Paizo Leadership Team Update

The lack of understanding of business in this tread is appalling. First it's complaining that Paizo (a privately held company) doesn't follow the same mandatory financial reporting requirements that public companies do. Then it's complaints that they DARE hire a law firm that represents their interests. I can hate late stage capitalism as much as the next guy, but guess what, representing their best interests is what companies do. In fact, if Paizo were publicly held, failing to do so would be considered a violation of their fiduciary responsibility. Is there anything that you dozen that constantly complain can't complain about next?

So let's address the elephant in the room. Did Paizo "actually" hire a DIEB law firm.

Yes the did. Under the recommendation of a DEIB specialist they picked a law firm specialized in...*gasp* EMPLOYMENT LAW!

That's right, MH&H specializes in Employment law and provided the following statement(from their website), "While our employment attorneys are experienced and aggressive litigators, they also recognize that employers often prefer to avoid litigation if possible. Accordingly, the firm regularly counsels clients on how to avoid problems and minimize risk with respect to such issues as employee discipline, alleged harassment, the protection of trade secrets, reductions in force, severance and other matters." DEIB, being issues of harassment are inherently employment law issues, ergo they specialize in this work. Stating they do not is simply finding the next thing to complain about because the last thing to complain about fell on deaf ears.

Yes, arguments can be made that this law firm clearly has Paizo's best interests in mind (not the employees); however, in the case of finding and weeding out harassment the employer and employees needs align (the employer doesn't get sued, the employee has the harasser dealt with). Futhermore, as I said before - companies act in their best interest - that's the reason Paizo employees are founding a Union. If they didn't do so I'd question their very desire to stay in business.

I've watched for weeks now and all I see are the same dozen or so people that have already stated that they're done with Paizo come and find yet another thing to complain about because the path to a solution isn't EXACTLY the path that they've told Paizo that they have to follow. Without Jeff's head on a literal pike sitting outside the office, I can say that no solution Paizo will come up with will meet your demands. It's not even worth it for them to put out statements, because there is no statement other than, "we have launched Jeff into the sun" that is going to satiate this crowd.

As someone that wants to see Paizo employees thrive and survive this, I wait for THEIR opinion on what is going on. If they're unhappy, I'm unhappy. If you all are unhappy though, at this point I just see the old man yelling at a cloud.

Nah. You have it twisted. The complaint isn't that they hired someone to look out for their own best interests. The complaint is that they are claiming that they did it in the best interest of their employees.

Twisting the truth is what got us here in the first place. Feel free to add fuel to that fire and just increase the confirmation bias that those of us asking for clarity already have.

In before someone says 'see you have confirmation bias!'

Nah. You have it twisted. The complaint isn't that they hired someone to look out for their own best interests. The complaint is that they are claiming that they did it in the best interest of their employees.

No...that's what you want them to have said. Paizo said.

"We chose MH&H upon the recommendation of a consultant with expertise in matters of DEIB. MH&H has a team of attorneys that specialize in these issues, and we’re confident they’ll be able to provide an impartial analysis of the facts that we need to move forward with any corrective actions.

Because the results of these investigations are private personnel matters, Paizo will not be able to make them public. Corrective actions will be taken against any employee (including managers and executives) found to be guilty of these allegations. "

Twisting the truth is what got us here in the first place. Feel free to add fuel to that fire and just increase the confirmation bias that those of us asking for clarity already have.

Well we can agree on one thing.

I don't have to agree with ya to know you have valid reasons for believing what you are stating. But taking a snippet out to prove a point when there is years upon years of experiences with the upper management that shows exactly how they have historically responded to grievances is disingenous.

I sorta get it, you love the company and want it to thrive. The unionization of the workers make it fairly clear, with their public statements, that they are not happy under the current conditions.

So, in one breath you say you are with the workers and in the next breath believe everything that the public statements say from the people who created those conditions.

The mental gymnastics for me to come to the same conclusions you do would put me at the level of an olympic athlete.

The lack of understanding of business in this tread is appalling. First it's complaining that Paizo (a privately held company) doesn't follow the same mandatory financial reporting requirements that public companies do. Then it's complaints that they DARE hire a law firm that represents their interests. I can hate late stage capitalism as much as the next guy, but guess what, representing their best interests is what companies do. In fact, if Paizo were publicly held, failing to do so would be considered a violation of their fiduciary responsibility. Is there anything that you dozen that constantly complain can't complain about next?

