Labor organizers accuse Rockstar Games of 'ruthless act of union busting' after layoffs

The maker of the Grand Theft Auto game series, Rockstar Games, has fired more than 30 coders and graphic designers in an act described by the Independent Workers' Union of Great Britain (IWGB) as "the most blatant and ruthless act of union busting in the history of the games industry." According to IWGB, the laid off staffers …

[elsergiovolador]

Mistake

Ultimate "union busting" is hiring under IR35 - where workers truly have no rights and can't unionise (and even if they are member of a union, union has no power).

Funny how virtually all unions slept on it.

[Headley_Grange]

Re: Mistake

Rubbish. Contractors have the ultimate say in their rights because they get to negotiate their contract with their client and can make sure that it covers whatever rights they want. If a contractor doesn't like the contract the client offers then they get can negotiate or walk away. If you're given no choice but to accept the contract the client offers whether you like its terms or not then you're not really a contractor.

[JessicaRabbit]

Re: Mistake

You could say that of any job or product etc. There's lots of potential employees/consumers willing to take any old shit so unless you're extraordinary you either have to take what's offered or go without. Which in the case of work means no money, no food, nowhere to live etc. The whole reason unions exist in the first place is because we recognised that people have little bargaining power on their own.

[Headley_Grange]

Re: Mistake

I thought we were talking about contractors - not any job. If you're contracting and on the bones of your arse or being treated so badly that you think that unionizing is going to help then there's something wrong with what you're doing or the way you're going about it.

[elsergiovolador]

Re: Mistake

“Negotiate your rights” is nonsense here. Under the off-payroll rules the client decides status, the fee-payer deducts PAYE on the deemed payment, and you still get zero employment rights because rights follow legal status, not contract wish-lists. You cannot bargain yourself into sick pay or collective protection if the law says you are not an employee or worker. “Just walk away” is not a rebuttal, it is an admission that the market is rigged by statute in the client’s favour. Your comment confuses tax treatment with employment status and hand-waves away the fact that IR35 removes the leverage you claim exists.

[Headley_Grange]

Re: Mistake

The "rights" I was talking about were my rights under whatever contract I negotiate. They are not employment rights because it's not an employment contract. If I can't negotiate a contract that suits me then I walk away and have done so on a couple of occasions, both times because the client tried to put in a clause restricting me from working for their competitors for the next xx years. It would have been unenforcable but the legal costs could have been ruinous.

Sick pay, holiday pay, pension, insurances, accountancy, office costs, expenses, etc. are all included in the rate.

[elsergiovolador]

Re: Mistake

That’s nice that you can walk away, but that’s not how systemic exploitation works. IR35 lets corporations decide that every role is inside and only form of engagement, stripping collective leverage entirely. Saying “just don’t take the contract” is like saying “just don’t work” - it’s not freedom, it’s coercion disguised as choice. The whole point is they can legally fill permanent roles with disposable labour while people like you keep insisting the system’s fair because you personally managed to cope.

[Headley_Grange]

Re: Mistake

"IR35 lets corporations decide that every role is inside "; not the case in my experience. Our clients treat us just the same as the subcontractors who service their HVAC, repaint the carpark markings, calibrate test gear, water the plants, etc. We have a 3-person company and our clients don't put us inside IR35.

"The whole point is they can legally fill permanent roles with disposable labour"

That's always been the case with contractors. In the old days when contract rates were high they were still lower than loaded full-time salary (you don't pay full overhead on contractors cos they don't get sick pay, holidays, pension, etc.) and companies were happy to employ them in some roles cos they were easy to shed when workload dropped. I've worked in a company where the whole CAD floor including supervisors were contractors. I imagine most companies would prefer IR35 to go away because of the arseache of dealing with it.

The days of the jobbing contractor are long gone and if your** skills aren't specialist enough that you can get enough work on your terms or a rate that makes up for the IR35 costs then it's time to find a different way of working or a full-time job. You're right; I'm very lucky in that what I do is saleable and I can, to a limited extent, choose who I work for.

**your in the general sense, not you personally.

[elsergiovolador]

Re: Mistake

You’re missing the point. The danger isn’t how awkward IR35 is for you - it’s how useful it is for them. A company can decide to engage everyone “inside IR35” through a fee payer, keep PAYE deductions clean for HMRC, and neatly dodge every union, tribunal, or employment obligation. It’s the perfect legal firewall: same control, same hours, same work, but zero collective rights. You can paint car parks or write game engines - if they only hire through inside-IR35 contracts, no union can touch them.

