Paizo Recognizes United Paizo Workers

Yes, that's why unions exist. Even in states that are "at-will" you can't fire union members without cause, and that's why it was important to form one.

While this is true in most places, that only applies if it is explicitly part of the agreed-upon collective bargaining agreement that the Union and Company sign together. It's totally reasonable to assume that is likely going to be part of the agreement as, in most places, that kind of language is pretty much boilerplate but it's not actually universally true of every Union workplace.

Just because rights are enshrined in law doesn't mean those laws are enforced properly or correctly - or indeed, that people will have access to practical ways to take advantage of their rights.

Ask several trans people here about what rights they have on paper in the law of their country and what, actually, is practically available for them to help them.

Ask employees in many, *many* companies what their rights are according to the law of the land, and how much power and access to those rights they actually have.

You will for a significant amount of people, the de-jure and de-facto situation are very, very different.

I meant before the union was recognized. Could they "fire at will" without recognizing the union?

Humbly,
Yawar

Cori Marie wrote:

Yes, that's why unions exist. Even in states that are "at-will" you can't fire union members without cause, and that's why it was important to form one.

While this is true in most places, that only applies if it is explicitly part of the agreed-upon collective bargaining agreement that the Union and Company sign together. It's totally reasonable to assume that is likely going to be part of the agreement as, in most places, that kind of language is pretty much boilerplate but it's not actually universally true of every Union workplace.

Might want to take that up with Jason Tondro then.

Cori Marie wrote:

Yes, that's why unions exist. Even in states that are "at-will" you can't fire union members without cause, and that's why it was important to form one.

While this is true in most places, that only applies if it is explicitly part of the agreed-upon collective bargaining agreement that the Union and Company sign together. It's totally reasonable to assume that is likely going to be part of the agreement as, in most places, that kind of language is pretty much boilerplate but it's not actually universally true of every Union workplace.

There are however explicit federal laws against firing union members for joining the union or for organizing. That protection exists even before a collective bargaining agreement is signed.

But not before the union is formed. Which is why UPW recruited quietly until they actually became a union and then made the public announcement. Up until that point, anyone involved could have been fired.

I meant before the union was recognized. Could they "fire at will" without recognizing the union?

Humbly,
Yawar

They could fire them but not for the reason of "forming a union." That was protected until either the union was recognized or the effort to form one failed. Any other reason, including just not giving a reason, was fair game.

An example that's easy to compare is that gender/gender identity are protected statuses, and you can't be fired in any state for reasons that boil down to that. In an at-will state like Washington, no reason needs to be given. I was in an at-will state when I came out as trans. I was fired, and given that exact reason, and therefore I sued and won. Had my employer given me any other reason, I would not have had a case.

Also note that all states in the US are "at will", though there are some restrictions on that in most. None that would protect anyone who went out on strike without union protection though.

YawarFiesta wrote:

I meant before the union was recognized. Could they "fire at will" without recognizing the union?

Humbly,
Yawar

They could fire them but not for the reason of "forming a union." That was protected until either the union was recognized or the effort to form one failed. Any other reason, including just not giving a reason, was fair game.

An example that's easy to compare is that gender/gender identity are protected statuses, and you can't be fired in any state for reasons that boil down to that. In an at-will state like Washington, no reason needs to be given. I was in an at-will state when I came out as trans. I was fired, and given that exact reason, and therefore I sued and won. Had my employer given me any other reason, I would not have had a case.

Generally with firing union employees, especially during organizing and contract negotiation struggles, a company is on really shaky ground if fire union members even if they don't say it's because they're "forming a union". The really need solid documented reasons, especially if they're firing multiple organizers or other public faces of the union.

Some companies do so anyways. It can be worth it in union busting, even if they eventually lose a lawsuit and have to pay out a few years later.

A simple strike with a list of demands is also relatively easy to organize.

Humbly,
Yawar

I'm trying to understand why forming a union is awful and yet striking is okay, especially when those striking have no bargaining power?

Because, supposedly, you have a specific set of demands and grievances, and a deadline before the strike.

It doesn't matter anyway as it apparently would not be viable in Washington.

Humbly,
Yawar

YawarFiesta wrote:

I meant before the union was recognized. Could they "fire at will" without recognizing the union?

Humbly,
Yawar

They could fire them but not for the reason of "forming a union." That was protected until either the union was recognized or the effort to form one failed. Any other reason, including just not giving a reason, was fair game.

