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.

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.

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.

“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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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?

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

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".

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

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.

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?"

That is all.

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.

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).

It's only the very first word in the article... about the UK. [1]And Canada , who also spell "Labour" properly, although the Canada part of the story isn't covered here.

[1] https://www.eurogamer.net/gta-6-developer-rockstar-accused-of-union-busting-after-it-fires-dozens-of-developers

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.

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?

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.