[Headley_Grange]

Re: Mistake

I'm not missing the point. I stated in my last post that employers have always used contractors cos they were easy to lay off. IR35 hasn't changed that - contractors today are no worse off from an employment-rights perspective than the contractors that worked on my projects in the 1990s.

[elsergiovolador]

Re: Mistake

We’re not talking about career contractors from the 90s - we’re talking about ordinary workers being pushed into “contractor” status because companies can choose to hire only that way. If every role is inside IR35, then everyone becomes a disposable pseudo-employee with no rights or union power. Even Labour’s own briefing on their Employment Rights Bill acknowledges that risk.

[Vestas]

Re: Mistake

Fuck off back to your retirement home. This isn't the 1990s and you are utterly clueless re IR35.

[ecofeco]

Re: Mistake

Clueless git, anitcha?

[DrSunshine0104]

Re: Mistake

That is great idealism if the pipeline isn't from university straight into being a contract for a tech company, especially for young workers.

Contracts are complicated legal instruments that should have legal purview from all sides. A college graduate getting their first job isn't going to have knowledge to navigate contract work. They are looking for a job, and companies are saying come here and sign our click-wrap contract to start work! Yes, that may seem daft to older workers, but you are taking your existing knowledge for granted when pitted against someone who basically just left the metaphorical nest; the parents probably don't understand contracts as most people don't touch contract work in any way. Companies will exploit young workers for their ignorance. Young contract workers can't ask questions to things they don't know. Unions can help mitigate that predation on naive workers.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Mistake

‘Disguised employment’.

[Whitter]

What downsides to Rockstar?

I guess there is a risk of "reputational damage", though they don't really have any positive reputation to speak of.

If an employment tribunal is called, and they loose (quite likely if the info in the story is a fairly complete picture) - what do Rockstar really loose?

[Jedit]

"what do Rockstar really loose? [sic]"

A hefty chunk of money in compensation, and access to anything resembling a talented and experienced coder?

[elsergiovolador]

Re: "what do Rockstar really loose? [sic]"

This is the UK, so "hefty" is doing a heavy lifting here. Also employment tribunal cases are public, so many workers wouldn't want to see Google results showing their employment tribunal case, as regardless if someone is right or wrong, future employer might choose someone who is not a "trouble".

[nobody who matters]

Re: "what do Rockstar really loose? [sic]"

Perhaps you haven't had a great deal to do with employment tribunals, but the compensation that is awarded to those who are judged to have been unfairly dismissed can amount to some weeks or months salary, which if there are a significant number of individuals involved will certainly add up to a "hefty chunk of money".

I would also question your assertion that workers wouldn't want a tribunal case showing up for fear of jeopardising future employment - perhaps they would rather just leave the (now published in public) record of them having been dismissed for 'Gross Misconduct' to follow them around. Failure to contest it would surely imply acceptance of guilt.

We appear to only have the point of view from the Union/workers side though, and there is no specific information as to what the nature of the Gross Misconduct was, but discussing ways to improve the workplace on Telegram certainly won't be considered sufficient for summary dismissal by a tribunal, even if they had been bad-mouthing the company or its management in their posts. The UK has some fairly strong regulations governing both the reasons why and the procedures for, dismissing staff. The scope of things that allow summary dismissal is relatively small, and even then it has to be done by the correct procedures. Without a clearly justifiable (and serious enough) reason for immediate sacking, there are a sequence of witnessed verbal and written warnings that have to be gone through for repeat offences before you can hand a troublesome employee their cards.

I suspect that this may be (once again) a US based employer who either doesn't understand that other countries do things in a more civilised fashion than the USA, or they think because they are based in the US, they can do as they like. If that is the case, I think they are going to get a rather sharp and costly awakening to the reality of UK/European employment laws.

[elsergiovolador]

Re: "what do Rockstar really loose? [sic]"

People often overestimate how easy and costly tribunals are for employers. An employee can’t just “take them to tribunal” - it’s a long, formal process starting with ACAS conciliation, followed by months of filings, evidence, and hearings. Most workers need a solicitor, which can cost thousands just to get the case moving.

Even if they win, compensation is capped and rarely covers legal costs. There are no punitive damages - only limited awards for lost earnings. For companies, paying a few such settlements is trivial compared to the risk of keeping staff who might organise or challenge management. In practice, the system doesn’t deter misconduct - it just rewards those with deeper pockets and more time to wait it out.

