| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Buy a bag of baby potatoes and flush them down a public lavatory.
Mike W.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
…still consider buying Paizo products. I don’t think a union is the only way that Paizo employees could get what they are seeking. I would be happier if they could get what (a) they are seeking and (b) what they deserve without a union. However, if the union is the only way to get those things, then that’s what needs to happen.
But, for me to consider spending as much as I normally do (I’ll still buy some things, just far less), Paizo needs to fix its internal problems (and that includes an acknowledgement of transphobia and transphobic policies at Paizo), which are entirely of the management’s doing. I just happen to think that can be done without a union, but maybe we’re too far past that point already.
Whether or not Paizo willingly recognizes the union isn’t a factor for me (but, honestly, if the union is going to become a reality, Paizo should just recognize it and start the work of moving ahead.)
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just happen to think that can be done without a union, but maybe we’re too far past that point already.
The people who know a WHOLE lot more about the situation than we do think otherwise (starting a union is hardly something does on a whim). I trust their judgement that we're too far past that point and that this probably can't be done without a union.
|
|
The people who know a WHOLE lot more about the situation than we do think otherwise (starting a union is hardly something does on a whim). I trust their judgement that we're too far past that point and that this probably can't be done without a union.I just happen to think that can be done without a union, but maybe we’re too far past that point already.
I already said if a union is needed to get those things, then that’s what needs to happen.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
...carefully reconsider the very limited entertainment budget I have vs. the ability of a company to reconcile internal structural contradictions/deficiencies in regards the treatment of traditionally targeted groups in gaming.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
… continue to support Paizo and their products.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hopefully Paizo will address the harassment by the President to customers when he doxxed them or is that not harassment?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Company harassment? Really? REALLY??
Won't someone think of the poor corporation.
Last I checked corporations are made up of people.
And if my numbers are correct I think more than 50% of those people think a union should be the way to go.
Wonder what harassing a corporation actually means in this case (thinking emoji)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If no posts have been deleted then there has been no violence threatened against Paizo Inc or the employees or the management team (as terrible as they have been to customers). so saying that you are not going to support the company is now harassment?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Be sad.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Posts were deleted (including one of mine).
But let's take a step back here, gang. Frankly, them allowing union talk at all is surprising so let's keep operating in good faith until we have concrete reason not to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...express shock at a course of action that clearly will anger a significant portion of their customers.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, we are talking about a company whose president doxxed customers... twice.
Frankly, them allowing union talk at all is surprisingConsidering it is protected by law, I am not surprised at all
Not sure what you mean. It's Paizo's house, they make the rules about who can express what. Congress shall make no law abridging isn't relevant, if that's what you are implying.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, we are talking about a company whose president doxxed customers... twice.
He did. It was wrong. He apologized, if begrudgingly. Even so Jeff ≠ Paizo. I think that whatever board makes up Paizo, that they should look into replacing Jeff. Even if he has reformed, he is still a poisoned well.
On a related matter, Erik Mona goes a bit here as an Executive. About inclusion, diversity and unity of the Freelancers YouTube Paizo Panel
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that it happened twice is twice too many.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not sure what you mean
My focus was on the staff making statements in the forums or anywhere else that Paizo could exert a level of control and use that control to stifle their voices by deleting pro-union rhetoric. That commentary seems to be clearly protected by law. I am not saying that the rest of us keyboard knuckleheads are protected by any means, because we aren't. Though without looking at the underlying identity of anyone posting in the forums to verify they are not in fact an employee posting under an alias, it may be risky(?) to delete such commentary. Honestly, I am not sure if the freedom to organize protections extend to digital media without self-identification, but it seems to be be fairly clear that if a Paizo employee was to post pro-union commentary in the forums, up to and including recruitment efforts, it would be protected by the laws that prevent companies from directly interfering with unionization efforts. I do admit however that I am not a labor lawyer and there are nuances of labor law that are not well understood by the general public, even those of us who have been part of unions for years and have studied the governance of same, at least from a lawman's perspective.
If they can see commentary here, they don't have to waste time elsewhere plus remain quietly visible during the discussion.
Quietly, as there has been no official word as of yet.
|
Also not a labor lawyer, but since the forums are company property, I don't think there would be any protection. With very narrow exceptions, laws protecting union organizing don't require making company resources available to organizers.Not sure what you meanMy focus was on the staff making statements in the forums or anywhere else that Paizo could exert a level of control and use that control to stifle their voices by deleting pro-union rhetoric. That commentary seems to be clearly protected by law. I am not saying that the rest of us keyboard knuckleheads are protected by any means, because we aren't. Though without looking at the underlying identity of anyone posting in the forums to verify they are not in fact an employee posting under an alias, it may be risky(?) to delete such commentary. Honestly, I am not sure if the freedom to organize protections extend to digital media without self-identification, but it seems to be be fairly clear that if a Paizo employee was to post pro-union commentary in the forums, up to and including recruitment efforts, it would be protected by the laws that prevent companies from directly interfering with unionization efforts. I do admit however that I am not a labor lawyer and there are nuances of labor law that are not well understood by the general public, even those of us who have been part of unions for years and have studied the governance of same, at least from a lawman's perspective.
