IT KEEPS HAPPENING https://archive.is/gKRNs >A union has called for staff at Ubisoft’s French operation to strike over a return to office order and pay dispute. >Ubisoft management had imposed a return to office order for three days a week for all employees “without any tangible justification or any consultation with the workers' representatives.” >The STJV said the return to work order was announced following the collapse of profit-sharing negotiations between Ubisoft France management and staff. >A first strike has been called for October 15 to 17. Ubisoft declined to comment when contacted by IGN. >The STJV has made a number of demands, including a formal agreement on remote work, the restoration of profit sharing at 60%, the end of an alleged gender pay gap, and a higher increase in low salaries.

>>1019069 Ubikike could make do by firing their diversity lackeys and hiring pajeets.

>>1019051 >Ubisoft is never going to satisfy its worst, most bad-faith critics and it shouldn't waste time trying Are they talking about themselves? They are the ones are never happy.

>>1019069 Oh yeah, if they don't want to pay workers suffrage money for being diversity twats since that's a thing they do in France they can just shut down their French branch if it gets too dicey.

>>1019069 Isn't this a literal numbers exercise to see who complains and fire them over the slightest shit?

>>1019069 I really hope it just keeps getting worse for them. They deserve it for what they've been pulling.

>>1019069 >"workers are important!" LOL! AI and machines will replace you all.

>>1018996 Hmm...that's not the Ubisoft I know, let's edit some lines in that piece >Lastly, I’d like to address the recent polarized coverage around our creative choices. We are an entertainment company. As such, our objective is to endorse any specific agenda. Our mission has never been to entertain players and enrich their lives with original and memorable experiences, that will not resonate with a global audience. There we go! That's the Ubisoft I know, right on par with "People should be comfortable in not owning their games"

Is there a complies graphic of all of the fuckups Ubisoft has made with Ass Cum: Gayjin Nigga Edition yet?

>>1019189 I don't think people pretending to work with WaH are important in the first place to even bother replacing them with bots when they already overhired like other companies have.

>>1018996 Do they think we are stupid or something? Like does he just think anyone will believe this? Is he retarded?

>>1019054 The ASsassin's Creed series is Ubisoft's best-selling franchise. The worst-selling game in that franchise is Revelations which sold 7 million copies. I don't think it will flop, though I want it to flop.

>>1019204 If it's real he's probably just making fun of employees at best.

>>1018996 They know sales will be more limited if they only sold on uplay. Seems that the delay is to make sure it's also available on steam. I hope I can see the game page soon there so I can put ignore on it

>>1019069 >we've literally been working from home for ALMOST FIVE YEARS due to "Covid" and now we're going to strike because how DARE you make us go back to actual work Kill all communists.

https://x.com/stjv_fr/ https://www.stjv.fr/en/2024/09/call-for-strike-for-all-french-ubisoft-entities-on-october-15-16-and-17-2024/ I wouldn't be surprised if the union was a plant given how companies how but I still want to laugh.

>>1019224 Frankly, I do think going to the office is very stupid in a lot of industries. This may be one of them. Honestly, do you think any of these employees would produce better work if they were in the office? I don't. If I were working there, I would fucking dread going to the office, because it would mean that I would have to go back to working in person with a bunch of SJW faggots. It was also shown that working online decreased bias against the workers/students. Of course SJWs cite this as if they're heroes, but they're the ones doing the bias. If you're a man working in person at that Ubisoft office, I'm gonna bet right now that you're gonna have a higher chance of getting let go relative to female employees than if you were working online. They see man (especially white man), they don't like him. They don't see man, they might not remember that they hate him.

>>1019246 Working online removing bias makes sense. I heard Kennedy won the debate against Nixon if you watched on TV but Nixon won if you heard on radio.

