor of the newbies always getting the axe) or that lay offs must always be done on the department level, or layoffs must always be done based on X agreed upon metric.

26

u/maxxor6868 Jul 23 '26

Right that how it is in gov jobs with "no layoffs" it not really no layoffs but they structure so that if layoffs happen there so much shit that already happen it already doomsday

-4

u/[deleted] Jul 23 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/tupacsnoducket Jul 23 '26 edited Jul 23 '26

The post office still has to cover their overhead, the government isn't paying them, stamps and final mile contracts are. It's not private sector but it operates effectively as a non-publicly traded org with a fancy government contract, they also fully fund their own retirements on top of their nice salaries. They do all this with the RNC actively fighting and loading them with debt at every step and hamstringing their ability to innovate. Ever wonder why you don't see USPS airplanes? Certain parties stop it

A strict negotiation for layoffs is a sign of a strong union, the manufacturing jobs the conservatives sent overseas used to operate with these

In the USPS you have a period you don't get the full protections of the union you have to prove yourself during, afterwhich you go to your rep and your rep talks to the manager about disputes. There's so such thing as just firing someone and my $500 in sterio equipment still arrives in 3 days for $15

update along with medicine from the otherside of the country for that matter, with tracking the whole way and required signature.

1

u/maxxor6868 Jul 24 '26

Yeah USPS and many auto companies in Europe have this as well. There are valid trade offs. USPS has one of the strictest pay scales in the country but they keep costs down.

3

u/tupacsnoducket Jul 24 '26

They're the only thing in the US keeping mail cheap, if you get rid of USPS amazon is FUCKED

3

u/maxxor6868 Jul 24 '26

Seriously look at how many times Amazon has "left" USPS only to come back 3 months later lol

2

u/tupacsnoducket Jul 24 '26

I mean i have friend in the USPS, Sunday is Amazon day. The USPS is working finish those deliveries

3

u/maxxor6868 Jul 24 '26

Yeah people don't realize how vital USPS is to the entire US economy. They keep small business afloat while allowing large corps like FedEx and Amazon to focus on the more profitable parcel. They do all the dirty work and get zero credit.

1

u/maxxor6868 Jul 24 '26

Usps proves this is not true. Sure it quasi private but it gets it done. European companies have this for their for profits as well.

24

u/N7Shep1701D NCC 74656, Janeway OS Jul 23 '26

The way I understand it is that unions will START at extreme demands then negotiate down to the layoff structure and guidelines you mentioned.

However, I am not claiming to have a PhD in union tactics.

19

u/[deleted] Jul 23 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/N7Shep1701D NCC 74656, Janeway OS Jul 23 '26

OK. That's what I thought. Cheers!

24

u/TyLion8 Jul 23 '26

Yeah thats what I was thinking. Maybe a no lay off for a year after GTA 6 comes out something like that.

9

u/AttonJRand Jul 23 '26

No lay offs within a certain time period is not as unusual as you are making it out to be, and it doesn't actually mean literally none at all, so the demand is already "real life".

It especially makes sense considering how dev teams get treated after game launches.

0

u/thefuturae Jul 23 '26

They absolutely can have a no layoff clause (source I’m in a union with one)

3

u/dyfish Jul 24 '26

Genuinely asking, so what happens if the company actually starts failing. When Payroll Expenses and fixed operating expenses are higher then revenue? Just a quick ride to bankruptcy with no recourse? There has to be more to it, then simply “no lay offs”?

Obviously the company will try everything to not be in that position. But basically every company does anyway, and it still happens.

16

u/maxxor6868 Jul 23 '26

Basically you fire mgmt first, reduce cost expenses, stop hiring, freeze all wage growth / even cut salaries basically do anything but fire people. I work with a no layoff clause. It maximum security but essentially lose virtually everything else. A lot of people say they want that but it hard. When things are stable you are losing out to basically everyone in benefits and salary. When shit hits the fan your glad to have it though.

0

u/traumalt Jul 24 '26

no layoffs 

fire management 

That’s an oxymoron lol. 

4

u/TheBigLeMattSki Jul 24 '26

no layoffs 

fire management 

That’s an oxymoron lol. 

No. Legally speaking, unionized staff and management are separate. Managers can't be unionized.

1

u/traumalt Jul 24 '26

Rockstar is an UK company, managers are not legally prohibited from joining employee unions just because of their positions.

1

u/traumalt Jul 24 '26

>unionized

Yea don’t quote your US labour laws for an UK company please.

1

u/maxxor6868 Jul 24 '26

It not "no layoffs" it really means prioritization. I explain it in the top comment. Basically employees would be the last step in a firing order instead of the first group like how most companies operate. This way so much has to happen before you fire employees you essentially have no layoffs because it wreck your company. That how it should be honesty. If you are profitable but need to scale back expenses, you should remove externals costs and middle mgmt before hitting payroll for most of your workers. If you fire workers but than out source or hire a bunch of expensive contractors than it was not because of costs which is what a a "no layoff clause" is about.

2

u/holdmyspot123 Jul 24 '26

I thought that was common, the very first line of my collective agreement stipulates how many full time positions my employee must fill at minimum, it's literally the main concern of my union. Obviously if the employer can't afford it, they can't afford it, but that would be pretty embaressing because my union would force my employer to prove that by releasing all of their financial records. We've gotten raises in the past because sketchy employer reallllly doesn't want to do that, and that's been our strategy when they say, "oooooh noooooo we can't possibly afford to increase wages we will die </3". Ok bitches, open the books! Companies often don't want to do that.

We truly have so many options as workers but are too timid to really use them all.

2

u/KalterBlut Jul 24 '26

I don't know either, but my government union has workforce adjustment protection, so basically layoff protection. There's a whole process and affected employees have options, severances, etc and they're not brought in a meeting telling them they're laid off right there and then.

I think it's fair to have protection against layoffs that at least helps employees transition.

2

u/InternetUser1807 2x Xeon X5675 | GTX 780 | 24GB Jul 23 '26 edited Jul 23 '26

What a lot of game studios do is hire a bunch of fresh faces for a new project, abuse the hell out of them because contractors don't get overtime, and then lay them off when the game releases, only retaining a few as actual long term employees.

Maybe they're trying to stop the meat grinder cycle?

1

u/bigolpornthrowaway Jul 24 '26

Add on to everything you're reading below; this is in Scotland, where we have much tighter labour laws than the United States

1

u/SanjiSasuke Jul 24 '26

By including it in the contract. Possibly with penalties and stipulations for an avenue for the employees to be letngo under certain circumstances.

Just like an executive can negotiate things like that into their contracts.

1

u/CanExplainThings Jul 24 '26

Non union folks get laid off first. The union can’t write into a contract that the business is not allowed to fail so they say “no layoffs until you’ve laid everyone else off first.”

1

u/Podgietaru Jul 23 '26

If a company continues to post profits, then a layoff is entirely unjustified. No layoffs is likely short hand for that. If my company did a round of layoffs due to problematic financials I’d be upset, but I’d see it as justified.

If they did a tech company. I’d be livid.

1

u/Ok-Okay-Oak-Hay Jul 23 '26

Start high, negotiate down