An example that's easy to compare is that gender/gender identity are protected statuses, and you can't be fired in any state for reasons that boil down to that. In an at-will state like Washington, no reason needs to be given. I was in an at-will state when I came out as trans. I was fired, and given that exact reason, and therefore I sued and won. Had my employer given me any other reason, I would not have had a case.

Jesus.

Because, supposedly, you have a specific set of demands and grievances, and a deadline before the strike.

It doesn't matter anyway as it apparently would not be viable in Washington.

Humbly,
Yawar

As noted above, you can and will be fired for that. The company has no reason to listen to anyone who works for them.

Because, supposedly, you have a specific set of demands and grievances, and a deadline before the strike.

It doesn't matter anyway as it apparently would not be viable in Washington.

Humbly,
Yawar

You realize a union will have a specific set of demands and grievances, and also the bargaining power to actually make something of it? And that just forming a union and bargaining is less destructive to a company than a strike is? A strike should be one of the last options, not one of the first. That's for when bargaining has completely failed.

Definition of snarky
1: CROTCHETY, SNAPPISH
2: sarcastic, impertinent, or irreverent in tone or manner
snarky lyrics

Hello everyone! I have removed a bit of snark as there is no real need to be sarcastic with each other while conversing. We can discuss things without being rude or aggressive with each other, I promise. I have also gone in and removed a bit of discussion on the personal lives of some of our staff members. Please stay on topic and be nice to each other. We want our forums to be a welcoming place, not a cause of stress.

“Peace brings with it so many positive emotions that it is worth aiming for in all circumstances.” —Estella Eliot

Beau's explanation still rings true.

You mean it might be long passed in the US. And there I think the misunderstandings come from. Non-union strikes are perfectly possible and viable in most countries, it is the US that is the exception, not the standard. Indeed you also can’t hire replacement workers in case of a strike in many countries.

So while the Union seems like one of the only feasible solutions in the US, please realize these forums and this hobby are international.

Apparently, there are some protection for non-union workers that go on strike, but the devil is on the details.

Humbly,
Yawar

As noted above, you can and will be fired for that. The company has no reason to listen to anyone who works for them.

So, I'm not wanting to engage with any other part of the argument, but I do want to engage with this. That's simply not true. They do have reasons.

- Both "the company" (I assume you mean management) and the workers have a vested interest in having the company (the thing that gets the money that pays the paychecks of both) continue to survive and (hopefully) thrive. This trickles down to a number of other supporting things that contribute to that, and therefore that they both have a vested interest in - the company continuing to maintain a good reputation, the company continuing to put out good products, and so forth. Often, the workers will know things that are pertinent to these shared goals that the management will not (and vice versa). Often, even if a certain piece of information is known to both sides, one side or the other will have a more clear idea of its importance. The best-case scenario for both sides is that they are working together for the good of the whole, and one of the things that that best-case scenario requires is that management be listening to the people who work for them. That's a reason.

- Even beyond the ways in which improving working conditions can improve productivity directly (which folds up neatly under the first reason) it's a fact that morale is a thing. Listening to your workers, making it clear that you listen to your workers, and making changes accordingly can have a significant beneficial effect on morale even if the changes themselves are relatively small and/or inexpensive. Better morale tends to lead to more productivity and a better product. That's a reason.

From what I can see, the Paizo management has been acting largely in good faith on a lot of this stuff. Some of them are perhaps not the most socially skilled people in the world (really not shocking when your hiring pool starts off with "RPG developer" as the entry position) and they've perhaps made some mistakes along the way (again, not shocking). They do seem to be trying now, though, and I think everyone involved (including us!) will be better off if they manage to achieve that state of everyone largely working together for the common good.

So... at least for the moment, let us not assume that the relationship between worker and management is fundamentally and inescapably adversarial. It doesn't help. Let us instead join hands, and make a little wish, and possibly pretend a bit, and give them the space to work it all out amicably without the ugliness and shouting... or at least the space to work it out mostly amicably, with relatively little ugliness and shouting, and then pretend that there wasn't any ugliness or shouting at all once it's all over, while we pretend to believe them. It gives both sides a reason to try to stay friendly enough that both sides working together can retroactively hide any ugliness and shouting that did occur (and friendly enough that both sides are inclined to, once it's all said and done) and I think that that will wind up getting us all better results in the end.

