This is an interesting place for this to come from, since bandcamp has really been a model for fairness in how artists can distribute their work and get paid. And it was sadly recently bought by Epic Games. I know nothing about Epic, but I know the game industry is far from the paragon of fair labor or fair content distribution. I wish them luck.
I wasn't aware of that, that deeply sucks. Bandcamp was the premiere place for me to buy DRM-free music and know my money was going to the artist at a transparent and fair price.
Unionising certainly seems especially important for these folks in light of that, I wish them all the very best.
In a way it's not that surprising that people drawn to work at a company that prioritizes fairness and compensation of labor in the music industry would also be amenable to forming a union to support those principles in their own labor.
As for Epic, we can't know until they speak to any specific reasoning, but unions don't necessarily imply active or anticipated poor treatment from the employer. It's pretty normal to want input into decisions that affect your working conditions, and unions are a legally-protected way to do that.
Good-ness can be a creeping thing. If you're excited to work for a company because it does an actual measurable good you probably are inclined to care about and advocate for the people around you.
Wish them luck in keeping that fairness to the artists and themselves going strong.
Worse, Tencent owns like 40% of Epic. Ironically would have been better if Bandcamp were acquired by Spotify, because then it would at least be owned by a public American company.
Hope this union will voice out any possible changes in Bandcamp's organisation which can hurt the common creator using the platform, even though I understand this is absolutely not the goal of creating one.
It will be a bleak day when BC hits the skids, as inevitably happens with any such service (unless not backed by a solid non-profit).
>even though I understand this is absolutely not the goal of creating one.
Not necessarily. All a union is is a way of collectively negotiating. Whether those terms include stipulations about the way creators are treated is up to the union's members.
Equality means each individual or group of people is given the same resources or opportunities. Equity allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome.
Equity can be okay, especially for a union. If a worker is sick and needs to take leave, a union will stand up to make sure their job is protected and they are compensated.
It's not "fair" and "equal" that someone who isn't working gets paid, but we need to take care of those who need help the most.
Equity had tradeoffs, equality has tradeoffs too. I think equity sounds like a more appropriate word for what a union does. Do you disagree?
There's the argument that the definition of equality has been twisted in order for equity to make sense.
10 years ago, if someone said kids should have the right to education equally, that always meant taking especially care of the poor ones. It didn't make sense to send a million dollars to a public school and another to a private - that would have considered very dumb.
So why did we twist the old term, introduce a new one and now get into semantic discussions instead of discussing rights and policy?
> We are committed to protecting the benefits we have, fixing historical disparities within and across departments, and promoting equitable conditions and economic stability for all of our colleagues
Organised labour has been a cancer on western civilisation. Both "equity" and "equality" are the expression of the underlying ideology of communism, where disparate outcomes are the result of imaginary malignant oppressive forces.
Equality and centralisation go hand in hand, as evidenced by every communist/socialist regime ever and the simple insight that suppressing human nature requires a suffocating (secret) state police that controls every aspect of its subject's lives, and they cannot co-exist with freedom and de-centralisation.
Yeah, it’s disheartening how labor unions seem to attract this ideological poison. Can’t a labor union just be about collective negotiation with the employer? -_-
Agree, equity at workplace could easily be highjacked for nepotism and tribalism since the criteria for “opportunities needed” is often subjective. IMO it’s best addressed via governmental and social programmes.
However, kudos to them if they’ve found a verifiable model that takes into account all historical injustices done to all people who are currently in the US labour force (including new immigrants from Africa, South Asia, South America, Central Asia, etc).
I’m pro union and I’m in the tech industry, but it is tone deaf when members of best paid and most well treated of industries speak as if they are oppressed. It kind of makes a mockery of the plight of the actual working class.
I bet the average non-manager wage at Bandcamp is substantially less than the big tech companies (especially given the mix of support staff). Many of them will be putting up with less money so they can work on something they actually believe in, and something that is one of the few tech success stories for musicians.
Can anyone involved describe, perhaps more frankly than the linked site, what drove this? I think of unions as typically being a response to some kind of abusive behavior from management, and am wondering what it is in this case. Most of the specifics described seem like stuff that is common in tech companies already (eg good pay and benefits) or stuff that sounds hard to enforce (eg input into company direction).
> We are committed to protecting the benefits we have, fixing historical disparities within and across departments, and promoting equitable conditions and economic stability for all of our colleagues. Whether it’s access to paid time off or the security of knowing our salaries will grow to meet economic necessity,
and
> When we use our voices, we do so because we care about the future of Bandcamp
These two "principles" are in tension with each other, so it will be interesting to see how selfless (do what's best for Bandcamp, even it means I need to lose my job or get paid less or get less time off etc. etc.) or how selfish this group will be.
> These two "principles" are in tension with each other, so it will be interesting to see how selfless (...) or how selfish this group will be.