So let's address the elephant in the room. Did Paizo "actually" hire a DIEB law firm.

Yes the did. Under the recommendation of a DEIB specialist they picked a law firm specialized in...*gasp* EMPLOYMENT LAW!

That's right, MH&H specializes in Employment law and provided the following statement(from their website), "While our employment attorneys are experienced and aggressive litigators, they also recognize that employers often prefer to avoid litigation if possible. Accordingly, the firm regularly counsels clients on how to avoid problems and minimize risk with respect to such issues as employee discipline, alleged harassment, the protection of trade secrets, reductions in force, severance and other matters." DEIB, being issues of harassment are inherently employment law issues, ergo they specialize in this work. Stating they do not is simply finding the next thing to complain about because the last thing to complain about fell on deaf ears.

Yes, arguments can be made that this law firm clearly has Paizo's best interests in mind (not the employees); however, in the case of finding and weeding out harassment the employer and employees needs align (the employer doesn't get sued, the employee has the harasser dealt with). Futhermore, as I said before - companies act in their best interest - that's the reason Paizo employees are founding a Union. If they...

Basically as Yoshua says, it's the contrast between the claimed intent and what the apparent intent was.

What they said they were doing was hire this firm "to investigate allegations of discrimination against trans employees and sexual misconduct". Not to defend against current lawsuits, not to advise on polices to avoid future harassment incidents, but to investigate past allegations.
Now it might still be that both Paizo and this firm are enlightened enough to realize that everything coming to light is the best way to move forward, even if there's some short term cost, but I no longer have that trust in Paizo, nor does what little I know of this firm inspire such trust.

If you're going to hire an outside party for such investigations, you really want them to be as impartial as possible. Or at least to appear so, since that's what will lend confidence to the results of their investigations. If they're obviously in management's corner, then everyone is going to assume that whatever they report is slanted that way. "He investigated himself and found that he did nothing wrong."
Or worse, assume that anything the firm finds will be used by management against employees as needed and thus keep employees from cooperating.

If they're obviously in management's corner, then everyone is going to assume that whatever they report is slanted that way. "He investigated himself and found that he did nothing wrong."

Can someone point me in the direction where it was stated by Paizo that the firm they hired is exclusively protecting Paizo assets? Because I read a lot of people assuming this notion.

thejeff wrote:

If they're obviously in management's corner, then everyone is going to assume that whatever they report is slanted that way. "He investigated himself and found that he did nothing wrong."

Can someone point me in the direction where it was stated by Paizo that the firm they hired is exclusively protecting Paizo assets? Because I read a lot of people assuming this notion.

Of course they haven't said that. No one would ever say that in this circumstance.

Some people are inferring it from the normal lawyer/client relationship, which this isn't quite. Or shouldn't be. The firm's apparent reputation and the way they advertise themselves don't inspire confidence either.

I do expect the firm to complete a thorough investigation. I do not expect it to be impartial. I do expect that they will advise Paizo how to behave moving forward. That behavior should both comply with laws and regulars but also help to create an environment where both employer and employee will be happy or at least satisfied with their treatment. I do not expect the firm to do anything that would help an employee with any possible future litigation. I do expect the firm will do what is necessary to mitigate any liability for Paizo. Meaning that if they were to discover/conclude that Paizo did something illegal, they are not going to make it public, but will advise Paizo how to avoid litigation, reduce any possible risk, and (again) advise them how to avoid it in the future. Any idea that the firm will be impartial or will do anything that would directly benefit the employees or UPW unless it is a byproduct of helping Paizo is at best wishful thinking.

EDIT—if Paizo had hired a firm to investigate their behavior six months ago before a series of very public accusations, they might be in a position to claim this is all impartial and with the hope of helping them improve their internal relationships. Now, it’s time to CYA

Employees who feel there was illegal behavior should hire representation. Short of that, unless some third party hires an investigative team to truly conduct an impartial investigation there won’t be one

Honestly, I expect much the same.