You mean it might be long passed in the US. And there I think the misunderstandings come from. Non-union strikes are perfectly possible and viable in most countries, it is the US that is the exception, not the standard. Indeed you also can’t hire replacement workers in case of a strike in many countries.

So while the Union seems like one of the only feasible solutions in the US, please realize these forums and this hobby are international.

Sure, but the company that just formed a union is not international. It's a US company based in Washington state. The hobby is international. The forums are international. This topic is not.

You mean it might be long passed in the US. And there I think the misunderstandings come from. Non-union strikes are perfectly possible and viable in most countries, it is the US that is the exception, not the standard. Indeed you also can’t hire replacement workers in case of a strike in many countries.

So while the Union seems like one of the only feasible solutions in the US, please realize these forums and this hobby are international.

I'm not actually convinced of the viability of non-union strikes in any country. The US is well known for lousy labor protections, but countries I'm aware of with better protections also have stronger union presence.

You do get the occasion general strikes against government policy in some countries, France is a recent example, but that's a somewhat different thing.

France is legendary for it's general strikes. We could all stand to learn from its example.

A call for a strike has literally no power without a union to back it. An employer would just say "Okay, we'll just fire you and find someone new." That's why unions work. And no, the union won't disolve, because working for better treatment isn't something that's immediately done. The union even after coming up with a CBA is important because it's one of the parties in the CBA. CBAs also don't last forever, and so when the CBA is going to expire another round of negotiations will have to be taken. You really just know what Walmart and Amazon want you to know about unions, and I really recommend you read some sources that aren't biased against them.

A strike still has power - if you're able to get enough of the workforce behind you, the company will be in a lot of trouble if they fire everyone. Paizo wouldn't do so well if they had to replace all their non-managerial staff at once. (And maybe non-executive as well, since a lot of management is sympathetic.)

Practically speaking though, if you can convince enough of the force to go out on strike, you can also convince them to sign up for the union and get the legal protections in place.

France is legendary for it's general strikes. We could all stand to learn from its example.

(French guy here) This legend is more like a myth. The last true general strike in France was in 1968. Large-size strikes are frequent, but they're pretty much always limited to state agencies or state-owned companies, not the entire economy. Whether that's a good example to follow is a matter of opinion, but that discussion would be off-topic, and, I suspect, against forum guidelines.

But, much more to the point, the discussion of strikes is wholly irrelevant here. That's because the Paizo workers have made it very clear throughout that they don't want to stop working. They want to continue creating fantastic products that people will buy, thus making the company successful (this is kind of a must, when one wants employees' wages to increase). The only folks that went on a strike of sorts are a group of freelancers who said they would withhold their services until the union was recognized. Presumably, they've now resumed work on their projects.

For a small company that's not raking in tons of money, a strike isn't the best way to go, unless you believe the company's management is a bunch of jerks who exploit workers to make themselves filthy rich. I really don't think it's the case with Paizo.

Elegos wrote:

France is legendary for it's general strikes. We could all stand to learn from its example.

(French guy here) This legend is more like a myth. The last true general strike in France was in 1968. Large-size strikes are frequent, but they're pretty much always limited to state agencies or state-owned companies, not the entire economy. Whether that's a good example to follow is a matter of opinion, but that discussion would be off-topic, and, I suspect, against forum guidelines.

But, much more to the point, the discussion of strikes is wholly irrelevant here. That's because the Paizo workers have made it very clear throughout that they don't want to stop working. They want to continue creating fantastic products that people will buy, thus making the company successful (this is kind of a must, when one wants employees' wages to increase). The only folks that went on a strike of sorts are a group of freelancers who said they would withhold their services until the union was recognized. Presumably, they've now resumed work on their projects.

For a small company that's not raking in tons of money, a strike isn't the best way to go, unless you believe the company's management is a bunch of jerks who exploit workers to make themselves filthy rich. I really don't think it's the case with Paizo.

Strikes are always an option, but they're a last option. Even when management are a bunch of jerks. The potential threat of a strike is an important tool in a union's toolbox, but as long as management is reasonable, it doesn't have to be used. It's destructive for both sides.

To be fair, an unreasonable union can use strikes unnecessarily as well, but that's rarer. Partly because strikes require broad membership support, while management being unreasonable only requires a few executives.