>>1019258 Happens all the time. You know how they say girls get better grades, especially in language and arts courses? Much of that advantage disappeared a few years ago when schools went online. Things stayed pretty much the same in math and science courses, though, because they're more objective, so feminist teachers will have a harder time giving girls better grades just because. Of course the language and arts teachers knew which students were girls even online, but without seeing them, they don't get the same dopamine hit from being around them. Plus, I'm sure in-person they do build up feelings about particular students, but the feelings they build are biased. It's okay when the girls are talking but not when the boys are talking, so the boys are bad students, so when they go to grade the boys' work, they get lower marks. Online, they might still dislike boys in general, but they don't have any particular feelings about Steve and Dave or whatever. So yeah, if a job can be done online, I'd much rather do it online. If you really have concern that your employees aren't doing their work just because you can't bust into their office at any moment, then fucking fire them. But you can't, because the HR department is already filled with feminists, so they'll only let you fire the productive people, because when you go and show them the names of the unproductive people, they'll call you racist and sexist.

>>1019274 That's a roundabout way to say that women are manipulative aggressive niggers in any management position. Management can fire any of these people whenever they want, they choose not to to look good for financial credit.

>>1019282 Well yeah, that too. Women should never have entered the male workforce. However, tradcons are also just simps, slaving away while their wives live in relative luxury. Women should be property, but the problem is that too many men are just natural born simps, and instead of putting the women to work (work that they can actually handle responsible, AKA not management), they just let them sit around and consume resources.

>>1019288 I don't get how that has anything to do with choosing to work for companies with bad management while pretending to work in the first place, children are suckered into school by their parents, you choose to work.

>>1019332 Because basically all companies have bad management now, and that includes government, who essentially mandate that all other companies have bad management.

>>1019246 I do not understand why companies are so hell-bent on keeping people coming to office buildings that the companies have to pay to lease when they have a perfectly practical excuse to cut a massive chunk out of their overhead. Do they really need to have managers walking behind our cubicles so damn much? Maybe that's it--it's managers driving company policy, and they do not want to let it become too obvious that they are in effect complete wastes of space that their companies would be better off without.

>>1019353 Your theory is pretty reasonable. I'd argue that's a lot of it. An additional but related factor is that those managers are probably largely women, the type that go to work to socialize more than work. They get lonely at home, without their friends and "work-husbands" and other disgusting concepts.

>>1019355 >work-husbands Also known as affairs

>>1018996 >As such, our objective is not to endorse any specific agenda.

>>1019353 Back when I used to spend 8 hours a day staring at a keyboard in a soulless corpoblocks drone chamber, the manager Mr. Shekelberg would get visible erections from walking around looking at people's monitors.

>>1019355 Exactly that. Women managing business ruins business, as women only care about socialization and validation. And one extra problem, besides the ones you mentioned: women can't fake their performance when everything is done online. They can't sex appeal to retarded directors and CEOs. A man doing a great job online can't be denied rewards nor can he be falsely accused by a woman of being a man she doesn't like (aka, "sex pest"), nor can she manipulate others to fire him for outperforming her. By not being physically present nor visible, only results can be shown. And thus, only results matter 9as it should always be). Taking away all in-person work ensures a better result for Men, and for the company. Only women get ruined by that, as they are the incompetent, liars, and useless liabilities that can't do anything right, and only fake their results through manipulating weak men when they are present.

>>1019382 I believe it!

>>1019443 Both men and women fake their 'performance' online with their fake wah jobs, it's even easier for them really, that's just from casually looking at 'people' shitposting online.

>>1019566 Only women try to fake their performance. And are easily caught. As for online, the numbers show otherwise. The jobs get done better, faster, and people can actually enjoy their lives in peace. Unless they are women, who can't enjoy anything.

>>1019671 What numbers?

>>1019842 Stop replying to the literal paid shill.

>>1019897 >Paid shill is someone who attacks the company Retard. >>1019842 All statistical numbers (and go look yourself, as it is a click away in any search engine) regarding improvement in quality of life for anyone who stopped going to the office and started working rom home. Not to mention the statistics in better productivity and, guess what? A lower rating of false sexual harassment accusations. It turns out that taking women out of companies actually improve everything for everyone, except women.

>>1019937 >What numbers? <All statistical numbers Retard.