But that's different from saying that's the proper role for such an investigation or what a quality firm would have to do when hired to investigate allegations.
Nor, most importantly, is it the impression Paizo's formal statement seems to have been trying to give.

I agree. I’m not saying my expectations are what I want to see, just that’s it’s what I expect out of a business in the position they are in. At the end of the day, it’s the same people running Paizo now as when the issues occurred. To expect them to do the “right” thing now is a bit naive, IMO

The lack of understanding of business in this tread is appalling. First it's complaining that Paizo (a privately held company) doesn't follow the same mandatory financial reporting requirements that public companies do. Then it's complaints that they DARE hire a law firm that represents their interests. I can hate late stage capitalism as much as the next guy, but guess what, representing their best interests is what companies do. In fact, if Paizo were publicly held, failing to do so would be considered a violation of their fiduciary responsibility. Is there anything that you dozen that constantly complain can't complain about next?

So let's address the elephant in the room. Did Paizo "actually" hire a DIEB law firm.

Yes the did. Under the recommendation of a DEIB specialist they picked a law firm specialized in...*gasp* EMPLOYMENT LAW!

That's right, MH&H specializes in Employment law and provided the following statement(from their website), "While our employment attorneys are experienced and aggressive litigators, they also recognize that employers often prefer to avoid litigation if possible. Accordingly, the firm regularly counsels clients on how to avoid problems and minimize risk with respect to such issues as employee discipline, alleged harassment, the protection of trade secrets, reductions in force, severance and other matters." DEIB, being issues of harassment are inherently employment law issues, ergo they specialize in this work. Stating they do not is simply finding the next thing to complain about because the last thing to complain about fell on deaf ears.

Yes, arguments can be made that this law firm clearly has Paizo's best interests in mind (not the employees); however, in the case of finding and weeding out harassment the employer and employees needs align (the employer doesn't get sued, the employee has the harasser dealt with). Futhermore, as I said before - companies act in their best interest - that's the reason Paizo employees are founding a Union. If they...

Once more someone comes in and points out a paragraph from the employment law section that is AFTER the paragraph in the same section that says they aggressively defend clients when facing allegations of harassment. What they prioritize is clear, and it's not coming to amicable solution.

To be fair, when lawyers get involved even if the results are agreeable, they are rarely amicable

Kinda brings us back to the "was a law firm really the best way to go about this" question, then, doesn't it?

From a business perspective, fairly sure it was. From a community perspective, nothing really says “bad faith” like hiring a law firm after an incident/event. Just my experience after having had to hire an attorney more than half a dozen times for a variety of reasons

…they aggressively defend clients when facing allegations of harassment. What they prioritize is clear, and it's not coming to amicable solution.

Do you know if Paizo retained this law firm’s services in response to being served with notice of a lawsuit?

If they did, it does not seem to be public (at least not yet). I have been watching, but have not found any evidence of anyone seeking litigation against Paizo.

If they did, it does not seem to be public (at least not yet). I have been watching, but have not found any evidence of anyone seeking litigation against Paizo.

Exactly.

Cori Marie wrote:

…they aggressively defend clients when facing allegations of harassment. What they prioritize is clear, and it's not coming to amicable solution.

Do you know if Paizo retained this law firm’s services in response to being served with notice of a lawsuit?

The discussion is about what the firm specializes in. That's what the firm prioritizes talking about when talking about employment law. Again this is an Occam's Razor situation. They say they focus on something in the first paragraph. In the next they talk about other things they are willing to do. This isn't a firm that specializes in DEIB, and makes no mention of striving to protect the rights of diverse groups, instead makes sure you know they're willing to fight if a minority group decides they deserve to not be discriminated against.

The more I think on it, the less I care about the law firm. Unless someone files suit against Paizo for something criminal or even civil, the past is the past. I don't like it, but we cannot affect it. So, my eyes are looking forward and on the UPW. I want to see how the contract negotiations go and what benefits they can secure.

I fully expect the law firm to advise Paizo how to change their behavior to avoid future problems, but that will all occur behind closed doors with the executive team. However, the results of their negotiations with the UPW will be very public and we'll get some insight into what Paizo is going to look like moving forward. The very fact that this has become so public and there are a lot of very attentive eyes on Paizo that in an of itself means working conditions should improve. They cannot afford to even allow the appearance of mistreatment let alone an actual incident because it will be shouted from the mountaintop.

