Paizo Leadership Team Update

Indeed there is a TTRPG company that does this

Isn't that only because the law says that they have to, because they are a publicly traded company?

Just sorta waiting for reports from employees that management starts telling them that non compliance with the voluntary surveys means they are showing that the union is unwilling to work with them. Surveys do not empower the employees. If Jeff really read aloud the exit letter publicly and ridiculed a former employees grievances then I wouldn't trust this management to implement anything that is in the best interest of the Union unless the idea came from the Union and even then I would be suspect as to why leadership thought it was a good idea.

Based on my own RL workplace experience, Yoshua has the right of this.

The past two years they've insisted on employee surveys of State of the Company.

The past two years they've REFUSED to give the results of the surveys (because the employees responded in an overwhelmingly negative fashion to all the questions).

It's the continuing disconnect of 'executive' versus 'working company'.

"They can't REALLY mean that they are that dissatisfied, can THEY? WE PAY THEM incredibly poorly! We treat them well in our estimation!"

Cori Marie wrote:

Indeed there is a TTRPG company that does this

Isn't that only because the law says that they have to, because they are a publicly traded company?

Maybe doing more than the law says you have to is a good idea?

UnArcaneElection wrote:

Cori Marie wrote:

Indeed there is a TTRPG company that does this

Isn't that only because the law says that they have to, because they are a publicly traded company?

Maybe doing more than the law says you have to is a good idea?

Philosophically, I agree with you. In practice, good luck finding management that agrees.

Attorneys are professionals you hire for a fight. Not for a rebuilding of the company that puts its long-term interests (ie, where workers and owners/management' interests meet) as the sole objective.

If owners and top managers are getting ready for a fight, it will be against the Union. Not with it.

Meanwhile the company and its community, on which it is so heavily based, flounder. Too bad that the owners cannot see it because they are so sure only they know what is best for the company they created.

That is what sinks so many successful companies : when the owners cannot accept that the company must grow beyond them and without them.

UnArcaneElection wrote:

Cori Marie wrote:

Indeed there is a TTRPG company that does this

Isn't that only because the law says that they have to, because they are a publicly traded company?

Maybe doing more than the law says you have to is a good idea?

It is usually difficult to assess the risks vs benefits of doing so though. Few company CEOs have the guts to do so and those who do are usually fired at the first sign of trouble. Which inspires successors to even more secrecy.

We're all only humans here.

UnArcaneElection wrote:

Cori Marie wrote:

Indeed there is a TTRPG company that does this

Isn't that only because the law says that they have to, because they are a publicly traded company?

Maybe doing more than the law says you have to is a good idea?

Nonetheless it's not really helpful to point to a company that is legally mandated to disclose as if that somehow made Paizo the odd one out. Not disclosing unless legally required is the norm. It would be great if they did, but they would be very much the exception.

UnArcaneElection wrote:

Cori Marie wrote:

Indeed there is a TTRPG company that does this

Isn't that only because the law says that they have to, because they are a publicly traded company?

Maybe doing more than the law says you have to is a good idea?

*laughs in quality management*

As time goes on I find myself being drawn away from Pathfinder and the thought of ending subscriptions easier.

Having less faith that leadership in its current form is capable of the change that will be needed.

Hoping that the Union will have the voice they need to show customers that there is hope for change is valid.

I love the product, and I love the designers, but I am finding the management to be increasingly revealed to be terrible, and unfortunately I'm not seeing the prospect of improvement.

I don't want to stop supporting the designers, but man I would love it if they could buy the company and run it right.

I don't understand why people seem to be so surprised that Paizo would hire a highly respected law firm to represent them. The cause is largely irrelevant. A law firm is "good" because it first and foremost protects the interests of its client. That is exactly the type of firm they should employ. I am just surprised they demonstrated some business sense given their history. I was expecting Saul Goodman. Though, to be honest, given that a law firm's reputation is almost entirely due to its ability to win for their client, and not their moral integrity, maybe they did hire Slippin' Jimmy. Too early to tell.