[nobody who matters]

Re: "what do Rockstar really loose? [sic]"

You don't appear to understand how employees claims for unfair dismaissal actually work. It does not normally involve anything like the long and convoluted series of actions that you claim, and as for awards rarely covering legal costs, that just underlines your lack of understanding of the tribunal process.

In addition, anyone who is a Trade Union member is will get expert legal advice and backing from their union, regardless of whether the workplace is unionised or not.

[elsergiovolador]

Re: "what do Rockstar really loose? [sic]"

Have you actually made a claim? Because I have and I know the process and I know few people who also been through it.

In addition, anyone who is a Trade Union member is will get expert legal advice and backing from their union

You are having a laugh. You won't get anywhere with a union.

[nobody who matters]

Re: "what do Rockstar really loose? [sic]"

If you really found that it was that complicated, I am sorry - but it really should not have been that onerous. My knowledge comes from having had a close member of the family who was regularly involved in unfair dismissal cases (albeit usually from support and advice for employers who had claims made against them), and from a close work colleague who similarly had an Uncle whose job was advising and training Trade Union representatives on UK employment law.

The big issue is that very frequently claims for unfair dismissal are frivolous and without any basis for a legitimate claim, and are therfore doomed to failure from the outset. However, in cases where there was a genuine case of dismissal having been unjustified or carried out incorrectly, the tribunal process works well - I can point to one case that I know about where the worker was awarded 18 months pay (and he succeeded with the help of his local secretary for what was then the TGWU).

Clearly you don't have much experience of Unions either.

[elsergiovolador]

Re: "what do Rockstar really loose? [sic]"

You’re parroting textbook HR talking points dressed up as insider knowledge. “Most claims are frivolous” is the oldest trick in the book - it reframes a systemic failure as individual incompetence. People don’t lose because they make things up; they lose because the process is built for attrition. Employers have legal teams, HR departments, and months of salary to burn. Claimants have stress, bills, minimal or no savings, and a maze of procedural traps.

As for unions, your faith in them only shows you’ve never actually needed one. Their “support” usually means a rep with a checklist and no mandate to fight. Cases get filtered, delayed, and quietly dropped long before a solicitor ever sees them. They’re bureaucracies protecting relationships with employers, not workers.

Your sources - a relative advising employers and a colleague’s uncle “training reps” - explain the bias perfectly. That’s the management echo chamber in action: mistaking procedural theory for justice, and confusing a system that functions smoothly for employers with one that’s fair to workers.

[nobody who matters]

Re: "what do Rockstar really loose? [sic]"

Nope, I am posting about reality. The reality is that that the majority of claims are indeed misplaced (and therefore frivolous), and that is invariably why union representation is not forthcoming. In cases where there is fairly clear evidence to support a claim, unions are usually very supportive (and I do speak from real world knowledge here).

If you have had cause to take a former employer to a tribunal and had no help from your union, you either were not a member of a union, did not have a realistic case for a claim, or your union was/is crap.

I think an accusation of bias coming from you is a bit rich to be honest - on certain subjects you exhibit a bigger degree of bias than almost any other regular commentard.

[elsergiovolador]

Re: "what do Rockstar really loose? [sic]"

You keep smuggling your conclusion into your premise - claims fail because they’re “frivolous,” and they’re “frivolous” because they fail. That’s circular self-validation. It lets you dismiss every example that contradicts your worldview while presenting your own bias as “reality.”

The evidence doesn’t support you. ACAS data shows most claims never reach a hearing - not because they were baseless, but because the process bleeds claimants dry. You can pretend that 76 percent of workers simply filed “frivolous” cases, but that’s fantasy that keeps your argument unfalsifiable.

This is classic bad-faith rhetoric:

- redefine failure as proof the system works

- equate institutional perspective with “reality”

- pathologise anyone who disagrees as “biased”

You’re not defending truth; you’re defending a hierarchy that depends on people giving up before it reaches one.

[martinusher]

Re: "what do Rockstar really loose? [sic]"

>I suspect that this may be (once again) a US based employer who either doesn't understand that other countries do things in a more civilised fashion....

I was wondering about that. Rockstar seems to be taking steps that would be normal in the US but AFAIK aren't relevant to British employment law, even in the modern era which is hostile to unions. To an American being dismissed with no notice is a feature of "right to work" states (yes, we Americans really do irony) and 'gross misconduct' is their way of trying to dismiss the employees 'with cause', a trick used in the US to avoid the employer being liable for contributing to their unemployment payments. Although the UK is notorious for slavishly following US practice I still didn't think employment practices were similar; in this case I'd have expected Rockstar to be sued for reputational damage or something like that.