Its been nearly three weeks since the last posting by UPW. I wonder what is going on? They are small enough they should have been able to elect officers and determine their negotiation committee by now. Have they met as an entity to discuss and formalize their constitution? Have they submitted anything official to Paizo yet? Is there any progress towards negotiations at this time? Have they published a rough timeline of events? Yes, it takes some time to get everything done, but not too much. Momentum is an important thing in contract negotiations. The longer the process takes, the more momentum begins to dissipate.

Paizo still has an open posting for Human Resources Manager*. Given the scope of their duties, I suspect Paizo is putting off any negotiations with the union until that position is filled. Notice that the person is not part of the C-level Executive Team, but instead reports to the CFO

Under the direction of the CFO, job duties may include,

Maintains satisfactory labor-management relations through a variety of techniques such as quarterly meetings.

Participates in collective bargaining negotiations and ensures compliance with collective bargaining agreements.

Investigates problems such as working conditions, disciplinary actions, and employee and applicant appeals and grievances. Provides guidance and recommendations for problem resolution to departmental officials and individuals.

Oversees the development and implementation of employee relations activities, surveys and engagement/retention efforts.

Prepares and presents required and special reports related to employee and labor relations.

According to this blog post, *We’re still searching diligently for a candidate to fill the company’s Human Resources Manager position".

Jeff first announced that search on September 20, 2021.

Well, that's only part of the job description as it is currently posted.

For a non-C-suite position, they certainly have an immense amount of responsibilities.

And there's not even a snazzy title to go with it. "Manager"? Not even "director"? I'd say the job as described is actually 'Chief People Officer', reporting directly to the President.

It certainly doesn't hurt Lisa and her leadership team to look very carefully for exactly the right person. Union negotiations can't start until that person is hired. No need to rush.

There's the prospect that the 'ideal candidate' may be driven away by a potentially toxic workplace environment where they are expected to do EVERYTHING that the Leadership Team wants to pawn off onto them.

I also notice that the posting does not include relocation expenses, so unless someone is independently wealthy or has enough set aside it's going to be a hard sell for an exceptionally pricey area.

It’s threads like these that remind me why WotC and GW gave up on forums and this type of direct communication years ago. The majority of customers either don’t know or don’t care, and the minority that do care seem impossible to please. There’s just no winning here. I do give kudos to Paizo for at least continuing to try despite it all.

We chose MH&H upon the recommendation of a consultant[\b] with expertise in matters of DEIB. MH&H has a team of attorneys that [b]specialize in these issues, and we’re confident they’ll be able to provide an impartial analysis of the facts that we need to move forward with any corrective actions.

Bolded sections for clarity. I don’t see a statement that MH&H specializes in DEIB; only that the consultant did. And “these issues” appears to me to refer to internal investigations of corporate conduct.

Given the issues surrounding Paizo, and given that HR is (largely) industry agnostic, I wish them well finding a halfway decent candidate.

But given that likely any candidate able to handle this type of situation can find a position for at least twice or triple the salary ……. it seems unlikely.

Kinda brings us back to the "was a law firm really the best way to go about this" question, then, doesn't it?

According to my brother who is a Union rep Actually yes this is all very standard above the board stuff now admitadly I'm in the Uk so maybe it does work diffrently in the Us but I havent seen anything that indicates that is not the case.

Its been nearly three weeks since the last posting by UPW. I wonder what is going on?

If UPW also has a lawyer, they probably advised the to stop speaking publicly. That's usually the first thing lawyers do.

-Skeld

Leg o' Lamb wrote:

Cori Marie wrote:

…they aggressively defend clients when facing allegations of harassment. What they prioritize is clear, and it's not coming to amicable solution.

Do you know if Paizo retained this law firm’s services in response to being served with notice of a lawsuit?

The discussion is about what the firm specializes in. That's what the firm prioritizes talking about when talking about employment law. Again this is an Occam's Razor situation. They say they focus on something in the first paragraph. In the next they talk about other things they are willing to do. This isn't a firm that specializes in DEIB, and makes no mention of striving to protect the rights of diverse groups, instead makes sure you know they're willing to fight if a minority group decides they deserve to not be discriminated against.