We can certainly banter about the firms qualifications in the specific area of law covering DEIB, but they are a fairly diverse firm. I would guess for advertising purposes they would claim to specialize in any area of the law for which they agree to be hired. Exaggerating that claim is really no different than the average gamer using their game history as training or as professional experience. It can certainly be argued, but there are plenty who would dismiss it. It seems clear to me that Paizo is convinced that the firm IS specialized in these matters. Whether they actually are or not does not necessarily indicate any intentional deception on Paizo's part (though I wouldn't completely rule it out).

If I understand correctly, Paizo not being publicly traded means they don't have to share much information about their revenue or expenses, even with their employees. The union may attempt to change this, at least internally, as negotiations over salaries and benefits will probably be pretty hard if leadership can baldly lie to them about how a raise would "bankrupt the company" and the sort.

Yes...and no. Of course every negotiation is unique, but generally a private business does not have to share their finances unless they use their revenue (or lack thereof) to justify rejecting some/all of the union's demands. Negotiators have gotten pretty savvy and usually know what to/not to say. Just like the UPW is consulting with union experts, so too I expect is Paizo. If they simply say, "no, we are not willing to do that" as a general response to a demand, there isn't much the UPW can do about it. Course if they refuse to give a reason for rejecting a reasonable demand it looks terrible in the court of public opinion, though at this point how much worse can their image really get?

Sort of like if you are in an at-will state. If you are terminated from your job for a listed cause, you can generally try to fight it. OTOH, if they simply tell you, "your services are no longer required, bye" There is almost nothing you can do about it, unless you have some tangible evidence (letter, email, multitude of witnesses, etc) that shows they actually did fire you for a cause, but just didn't tell you what it was.

I don't expect Paizo to release their financials unless they are compelled to do so by the EEOC/DoL. In fact, given the system of capitalism we operate under, I would find it unprofessional for them to do so (its a competition thing). I know many would like them to share it willingly, but they really don't have to in order to bargain in good faith. If they simply focus on the actual demands and hammer out a reasonable compromise, they can remain as private as they want. However, I just don't trust Paizo's executive team to do any of those things and I expect negotiations with the UPW are going to get much worse before they get better...if they ever do.

"The cause is largely irrelevant."

It kinda isn't when they just flat out lie about it.

"We hired law firm because they're specialized in X"

Law Firm: has no mentions of X

Everyone: ...????

It is reasonable to think that Paizo was told either in reference or by their firm that they specialized in DEIB. They could consider themselves specialized in dozens of areas of law that aren't specifically listed in their ads. Paizo could believe the firm is what they profess to be without it being true AND without it being a lie. Though, I also admit that it is possibly they are willfully deceiving us to try and fix their public image. Given Paizo's combination of intentional bad behavior and their numerous demonstrations of poor business decisions, its hard to tell anymore when they are lying and when they just suck at their job.

I am just not willing to say either with any degree of confidence that I am correct and I try not to make definitive accusations without some level of corroboration that I am right. I don't think anyone has the proof to make such a claim.

"It is reasonable to think that Paizo was told either in reference or by their firm that they specialized in DEIB."

Reasonable to you perhaps, but, you don't have any basis for that assumption, you're literally just making something up. Let Management defend themselves.

"I am just not willing to say either with any degree of confidence that I am correct"

... then why bother bringing it up at all?

Because you (and other people) did and there is simply no evidence that Paizo intentionally selected this law firm knowing they have no experience with DEIB and just want them to protect them from litigation. Those are assumptions being made base on interpretation of evidence. You can certainly suggest its a possibility and I would absolutely agree with you, but you cannot say it is definitively true. That is simply not accurate.

Management has already defended themself. They said they believe the law firm to specialize in issues of DEIB. Either that is true (no lying) or it is not true, but they believe it to be true (not lying) or they are intentionally lying (zero evidence, only speculation).

I am an inside wireman, which essentially means I am a commercial/industrial electrician. I also have a lot of experience doing residential electrical work. If I advertised myself as specializing in commercial/industrial electrical work and someone was referred to me for some residential work, that would not mean they were lying if they said they believed me to be specialized in that field as well, even though it wasn't on my business card.

“Because you (and other people) did”

No we did not. The address said this law firm specialized in DEIB.

That was a lie.

Not an assumption, nor me making up. Either Management lied or the Law Firm lied to Management, guessing there would be the assumption.

Point remains, the above was a lie.

Yeah, TK. The post said they hired a firm with the specialization. That is where this discussion started. Not with the people calling for transparency and honesty with regards to what the firm actually specializes in as advertised on their website.

