Unionisation leaps forward: now it's time to deliver | Opinion

Gradually, then suddenly.

Ernest Hemingway was talking about how people go bankrupt, which admittedly gives this quote a somewhat grim tone, but it's often used as an apt description for all sorts of change, from political and social movements to personal success.

It's really an encapsulation of the concept of a tipping point; that there can be many years of seemingly unrewarded slog when it seems like change is impossible, only to suddenly reach an inflection point where everything accelerates and change now seems inevitable.

Such tipping points usually look very obvious with hindsight but are notoriously tricky to pick out in the moments when they're occurring. So it's with a heavy note of caution that I say that this week could mark a tipping point for unionisation in the games business – a process that has been a slow, lengthy slog thus far, but which has now seen two major unions (around 250 workers at Bethesda, and over 500 at Blizzard) formed in the space of a week.

Maybe, perhaps, we'll look back in years to come and see this as the moment when things finally changed – but caution is still warranted and the mere existence of these unions, while important, will be of far less long-term consequence than what they do next.

A little backstory here is probably helpful. The reason that unionisation efforts are succeeding at these studios after years of struggling to gain traction across the industry is largely a result of a deal Microsoft struck with the Communication Workers of America union back when it was negotiating to acquire Activision Blizzard in 2022.

This agreement bound Microsoft to take a neutral stance on unionisation efforts – which have generally been strongly opposed by large employers in the games industry – and initially applied only to former Activision Blizzard staff at the company but was extended to cover Zenimax staff a couple of months ago.

While there have been some small wins for unionisation efforts under this labour neutrality agreement before now, the major new unions formed at Bethesda and Blizzard this week are by far the most significant outcome to date.

This is no doubt an especially satisfying moment for the Blizzard workers who have unionised – it's worth taking a moment to recall that the present movement towards unionisation at the studio was initially a response to the revelations about poor working conditions and various forms of harassment that rocked Activision Blizzard prior to its acquisition.

The successful unionisation of 500+ World of Warcraft staff is a major symbolic milestone in overturning the old regime at Activision Blizzard, which had formerly aggressively opposed any attempts at labour organisation even as new information about their shocking mismanagement dripped out into the public consciousness week by week.

The successful unionisation of 500+ World of Warcraft staff is a major symbolic milestone in overturning the old regime at Activision Blizzard

Is this a tipping point, then? There's certainly an argument to be made to that effect.

Even though the neutrality deal with the CWA is specific to Microsoft-owned studios, the high visibility of such major unionisation successes could start pushing over dominoes elsewhere. I don't know if anyone had "turning point for game creator unionisation" on their bingo card for Microsoft's acquisition of Activision Blizzard, but if these unions are successful, it will certainly make it much harder for other firms to resist unionisation efforts from their workers.

The vital question at the heart of that statement, however, is what we mean by "success." The act of forming a union is a major milestone – and one that has often eluded workers in the games industry, which means that this week will be a cause for celebration for many – but it is not, in itself, the same thing as the union being a success.

Many unions exist and do little for their members – the real test for the new unions at Microsoft will come in the next stage, where they engage in collective bargaining with Microsoft on behalf of their members. The perceived success or failure of that process is what will really make a difference in how workers elsewhere view the value of unions in this industry.

What will the unions set out to achieve, and what can they realistically hope to accomplish with their collective bargaining agreements? There is some low hanging fruit, at least – areas in which there's not that much distance between employers and workers, so it will probably be quite easy to find a compromise that both sides are happy with.

Some headline items we can expect to see in the initial CBAs (which are binding contracts generally covering three years before renegotiation) include a schedule of regular above-inflation pay rises, improvements to severance packages, agreed procedures for handling of harassment and other workplace issues, and locking down benefits like healthcare and vacation for all workers.

Larger employers in the games industry are pretty decent on these things anyway, by and large, so there's lots of room for agreement and compromise. This isn't to say that their inclusion in the CBA won't be meaningful; it's noteworthy that these new unions are "wall to wall", meaning that people like QA and admin staff are included in the bargaining and may see significant benefits just from being treated equally to other staff in these regards.

The high visibility of such major unionisation successes could start pushing over dominoes elsewhere

However, there are a number of other issues that present bigger stumbling blocks – precisely because they're top-of-mind issues for many development staff, but far more likely to get strong push-back from employers in negotiations. I see three major areas where developers will be wanting their unions to score big wins, but employers will be determined to hold the line – namely layoff protections, crunch reduction, and remote work.

An agreement on how generative AI is to be used is lurking in the background of that list too, but may be shelved in the first round of CBA negotiations given how much more pressing the other three issues are for many staff.

The difficulty for negotiations on all of those issues is that they represent areas where a compromise with unions is likely to be seen by employers as risking an unacceptable constraint on how they do business.

Layoff protections – beyond the basic protection afforded by better severance packages – constrain an employer's ability to treat its workforce as flexible and fungible.

Similarly, agreements on crunch working conditions take some tools out of the hands of management, or at least make them much more expensive and difficult to use – which, of course, is the point of such agreements, which should ensure that crunch is a costly option of last resort, so that workers are less likely to be subjected to it and, in the eventuality that it does become necessary, are compensated with more than free pizza for their extra work.

Remote work, meanwhile, is largely ideological at this point for many people. Facts and data about productivity have been lost in the background of a broader conflict between skilled, valuable staff who have become accustomed to being able to work remotely, and certain managers and executives who dislike not being able to oversee their workers in person.

I see three major areas where developers will be wanting their unions to score big wins, but employers will be determined to hold the line – namely layoff protections, crunch reduction, and remote work

There are undoubtedly some redlines within Microsoft and other employers about how far they're willing to go on these issues, and there will probably be major pushback on anything other than the most basic of compromises in the initial CBA. The danger is that if they fail to achieve significant results on those issues, which are incredibly important to many developers and will be closely watched, these nascent unions could unwittingly undermine the unionisation drive more broadly.

If a unionised workplace sees a harsh round of layoffs, a punishing crunch phase, and/or a unilateral return to office diktat being passed down, workers elsewhere will reasonably ask what advantage, exactly, the union was conferring.

The new unions need to show successes on issues that matter to developers – otherwise the hindsight view may show us that this wasn't a tipping point, but just another speed bump on the long, difficult road this process has been so far.

None of this is to say that the newly unionised workers shouldn't be celebrating the success of even getting to this point at all. My intention isn't to rain on any parades – these are significant and important steps forward in a process that has been far too slow and halting for far too long.

However, a union is not successful merely by existing. All eyes will be on the next stage of this process, and the results that these unions can now deliver for their members, because that's what will really determine the future of unionisation in the industry.