RmDebArc_5
pathfinderI feel I ought to buy a bunch of Pathfinder/Starfinder stuff in order to support them.
JP Morgan Chase claimed a lien on all products stored in Diamond’s warehouse, including nearly $10 million in Paizo inventory. We cannot currently access this inventory, pending ongoing litigation.
Diamond’s exclusive contract prevented us from immediately moving to a new distributor, even after they stopped selling our books. A judge terminated that contract earlier this year, but Diamond has appealed, delaying resolution.
Let me take a second to say FUCK YOU to Diamond, they were a horrible predatory company.
Also fuck JP Morgan for claiming a lien on products that don't even belong to their debtor.
I think this is going to upend the gaming industry. Paizo is far from the only publisher affected by this. Some smaller companies used Diamond for all of their warehousing.
JPMorgan Fights Over Millions of Comic Books Locked in a Mississippi Warehouse
The Diamond drama has been costly for dozens of smaller, independent publishers who have been shut out from their stock since last year. Books and games could be sold to repay creditors if they lose — and JPMorgan is in front of Diamond’s repayment line because of its senior lien.
Vendors succeeded in convincing a judge to pause a sale of the inventory, saying any proceeds would get scooped up by JPMorgan. But the pause has also meant publishers large and small have been cut off from accessing their products. Diamond had more than 120 consignment vendors, including Hellboy publisher Dark Horse Comics and Titan Comics, whose titles include Star Wars and Doctor Who-based comics.
Penguin Random House imprint Boom! Studios said because its goods are being “held hostage” the publisher can’t send rewards to customers that supported one of its Kickstarter campaigns held weeks before Diamond’s bankruptcy. And at least some of the inventory has depreciated during its extended stay in the warehouse, with publishers in December saying some of the stock “loses value each and every day.”
In this case, appealing to stop the termination is probably driven by the insolvency process and the practitioners put in place to manage it. The contract will be seen as having potential value to any buyer, so they have to fight to keep it, regardless of the harm it does to the trapoed customers like Paizo.
FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU.....................
Employees may volunteer for layoffs; otherwise, the least‑senior employee in each impacted business unit is affected.
This is the dumbest way to choose who is fired. You keep people on based on their skills and value to the business going forward, not how long they've been in the company. It may align with seniority, but it shouldn't be the deciding factor.
Spoken like a true capitalist pig dog
No shitting on less senior staff just because of tradition (I.e. not taking responsibility for who you fire) is just the biggest possible asshole and coward move.
My guess is that they talked with their union, and both management and the union agreed that this would be the best, most respectful way to approach the layoffs, and has nothing to do with tradition.
You keep people on based on their skills and value to the business
Traditional, the least senior member of the team has the least experience and lowest skillset.
In reality that is not always the case though. I've had senior colleagues close to retirement age that did fuck-all, mostly resisted new ideas just because they liked it the old way, and were just waiting and wasting resources. If you keep these people and fire less senior (not necessarily junior/entry-level) people that were actually contributing, because of tradition, you're terrible at running your business.
In reality that is not always the case though.
Well, when you're CEO at Paizo, you can fire all the folks you think are slacking.
I'm not sure you read the article though, or know why the company's finances have gone sour
No I read it, and understand the predicament is caused by another company going bankrupt tying part of paizos stock in their warehouse. I still firmly believe firing less senior staff just because of tradition or some misguided honor code or whatever the hell it is, is complete bullshit.
This would have been previously agreed upon by the union contract, and they also said explicitly that the union would have a period of 20 days between selecting the business units where layoffs will happen and the actual layoffs to negotiate or provide alternatives. Paizo is a pro-union shop generally, and they're telling the union that layoffs are necessary and giving them a chance to make suggestions, while also following the terms of the union contract. Nothing shady about that.
It sounded to me like that was the system they worked out with the union, not necessarily that it was their first choice.
Maybe, that's not entirely clear to me. If that's the case then unions work differently than were I live. Here they negotiate what is a valid reason (in general, not on case-by-case situations) for termination, but not how they select the employees to terminate.