Rysky the third option is that the law firm does specialize in it, but does not advertise it.

My personal issue is what they do advertise as their specialty, which is protecting the company from employees.

Not a good look.

Do better Paizo.

You are doing abysmally.

the third option is that the law firm does specialize in it, but does not advertise it

*ding*ding*ding*

Yoshua wrote:

the third option is that the law firm does specialize in it, but does not advertise it

*ding*ding*ding*

That is just another assumption though, so hard to take a high ground where none exists. Which is why asking, demanding... expecting? Clarification is more than acceptable when someone is positioning themselves above reproach while in reality they are in the middle of an extremely damaged relationship of their own causing.

The emotional labor is being put on the people who were harmed yet again in this post, and ignoring that or trying to minimize it is what got us here in the first place.

I am saying you aren't wrong. I am also saying that continuing to tell people you aren't wrong, when they aren't either, is causing more harm.

Take it as you will. This is both a specific and generic you. Taking my quote out of context though is very disingenuous to my entire statement.

I appreciate that you're just trying to add some nuance here, Yoshua, but I'm not sure I agree with your original take. Honestly, I don't think something gets to be considered their specialty specialty if they don't consider it noteworthy enough to list. This is hard for me to put clearly, but that's because it feels kind of self-evident to me. "Specialty" indicates, well, specialization--some degree of focus on that subject area that goes above your focus on most all other subject areas. So if they neglected to list it in favor of other items, by definition, it's not their specialty, because they seem to specialize in those other items. You can't specialize in everything. They do not specialize in DPEI because we see what they specialize in very clearly--they list their specialties on their website, after all.

Imagine if I went to a job interview for the Spanish Inquisition and told them that my greatest strength was "surprise", because they implied that's what they were looking for in a new hire--but my resume listed my greatest strengths as "fear" and "a snappy red uniform". It would be kind of obvious I bent the truth just to get hired, right?

Even if one disagrees with "it can't be a specialty if they deprioritized it above all the other things their firm does", though, there's the other, more biting question: If they really do specialize in it, isn't it kind of weird that they simply forgot about it?

I am saying you aren't wrong. I am also saying that continuing to tell people you aren't wrong, when they aren't either, is causing more harm.

Anybody else in the mood for watching The Big Lebowski right now for some reason?

I appreciate that you're just trying to add some nuance here, Yoshua, but I'm not sure I agree with your original take. Honestly, I don't think something gets to be considered a specialty if they don't consider it noteworthy enough to list. This is hard for me to put clearly, but that's because it feels kind of self-evident to me. "Specialty" indicates, well, specialization--some degree of focus on that subject area. So if they neglected to list it in favor of other items, by definition, it's not a specialty, because they seem to specialize in those other items. You can't specialize in everything.

Imagine if I went to a job interview for the Spanish Inquisition and told them that my greatest strength was "surprise", because they implied that's what they were looking for in a new hire--but my resume listed my greatest strengths as "fear" and "a snappy red uniform". It would be kind of obvious I bent the truth just to get hired, right?

For what it is worth? I agree with everything you say here 100%

I just don't have it in me to say something is 100% the way it is without the clarification behind it. I don't believe that they are specialized in DPEI? (hope I am not getting the acronym wrong, I am horrible at them) But I won't discount the possibility, especially when you have 2 people who are basically saying "I'm right, but you aren't necessarily wrong" in way too many words and not actually coming out and saying it.

Just because something is possible, doesn't make it a reality.

So, try to take my words at face value. I say it is possible. Not probable. In my opinion with what Jeff Alvarez has already shown to be his goto when it comes to how he treats people he sees beneath him? My opinion is that they hired a law firm who specializes in exactly what they promote they do. That they will protect the company at all costs.

Just hope Jeff, Lisa and leadership realize that cost is their actual revenue.

No, yeah, I agree. There's certainly a chance they have a couple lawyers who are technically competent in DPEI, and they're using this to claim a "specialty", and certain posters here whose only ideology is proving that they, personally, are never wrong will be very eager to point it out to us.

In general, I'm with you on this. It's arguing a technicality. We see what they do, definitely specialize in, and we see that DPEI was prioritized underneath huge, enormous red flags. That's what actually matters.

