Microsoft and the Communications Workers of America (CWA) have forged a labor neutrality agreement for all ZeniMax workers. The CWA says the deal is similar to the one from 2022 covering Activision Blizzard’s workforce, which went into effect in April of this year.

“Thousands of our ZeniMax co-workers now have a free and fair path to organize together for better working conditions,” Page Branson, a Senior Quality Assurance (QA) Tester, wrote in a CWA press release.

In 2022, the Xbox maker signed a formal agreement with CWA to respect Activision Blizzard employees’ right to organize. Set to take effect 60 days after Microsoft’s acquisition closed, it didn’t become official until earlier this year. It also extends Microsoft’s early 2023 recognition of ZeniMax QA workers’ right to unionize, and it now includes every eligible employee at ZeniMax.

The CWA says the new agreement means Microsoft will take a neutral approach when employees express interest in joining the union. The workers can communicate with their peers and union reps about membership “in a way that encourages information sharing and avoids business disruptions.”

According to the CWA, workers will have access to a decision-making process that respects their privacy if they wish. In addition, it includes a dispute resolution and arbitration process in the case of any disagreements between the union and Microsoft.

“When we organized our union under a similar legal agreement the process was clear and management did not try to influence anyone’s decision and the company did not try to interfere with the voting process,” Branson wrote. “There is strength in numbers, and as our numbers grow at ZeniMax, at Microsoft, and in the video game industry, we will gain the respect we deserve and raise the standards of working conditions for everyone across the video gaming industry. When we benefit, the consumer and the company will ultimately benefit with us and help keep this industry stable for current and future workers.”

Continuing the long American tradition of wealthy corporate overlords making union-busting comments, Amazon CEO Andy Jassy went on a media blitz in 2022 to warn of the workplace-altering terrors of labor unions. (Surely, it’s an unfortunate happenstance that his urgent PSA coincided with an uptick in organizing efforts at Amazon.) Sadly for Mr. Jassy, the US still has a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), and CNBC reports that the board ruled Wednesday that his anti-union comments broke federal labor laws.

Jassy popped up on CNBC in April 2022 to say that if employees voted for and joined a union, they would become less empowered and could expect things to become “much slower” and “more bureaucratic.” In an interview with Bloomberg, he added, “If you see something on the line that you think could be better for your team or you or your customers, you can’t just go to your manager and say, ‘Let’s change it.’”

He capped off his union-busting trifecta at The New York Times DealBook conference, where the CEO said that a workplace without unions isn’t “bureaucratic, it’s not slow.”

It’s the latest in Amazon’s long history of union-busting behavior.

Amazon

NLRB Judge Brian Gee said Jassy violated labor laws by suggesting employees would be less empowered or “better off” without a union. However, Gee said the CEO’s other comments about worker-employer relationships changing were lawful. According to the judge, the difference is that the more aggressive quotes “went beyond merely commenting on the employee-employer relationship.”

Gee added that the comments “threatened employees that, if they selected a union, they would become less empowered and find it harder to get things done quickly.” The judge recommends that Amazon “cease and desist” from making similar comments in the future. The company is also required to post and share a note about the judge’s order with all of its US employees.

In December, Jassy’s Amazon shares were valued at $328 million, making him one of America’s wealthiest CEOs.

In a statement to CNBC, an Amazon spokesperson said the judge’s ruling “reflects poorly on the state of free speech rights today.” Because, hey, what kind of free country do we even have if a retail magnate can’t tell low-income workers scary bedtime stories about the perils of voting to empower themselves in the workplace?