{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by Shadow Artiste:
9/6/2015 7:16:40 AM
1
What a well written and thoughtful summary of the situation. Thanks.
I would add that I'm not convinced Marty was as [i]disruptive[/i] and [i]threatening[/i] as its laid out because of the following reasons and my own significance in the entertainment industry. Activision informs (threatens) Bungie that Marty is in danger of causing Bungie to breach the contract. This is their way of asking Bungie to fire him. It's a veiled threat. At this stage they've already got all of the music for Destiny and Harold Ryan is a super corporate and sterile director (listen to the Bungie podcast from years ago where he is on it) so he rolls over to his financiers (Activision).
The only problem is you can't fire someone without sufficient reason so you have to start proving you're unhappy with their work or behaviour. Now, I was a manager for West Farmers in Australia and we did this to many staff. You just start filing negative reports in them for any reason that is subjective. You just say they're not motivated, distracted etc and you don't even need to prove it. Then you can fire then after enough negative reports. It's common practice. I highly doubt Marty was acting the way he was because he's a statesmen of the gaming industry and a highly ethical individual that helped build Bungie into the company they were.
My reading of it was after Activision started to put the pressure on Bungie to fire Marrty, Harold started engineering the negative reports against Marty. And trust me, it's not coerce other employees to back you up, especially if you're offering them better conditions or a promotion.
And if Marty was being threatening and disruptive then Bungie might have had the case to uphold their decision to withhold Marty's shares and benefits (in entertainment contracts you can have your royalties revoked if you harm the project), but the court ruled in his favour.
So yeah, I don't quite believe the claims bright against Marty, and it seems the courts didn't either.
English
-
Edited by REXEL: 9/6/2015 5:59:38 PM[quote] The only problem is you can't fire someone without sufficient reason so you have to start proving you're unhappy with their work or behaviour. Now, I was a manager for West Farmers in Australia and we did this to many staff. You just start filing negative reports in them for any reason that is subjective. You just say they're not motivated, distracted etc and you don't even need to prove it. Then you can fire then after enough negative reports. It's common practice. I highly doubt Marty was acting the way he was because he's a statesmen of the gaming industry and a highly ethical individual that helped build Bungie into the company they were. My reading of it was after Activision started to put the pressure on Bungie to fire Marrty, Harold started engineering the negative reports against Marty. And trust me, it's not coerce other employees to back you up, especially if you're offering them better conditions or a promotion. And if Marty was being threatening and disruptive then Bungie might have had the case to uphold their decision to withhold Marty's shares and benefits (in entertainment contracts you can have your royalties revoked if you harm the project), but the court ruled in his favour. So yeah, I don't quite believe the claims bright against Marty, and it seems the courts didn't either.[/quote] This is actually a good point, it's actually a pretty common practice among companies to do this, especially during a restructuring phase. I had a few family members who started getting negative reviews/reports against them for the most minor of things when new management was put in place, and they had been with the outfit for over 10 years. It doesnt make sense to fire the most seasoned employees other than not wanting to pay higher wages along with pensions (if they are getting close to being eligble for one). I think marty's situation was more than a company wanting to get rid of an employee just to save a few dollars, but I dont think it is out of the realm of possibility that the workplace was intentionally made difficult so they had reason to terminate his employment.