[Ace2]

Re: What downsides to Rockstar?

The company that lets you run over the hooker afterwards to get your money back? Not that much of a reputation to begin with.

[elsergiovolador]

Re: What downsides to Rockstar?

You know it's just a game and you are not actually running over a hooker?

[Ace2]

Re: What downsides to Rockstar?

Of course. I’ve enjoyed playing it. Just not the most… not sure what to call it… game.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: What downsides to Rockstar?

Reputational Damage …. Grand Theft Employment ?

That’s an open goal.

[abend0c4]

Entertainment properties

What a soulless turn of phrase. So typical of our age.

[xyz123]

I hope they fired someone critical and they end up with annoying spaghetti code that on launch day wipes purchasers drives or bricks their consoles etc and it brings this nasty horrible company to its knees financially and socially.

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, I was hoping they'd get the fuck sued out of them, lose and have to pay out a shitload for unfair dismissal for transparently fake reasons- the type of thing that their Yank overlords may get away with at home but likely won't (yet) in the UK.

Then again, "¿por qué no los dos?"

[Aladdin Sane]

Labour

That is all.

[RegW]

Re: Labour

Perhaps, if you had made it clear you were commenting on the poor spelling rather than making a political judgement, you might not have been down voted.

[Aladdin Sane]

Re: Labour

Sadly, I assumed the grammar pedantry icon would've made my point clear.

Also, their downvotes mean nothing to me as I've seen what makes them upvote.

(With apologies to Dan Harmon).

[Dan 55]

Re: Labour

It's only the very first word in the article... about the UK. And Canada, who also spell "Labour" properly, although the Canada part of the story isn't covered here.

[Anonymous Coward]

.com for yanks

The Register has been yank-oriented first and foremost for years now- certainly since the move to the The register.com domain when no-one was paying attention due to COVID.

Let's not dignify it by implying they're even trying to pretend otherwise.

[Ace2]

Re: Labour

According to ‘Highly Irregular’ by Arika Okrent, ‘labor’/‘labour’ were both accepted spellings on both sides of the pond until the Americans standardized (ha!) on ‘labor’ which prompted the Brits to standardize on ‘labour’ to be petulant.

[David 132]

Re: Labour

Or as an American friend of mine pithily explained the labour/labor, neighbour/neighbor, colour/color thing to me, a Brit, a few years ago... "We declared independence and got rid of U"

[Aladdin Sane]

Re: Labour

You have an American friend? Ewww

[nobody who matters]

Re: Labour

I rather think that the US standardising on spellings without the U (and other mis-spellings) was mainly down to the petulance of Noah Webster in his initial compilation of the American dictionary that came to bear his name, rather than any British petualnce in response ;)

The English spelling of labour involving the U did after all, stem from the source of the word from the French, who had in turn added the U to the original Latin 'Labor'. .

[bigphil9009]

Re: Labour

"Organize."

That is all(er?).

[keithpeter]

Unionisation

Ive tended to work in education settings with union representation, often multiple unions, including usually one 'no strike' non-TUC affiliated union. It isn't a panacea, and a hostile management can still make people's work lives a misery, but at least there are well understood procedures and the govenors (aka board of directors) know what happens if the procedures get rail-roaded.

Wondering what the total upfront wage cost of 300 people for N years is as a fraction of the likely sales revenue?

[gryphon]

Will be interesting to see if they actually followed the correct rules for firing all these people.

Even 'gross misconduct' will have specific requirements that they'll have to follow usually.

Wouldn't surprise me if it's US managers who don't realise the UK isn't the US.

Have a manager here who comes across from the US regularly.

He did a meet and greet and said he couldn't believe that HR had said he couldn't just tap people on the should accompanied by security and fire them on the spot. I guess he had just enough nous to ask the question beforehand.

Seemed quite disappointed by it which tells you all you need to know about US employment practises I think.

[ecofeco]

A game company treats employees like shite?

WHOCOULDAKNOWED?!

[IGotOut]

Just an excuse...

...the games industry is just an utter shit show at the moment. Run by a bunch of assholes that just want to see line go up.

They don't care about employees or players, so as the little piggies keeping shovelling in slop into their mouths, then farmer big tech will feeding you your slop.

The only way things will change is if players actually stop buying this shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Just an excuse...

At the moment? When were they ever different?

[Anonymous Coward]

Living the Rockstar life

In this case, sounds terrible.