Exactly.
My own interpretation is that it would be illegal for an employee to post pro-union messages. It relates back to unions being unable to organize on company property. Think of the classic union trope of the organizer standing outside the factory gates handing out literature.
|
|
Also not a labor lawyer, but since the forums are company property, I don't think there would be any protection. With very narrow exceptions, laws protecting union organizing don't require making company resources available to organizers.Not sure what you meanMy focus was on the staff making statements in the forums or anywhere else that Paizo could exert a level of control and use that control to stifle their voices by deleting pro-union rhetoric. That commentary seems to be clearly protected by law. I am not saying that the rest of us keyboard knuckleheads are protected by any means, because we aren't. Though without looking at the underlying identity of anyone posting in the forums to verify they are not in fact an employee posting under an alias, it may be risky(?) to delete such commentary. Honestly, I am not sure if the freedom to organize protections extend to digital media without self-identification, but it seems to be be fairly clear that if a Paizo employee was to post pro-union commentary in the forums, up to and including recruitment efforts, it would be protected by the laws that prevent companies from directly interfering with unionization efforts. I do admit however that I am not a labor lawyer and there are nuances of labor law that are not well understood by the general public, even those of us who have been part of unions for years and have studied the governance of same, at least from a lawman's perspective.Exactly.
My own interpretation is that it would be illegal for an employee to post pro-union messages. It relates back to unions being unable to organize on company property. Think of the classic union trope of the organizer standing outside the factory gates handing out literature.
If they really wanted to be unpleasant people about this, even "liking" a post espousing unionization could be construed as organizing on company property.
I think that it depends on what the Union and the Organization decide upon in MOU's. We are not allowed to have Union meetings during school hours but after school we are allowed to have them and even use the school facilities for that.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The break room and the parking lot is also company resources and they cannot ban/block you from discussing union topics even organizing in those locations if they allow you to talk/discuss other non-work related topics. It doesn't take a minute of research to find non-work related conversations being conducted in the forums. There is an argument for it. Though again, I admit there is some very nuanced aspects of labor law and there are as many rulings in favor of the company as there are in favor of the workers so we are not going to settle any specific topic here
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... sigh in relief as some their demands are ludicrous and would kill a company that is, apparently, struggling.
|
|
What exactly is a ludicrous demand?
I believe they are talking about the Diversity Officer and I think the stated title also isn't doing any favors for folks who are less informed about what the intent of the proposed position actually is supposed to be.
As I understand it the idea is that they want to have a role in the company whose main responsibility is to do proofreading of things being produced to make sure no unconscious biases, harmful stereotypes, misrepresentations of various cultures, particularly offensive ideas, or insensitive portrayals of the peoples and places described in their products make it past the cutting room floor. Previously this kind of stuff was all handled as part of the normal course of things by dozen of various individuals in the authoring, proofreading, designing, and editing who are/were not actually the kind of experts who are trained to look for, curb, and eliminate it on TOP of all of their other regular work.
The job is to help unload that kind of stuff to someone whose main tasks focus on that instead of it being left up to the many different and untrained hands that any given piece of work passes through. The name/title of the job though is sure to raise more than a few eyebrows since it DOES honestly sound, at first, like they're demanding someone who oversees the hiring process to be sure they check all of the correct boxes when it comes to diversity in terms of who they employ, which would itself be (as I understand it) discrimination and unlawful...I do not believe for even a moment that is what the Union is pushing for.
As for my thoughts on the matter, I think the idea that they hire someone who can actually be that expert and be trusted to do that work from a place of authority and understanding is a great idea as it will help the team "worry less, work more" because it will take the stress of extra man-hours off the many contributors who create in-house works for publishing.
The hiring of a diversity officer.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well good news then friend, that's actually not one of the union's demands.
Ah good, glad to see that you named a demand that was not one of the demands of the union, but rather one of the demands made by the freelancers who have stopped work. Since the announcement of the union, that demand is gone, replaced with just recognizing the union to get the work stoppage ended.The hiring of a diversity officer.Which of their demands are “ludicrous”?...sigh in relief as some their demands are ludicrous and would kill a company that is, apparently, struggling.
You may want to check the last paragraph of the summary tab.