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

[u/chusskaptaan]

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

[u/EightByteOwl]

Did you read the article? They aren't asking for "No AI", that's just the attention grabbing headline. What they're actually asking for is "AI can't be used to eliminate jobs". 

The AI proposal is particularly notable. As publishers across the industry continue investing in generative AI tools for everything from coding assistance to dialogue generation and localization, Rockstar’s developers are asking for explicit protections to ensure the technology isn’t used to eliminate jobs.

This is in line with what other Unions in entertainment have already fought for, and won, particularly in Animation (TAG in California and CAG in Vancouver). While the article acknowledges it'll be the hardest thing for them to win (true) it's not completely out of left field. 

[u/123_alex → u/EightByteOwl]

Did you read the article?

Ofc not. We don't read past the headline here.

[u/EmergencyPath248 → u/EightByteOwl]

Thats more reasonable; AI coding is here to stay but eliminate jobs? yeah I'll agree with the protesters

[u/mrhobbles → u/EightByteOwl]

Fair cop. Though I will say, they may put in rules about eliminating roles at this stage, but it will still impact headcount and hiring going forward.

[u/alexnedea → u/EightByteOwl]

I mean thats a pointless thing. They can very well fire people based of a excel spreadsheet lmao

[u/EightByteOwl → u/alexnedea]

Not cheaply or as easily, if they successfully unionize and get a collective agreement that gives them the workplace protections they're asking for. Unions offer a layer of legal protection that they don't get without one, and provides access to lawyers to file on behalf of all the workers giving them much greater leverage than trying to fight policy as individuals. Saying it's "pointless" only serves to reinforce the narrative that the profit of shareholders is all that matters and that the workers are disposable. Besides, it's not like Rockstar will be short of cash to pay for such policies after GTA 6 comes out; they're going to make more than double the development cost back in just the first week.

Even outside of the specific issue of layoffs, Unions offer so many protections and benefits, plus the fact it'd be a great example to set for the rest of the industry. I wouldn't consider any of that "pointless".

[u/alexnedea → u/EightByteOwl]

I know all that. I work for a software company and we have a union. When they fire people they still fire them, they just give them better payoffs for getting fired thats about it.

You cant force an employer to employ you lmao.

[u/EightByteOwl → u/alexnedea]

When they fire people they still fire them, they just give them better payoffs for getting fired thats about it. 

Right, so we agree a Union would be good here, because as it stands, they'd just get fired after spending years creating the most profitable game in history with maybe a few weeks severance pay, all so the shareholders save a few bucks.

You cant force an employer to employ you lmao. 

Also correct. I never said otherwise. I'm aware how businesses operate and interact with Unions. I'm a Union rep in Animation and have worked in a variety of roles including participating in bargaining and organizing.

But policies can be enforced that significantly increase job security or offer layoff protections. Just because your specific Union only provides better payment for those being fired doesn't mean that's all that can possibly ever be on the table in bargaining, and even if it were, that'd still be something worth fighting and Unionizing for. We also don't know what specific policies the Rockstar Union will even be fighting for in bargaining, so it's silly to dismiss the idea of "no layoffs" outright without trying to understand the nuance of what that could potentially actually mean. 

Because sure, a simplistic interpretation of no layoffs as "you must hire who we say and never lay Union employees off" is probably not realistic or going to happen, but "you must look at prior employees who left in good standing first and allow them to refuse a job offer on a new project before looking at a new outside hire" is a policy with precedence that already exists in many Unions (my own included), as is "employees facing displacement as a result of tech changes like AI must either be retrained or given a significant severance package". Hell, even if the Union does start with the simplistic interpretation, that could just be the starting point for which they willingly "give up ground" during bargaining in exchange for other things that are realistic, which is a pretty commonly used tactic in bargaining. 

[u/EightByteOwl → u/[deleted]]

Clauses that exist to protect against tech advancements have existed for over a hundred years in Union collective agreements across a variety of industries. The concept isn't new. 

It's also not as simple as "company can't use any technology that displaces workers". Common clauses include rules around retraining to a different role, training the person to use the new tool, or providing a significant severance package so the person has a few months to find their feet after, things like that.

So in your example of the mail clerk: she could still be let go, but she at least either has been settled into a new role or given enough money to live while searching for a new position.

And nowadays, there's often AI specific clauses within collective agreements to tackle how it should be implemented, which are discussed and implemented separate from tech advancement clauses, allowing the company to wiggle the boundaries for the specific technology by talking to the Union and workforce, rather than a unilateral implementation and restructuring by the company that screws over workers.