That said, the freelancer work stoppage was very likely a big factor in winning recognition so quickly. And that is in many ways exactly the kind of unofficial, non-union strike we started talking about.

I am aware of a nonunion strike a few years ago in the US that worked, because I was among the customers who supported it. Look up the Market Basket grocery chain in Massachusetts. It was a very unusual situation, though.

Do you?:

A-Strike and take a hit to your paycheck for however long the strike lasts.

B-Wince through the managerial catastrophes and watch as the business goes downhill while enduring the poor workplace policies and adversarial management.

In a field where the profit margins are apparently SO TINY that they cannot afford many normal business necessities that other companies can take for granted, how many folks can afford to not work? Unionizing can very well be the only real method of breaking the managerial stonewall of addressing issues.

I really like the UPW motto "Don't split the party"

At this point, the party feels pretty split to me.

Paizo Recognizes United Paizo Workers, that's a good thing.

This thread is getting hard to follow. Is there someone at Paizo that thinks the union is not doing enough to protect them, and is that person asking for our help, if so what help would they like?

or is there something else I missed

I am aware of more than a couple cases of business going bankrupt because of unions, and bribed unions leaders acting against the people they represent. I'll avoid going into details to avoid getting political.

Are there examples of union corruption? Of course. As stated above, ANY human endevour carries a risk that undesirable people will rise to positions of power. You can find examples in every industry and governmental body. However, as the old adage says, "don't throw out the baby with the bath water." In many/most industries the employer holds such a power advantage that a union is simply the only reasonable ongoing answer to leveling the playing field in any real way, and even then, the business still generally holds a power advantage. And once the union gets an acceptable working contract, their efforts do not end.

The first and most obvious reason is, the contract will end and without the union, the business can simply revert to past practices. A second reason is employment needs always change. Be it cost of living changes, safety improvements, training opportunities, etc. and those things need to be bargained for.

In the majority of cases where a business collapses because of the formation of a union, it is because the company absolutely refuses to reach a reasonable compromise, or because the business is so out of touch with the economic times it is not sustainable. Those things happen and are not an indictment of the union system.

So while the Union seems like one of the only feasible solutions in the US, please realize these forums and this hobby are international.

That may be true, but in this case it is moot. We are not discussing international unions, we are specifically talking about unionization in the us and how it specifically applies to Paizo and the UPW. So, it is completely irrelevant what unions are and how they work internationally. We, as the US, might have some obligation to clarify how unions work here vs internationally, editorializing how they work in other countries is counter-productive in this discussion.

France is legendary for it's general strikes. We could all stand to learn from its example.

Or maybe we can learn from their mistakes. Despite being pro-union, I do not find it laudable to claim to be legendary for striking. The Teamsters in the US are legendary for striking and they do not generally have a good reputation even within the union community.

I think the talk of strikes is waaay too casual. While it can be effective under specific circumstances, it is incredibly decisive in practice and often creates more problems than it solves. Its why the IBEW specifically has a no-strike clause in most of our contract dealings. Instead we employ independent (at least in theory) mediation to resolve impasses. It works quite well in practice.

None of that applies in the case of violence, this is not a cordial debate about municipal water supply, someone is being attacked and you either help or let them be assaulted. In your case you're taking time to lecture about how upsetting this is, but only to the person being attacked who is making a fuss.

I can't see any relationship at all between what I said and what you're addressing.

vagrant-poet wrote:

None of that applies in the case of violence, this is not a cordial debate about municipal water supply, someone is being attacked and you either help or let them be assaulted. In your case you're taking time to lecture about how upsetting this is, but only to the person being attacked who is making a fuss.

I can't see any relationship at all between what I said and what you're addressing.

tldr: There is no neutral position when people are being harmed. You are either ok with the harm (bad) or you want people to stop being hurt (good).

tldr: There is no neutral position when people are being harmed. You are either ok with the harm (bad) or you want people to stop being hurt (good).

Without an incredibly expansive definition of harmed I can't see how that's relevant.

Even with that aside, if you're not going to differentiate at all you wind up with problematic ideas like tackling a bystander for standing by the same way you would an attacker.

Hey BigNorseWolf, would you say threats of doxxing are a form of harm? That's one of the many things to happen to trans posters here over the last month, because we have the sheer audacity to expect allegations of transphobia to be addressed.