You didn’t answer my question.

TwilightKnight wrote:

Its been nearly three weeks since the last posting by UPW. I wonder what is going on?

If UPW also has a lawyer, they probably advised the to stop speaking publicly. That's usually the first thing lawyers do.

-Skeld

From what I understand, negotiations have started. I expect no public announcements until either an impasse or agreement.

Either way I do hope the union "wins out" negotiations so to speak :/ I'm kinda currently in the "corporation leadership should stop getting away with bad crap" mood

Still wondering why people think lawyers are the right kind of professionals to help a company work with its employees on how to improve their overall management process.

Especially considering such an expense is a pretty high investment. What is the return here ?

Cori Marie wrote:

Leg o' Lamb wrote:

Cori Marie wrote:

…they aggressively defend clients when facing allegations of harassment. What they prioritize is clear, and it's not coming to amicable solution.

Do you know if Paizo retained this law firm’s services in response to being served with notice of a lawsuit?

The discussion is about what the firm specializes in. That's what the firm prioritizes talking about when talking about employment law. Again this is an Occam's Razor situation. They say they focus on something in the first paragraph. In the next they talk about other things they are willing to do. This isn't a firm that specializes in DEIB, and makes no mention of striving to protect the rights of diverse groups, instead makes sure you know they're willing to fight if a minority group decides they deserve to not be discriminated against.

You didn’t answer my question.

Your question was not relevant to the conversation at hand and was an attempt to derail the conversation.

Still wondering why people think lawyers are the right kind of professionals to help a company work with its employees on how to improve their overall management process.

Especially considering such an expense is a pretty high investment. What is the return here?

Going out on a limb but because a very large part of a lawyer's job, especially a cooperate law firm on retainer is to advise the company on laws and how to be in compliance with them?

I get that most of us only get involved with lawyers while being defended by one or being defended against one, I'd never trust anyone advice on the legality of things that didn't have a law degree personally, that would be like trusting someone's opinion on medical issues that was just spouting off on a forum or Facebook.

The Raven Black wrote:

Still wondering why people think lawyers are the right kind of professionals to help a company work with its employees on how to improve their overall management process.

Especially considering such an expense is a pretty high investment. What is the return here?

Going out on a limb but because a very large part of a lawyer's job, especially a cooperate law firm on retainer is to advise the company on laws and how to be in compliance with them?

I get that most of us only get involved with lawyers while being defended by one or being defended against one, I'd never trust anyone advice on the legality of things that didn't have a law degree personally, that would be like trusting someone's opinion on medical issues that was just spouting off on a forum or Facebook.

I agree 100%. But if the top management sees the current problems as a legality issue rather than one of corporate culture, it is both telling and troubling.

Writing policy is always a legal issue.

Writing policy is always a legal issue.

I think the legal aspects, while existing, are less central to the issue than how the whole system works, how it affects people, and what can be done to improve it in a sustainable profitable way.

All of which are not a lawyer's professional forte.

Hey, let's be fair, Raven. Maybe this law firm is really specialized in a relevant skillset. You know. Like DBEI.

Oh, wait. :P

Weird how so many people are demanding that we take this in good faith when the executive team won't even pop in here to clarify exactly how they were led to this particular law firm.

Weird how so many people are demanding that we take this in good faith when the executive team won't even pop in here to clarify exactly how they were led to this particular law firm.

Paizo said they located this firm at the recommendation of a consultant with expertise in DBEI.

Trying to argue that the issues they're working toward documenting and investigating aren't in the wheelhouse of a lawyer/attorney/law firm is like saying that milk products aren't a specialty of cattle.

It's almost like some of you have no idea what you're talking about and just want to continue to rattle your saber despite the current course of action being the only actual ethical or responsible way to handle internal investigations.

Trying to argue that the issues they're working toward documenting and investigating aren't in the wheelhouse of a lawyer/attorney/law firm is like saying that milk products aren't a specialty of cattle.

It's almost like some of you have no idea what you're talking about and just want to continue to rattle your saber despite the current course of action being the only actual ethical or responsible way to handle internal investigations.

Nah. Nothing like that.

It's more akin to when someone says they specialize in 'vigorously' protecting corporations from frivolous lawsuits and pesky complaints that some of us listen and others don't.