If a law firm specializes in a subject but does not put that specialization where clients can find it, they are a crappy law firm. Period. If you specialize in something you make it known. Otherwise, it is not a specialty, it's just another type of case you see.

Yoshua wrote:

I am saying you aren't wrong. I am also saying that continuing to tell people you aren't wrong, when they aren't either, is causing more harm.

Anybody else in the mood for watching The Big Lebowski right now for some reason?

This is about drawing a line in the sand, KC, over which YOU DO NOT CROSS!

Given that the discussion on the law firm has gone on for a bit, I'd think it would be in Paizo's best interest to have Aaron (or someone) make a brief statement saying "Hey, these guys were recommended and while they don't say that they've done this sort of thing on their web site they have in fact done X number of cases and are aware of what is needed to make everyone feel comfortable that they are doing their best."

Otherwise it leads to the speculation that we're seeing and intensifies the bad feelings that build up.

The thing is, not all of this is speculation. The whole "aggressively defend companies from employees" thing? That's what is on their website. Paizo can't gild that lily. Objectively speaking, this law firm has done more to emphasize its specialty in defending companies from workers than any possible "specialty" in DBEI.

If a law firm specializes in a subject but does not put that specialization where clients can find it, they are a crappy law firm. Period. If you specialize in something you make it known. Otherwise, it is not a specialty, it's just another type of case you see.

It depends on the state. In Kentucky, where I practice, I’m an administrative law specialist. However the state bar of Kentucky will not allow lawyers to hold themselves out as specialists in any field. So even though I work at the largest admin law firm in the state, we cannot hold ourselves out as specialists on our website or in any advertising material. It’s weird.

I don’t know the law of the state they are based out of, but that could possibly be an explanation. Or they might not be specialists at all.

To be clear, Gerald, this isn't about "Paizo said they specialize in DBEI, but they don't say they specialize in DBEI." This is more about, "Paizo said they specialize in DBEI, but they don't even mention DBEI on their website, but they do list how good they are at taking on uppity employees."

Not to say that isn't good info! It just seems like we're fixating disproportionately on the wrong issue here.

It's like saying McDonald's specializes in salads.

And also they DO list specializations, so it's not that they can't.

When you can do the bare minimum but don't, your pulling a Paizo management.

When you can do the bare minimum but don't, your pulling a Paizo management.

When you can do the bare minimum but don't and then hire someone known for doing the opposite, you're pulling a Paizo management.

Fixed it for ya.

Though there may be strong temptation to be silly, do not send the rough information about Paizo to the spam-thread for the startups from a different country, please.

Even if some people feel it'd be appropriate.

And also they DO list specializations, so it's not that they can't.

I’m not an expert in this field. Could you point me in the direction of some law firms on this scale that do list DEIB as a specialization?

From a layman’s search it appears DEIB is an employment practice rather than an actual specialization of law. Laws relating to it would fall under Employment law for sure and the closest legal specialization seems to be Civil Rights.

If you're involved in litigation and you don't go out and hire the best* law firm you can afford that will put up the most vigorous defense of your position they ethically can, then you are being stupid. Once there's litigation, it becomes a bitter knife fight to the end. The entire point is to secure the best possible outcome for your client. Don't think for a second that the union's representation will do any less for them. It is by definition an adversarial process.

-Skeld

*No representation is made that the legal services provided are greater to the legal services provided by any other firm.

Cori Marie wrote:

And also they DO list specializations, so it's not that they can't.

I’m not an expert in this field. Could you point me in the direction of some law firms on this scale that do list DEIB as a specialization?

From a layman’s search it appears DEIB is an employment practice rather than an actual specialization of law. Laws relating to it would fall under Employment law for sure and the closest legal specialization seems to be Civil Rights.

Diversity is definitely something a lawyer can specialize in - despite it not being a legal specialty, understanding trans issues for example isn't universal and having a lawyer who does understand that stuff is an asset and something you might seek out in a lawyer (and that a lawyer might advertise as a specialization).

It is similar to how law firms can specialize in sports despite it not being one of the legal specialties - it helps to have a firm that has experience representing sports teams/athletes/etc if you are a sports team having a dispute over a players contract or something.

"Once there's litigation"

Is there?

Casual reminder to all that America is not nearly as litigious a company as McDonald's propaganda might have you believe, and companies do not actually have to live in constant fear of frivolous lawsuits.

Casual reminder to all that America is not nearly as litigious a company as McDonald's propaganda might have you believe, and companies do not actually have to live in constant fear of frivolous lawsuits.

You may be speaking more truthfully than you think . . . .

If you're involved in litigation and you don't go out and hire the best* law firm you can afford that will put up the most vigorous defense of your position they ethically can, then you are being stupid. Once there's litigation, it becomes a bitter knife fight to the end. The entire point is to secure the best possible outcome for your client. Don't think for a second that the union's representation will do any less for them. It is by definition an adversarial process.[/i]

That's not what this is about and if they're already treating it that way, that's a problem. This has nothing to do with the union, in a legal sense. There's no adversarial process.

However, if they're being contracted by a company due diligence would be to indicate where a company might be lacking in such categories and how to immunize against such things as a de facto defense plan -- it would be ethical if a bit shady to effectively get paid twice for the gig.

Casual reminder to all that America is not nearly as litigious a company as McDonald's propaganda might have you believe, and companies do not actually have to live in constant fear of frivolous lawsuits.

I strongly agree with the former, much less so the latter.

They've hired this law firm "to investigate allegations of discrimination against trans employees and sexual misconduct before reporting back to the Leadership Team," not to mount a defence in court.

It may/not be their primary intention, but if they aren’t preparing for it on some level they aren’t the quality firm their public image represents.

thejeff wrote:

They've hired this law firm "to investigate allegations of discrimination against trans employees and sexual misconduct before reporting back to the Leadership Team," not to mount a defence in court.

It may/not be their primary intention, but if they aren’t preparing for it on some level they aren’t the quality firm their public image represents.

On some level perhaps, but if they're hired to investigate the claims and their main focus is preparing an adversarial legal case against potential lawsuits - well that's exactly what everyone in this thread is complaining about.

That's not what we want to happen. That's not what Paizo's statement claims they're doing. If it is, that's another bad sign.

Yeah, you shouldn't be investigating a claim with the intent to disprove the claim - that will very quickly poison the well and bias your results.

You should investigate the claim with the intent to determine its validity, then AFTER reaching a conclusion, you figure out what the best response to whatever happened is.

Even if your client has a vested interest in disproving the claim, you still want to investigate it without assuming it is untrue so you don't miss things that people who aren't assuming it is untrue would find.

TwilightKnight wrote:

thejeff wrote:

They've hired this law firm "to investigate allegations of discrimination against trans employees and sexual misconduct before reporting back to the Leadership Team," not to mount a defence in court.

It may/not be their primary intention, but if they aren’t preparing for it on some level they aren’t the quality firm their public image represents.

On some level perhaps, but if they're hired to investigate the claims and their main focus is preparing an adversarial legal case against potential lawsuits - well that's exactly what everyone in this thread is complaining about.

That's not what we want to happen. That's not what Paizo's statement claims they're doing. If it is, that's another bad sign.

Paizo has their own counsel.

They hired an outside third party to conduct an investigation.

Notice they did not task their own counsel with investigating themselves.

Their existing corporate council may lack experience with or just not be interested in such a task.

thejeff wrote:

TwilightKnight wrote:

thejeff wrote:

They've hired this law firm "to investigate allegations of discrimination against trans employees and sexual misconduct before reporting back to the Leadership Team," not to mount a defence in court.

It may/not be their primary intention, but if they aren’t preparing for it on some level they aren’t the quality firm their public image represents.

On some level perhaps, but if they're hired to investigate the claims and their main focus is preparing an adversarial legal case against potential lawsuits - well that's exactly what everyone in this thread is complaining about.

That's not what we want to happen. That's not what Paizo's statement claims they're doing. If it is, that's another bad sign.

Paizo has their own counsel.

They hired an outside third party to conduct an investigation.

Notice they did not task their own counsel with investigating themselves.

Which is the correct thing to do. I believe their own counsel would have a legal duty to protect them. An outside group, hired specifically for the investigation, has no responsibility, though there may certainly be bias towards the people paying them.

Officially they're doing the right thing. The advertised nature of the firm calls that into question and if they actually are behaving as TwilightKnight suggests there wouldn't even be any question.