Edited to add:
It's also about experience. Those of us who have been burned by Paizo's third party relationships and see how Paizo has handled the customers in comparison to holding those third party entities accountable have some back ground knowledge about how Paizo handles these situations in reality and not just in hypothetical situations.

Cori Marie wrote:

Weird how so many people are demanding that we take this in good faith when the executive team won't even pop in here to clarify exactly how they were led to this particular law firm.

Paizo said they located this firm at the recommendation of a consultant with expertise in DBEI.

But again the website of the firm hired points in a different direction than expertise in DEIB. There's a vast difference in a firm that specializes in "aggressively defending" clients in cases of alleged discrimination and a firm that specializes in helping clients make DEIB focused policies. The law firm leads their site with the "aggressive defense." If it was the consultant that was specialized in DEIB and not the lawfirm, then it would be worth disclosing who the consultant was so that we could take this in better faith. The main thing with Paizo leadership is that they have severely damaged the trust of the fanbase over the last three months, so no, I don't see a lot of us just taking their word for it.

The more I think on it, the less I care about the law firm. Unless someone files suit against Paizo for something criminal or even civil, the past is the past. I don't like it, but we cannot affect it. So, my eyes are looking forward and on the UPW. I want to see how the contract negotiations go and what benefits they can secure.

I fully expect the law firm to advise Paizo how to change their behavior to avoid future problems, but that will all occur behind closed doors with the executive team. However, the results of their negotiations with the UPW will be very public and we'll get some insight into what Paizo is going to look like moving forward. The very fact that this has become so public and there are a lot of very attentive eyes on Paizo that in an of itself means working conditions should improve. They cannot afford to even allow the appearance of mistreatment let alone an actual incident because it will be shouted from the mountaintop.

Its been nearly three weeks since the last posting by UPW. I wonder what is going on? They are small enough they should have been able to elect officers and determine their negotiation committee by now. Have they met as an entity to discuss and formalize their constitution? Have they submitted anything official to Paizo yet? Is there any progress towards negotiations at this time? Have they published a rough timeline of events? Yes, it takes some time to get everything done, but not too much. Momentum is an important thing in contract negotiations. The longer the process takes, the more momentum begins to dissipate.

I think the above is the only realistic view we can take on the situation.

The leadership team has lost the trust of an important part of the community, and the Nov 15 update has done little to restore it. Anyway, as several have correctly noted, restoring trust will require action, not words. So, unless it's to announce the results of action, we shouldn't expect any further communication from leadership. If they did communicate, for example, by explaining more about the choice of this law firm, it wouldn't placate anyone, quite the contrary.

The other interesting element is that the UPW has not seen fit to react publicly to this. Which makes sense, since any negotiation is best conducted behind closed doors until the parties agree. So, I don't think we should expect any news any time soon.

Letting things simmer leads to quiet for some time. But it is far from helping resolve the issue.

It is as if Paizo (or at least the top management) had zero consideration for their community of fans.

Not that it surprises me. But they really underestimate their need for a strong community. After all, they cannot rely on a strong brand image and a strong community is the next best thing.

Still wondering why people think lawyers are the right kind of professionals to help a company work with its employees on how to improve their overall management process.

Its not necessarily, but given the claims that have been made there is certainly some basis for future litigation so it is very prudent for Paizo to hire a law firm to examine their exposure and start to mitigate it. If the same firm can also advise changes in corporate behavior to improve conditions for the employees, more the better. We have to remember that there are two related, but different issues at play: the ethical/moral one and the legal one. The former is the onus for much of the community outrage. The latter is unclear as we can only draw our conclusions on the commentary of individuals with self-interest*, hear-say, and innuendo.

I really couldn't care less if the firm they hired has all, some, or no experience specifically with DEIB. They are professional lawyers with an excellent reputation. I have no reason to question their credentials. At the end of the day, all I care about is that Paizo changes their corporate behavior so it is welcoming, fair and adequately compensatory environment where everyone is respected. I certainly don't trust Paizo to get there, but if I want to continue to enjoy the games they produce, I have to hope they finally make a change for the better. Otherwise, what the hell am I still doing here?

*I am not suggesting anyone is lying