These aren't really in tension with each other at all.
> (do what's best for Bandcamp, even it means I need to lose my job or get paid less or get less time off etc. etc.)
Unions aren't particularly afraid of layoffs. They'll fight reductions in force (RIF) and unnecessary layoffs but the main focus is guaranteeing that those individuals who are let go get compensated adequately and are provided a sufficient cushion to bounce back and find their next job.
When it comes to priorities, number 1 and 2 are equally that the company survives and benefits are not cut. If you have to let people go to meet those priorities that is fine but as soon as you start carving away at peoples' hard earned benefits, then all of a sudden any perceived bump in the road can be used to undermine the union and your benefits.
There will be times when those principles are in tension, yes, but they’re not contradictory. Bandcamp is created by workers. In most instances, what’s best for the workers as a collective is also what’s best for Bandcamp as a company.
As we've seen, capitalism has constantly driven itself in to crisis with those at the top always managing to protect themselves.
Maybe the rest of us will get a chance to insulate ourselves from our own incompetence rather than being simply crushed by management and laid off when their bad decisions have come home to roost.
If we're going to have crises, I'd rather they be of my own making, and I'd rather be looked out for.
"The music and tech industries are at a juncture, and it’s time that we as workers have a seat at the table to weigh in on the challenges and opportunities of this moment."
The rise of AI isn't causing a drop in tech jobs. Its the crazy over hiring that happened during 2020/2021, the lack of confidence in the economy, and rising interest rates.
The AI boom overall will most likely add more jobs to tech with everyone wanting to invest resources in it.
I bet people said the same about AI when Watson won Jeopardy. A more real catalyst could be the recent tech sector cooldown. The again, would someone dare unionizing when your position could be cut.
I wish non-union worker organizations would get more traction, not everything really works well in the labor union model. Eg. professional workers more traditionally organized into guilds yet I've never seen any movements toward organizing modern professions into guilds.
In their mission statement they make themselves sound quite heroic I have to say. And, unsurprisingly, there's the obligatory nod to intersectionality. I'd be interested to know how actually popular it is. The headline makes it sound like everybody has joined but perhaps not (yet).
I wonder if there can be more ephemeral union like entities that help the labor market. I'd love to see a community that helps people organize strikes and coordinate between multiple companies. Strikes are one of the strongest tools a union has, but you don't need a union to organize them. It feels like we have the technology to create ad-hoc unions and support general labor advocacy and direct action without the need for a formal union (not saying they are necessarily bad).
> Bandcamp has a clear path forward to future success, and it starts with our union having a seat at the table.
Not sure whether this is saying that Bandcamp has already established a cooperative stance with the union, or if it's saying that doing so should be Bandcamp's next step. I'm hoping that it's the first option, but otherwise this is definitely a positive development.
[+] [-] iworshipfaangs2|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jszymborski|3 years ago|reply
I wasn't aware of that, that deeply sucks. Bandcamp was the premiere place for me to buy DRM-free music and know my money was going to the artist at a transparent and fair price.
Unionising certainly seems especially important for these folks in light of that, I wish them all the very best.
[+] [-] Osmose|3 years ago|reply
As for Epic, we can't know until they speak to any specific reasoning, but unions don't necessarily imply active or anticipated poor treatment from the employer. It's pretty normal to want input into decisions that affect your working conditions, and unions are a legally-protected way to do that.
[+] [-] marricks|3 years ago|reply
Wish them luck in keeping that fairness to the artists and themselves going strong.
[+] [-] masklinn|3 years ago|reply
I feel like that’s a pretty smart change to make when you go from an apparently reachable and (I assume) fair leadership you knew, to… Epic Games.
[+] [-] stuff20230314|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] devmunchies|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ZoomZoomZoom|3 years ago|reply
It will be a bleak day when BC hits the skids, as inevitably happens with any such service (unless not backed by a solid non-profit).
[+] [-] solarkraft|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] omegaworks|3 years ago|reply
Not necessarily. All a union is is a way of collectively negotiating. Whether those terms include stipulations about the way creators are treated is up to the union's members.
[+] [-] andsoitis|3 years ago|reply
Important to note "equity" not "equality".
Equality means each individual or group of people is given the same resources or opportunities. Equity allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome.
Not my kind of place.
[+] [-] thecrims0nchin|3 years ago|reply
It's not "fair" and "equal" that someone who isn't working gets paid, but we need to take care of those who need help the most.
Equity had tradeoffs, equality has tradeoffs too. I think equity sounds like a more appropriate word for what a union does. Do you disagree?
[+] [-] wyre|3 years ago|reply
They mention equitable conditions and economic stability for their colleagues. Which, imo, is a main purpose of a Union.
[+] [-] pnt12|3 years ago|reply
10 years ago, if someone said kids should have the right to education equally, that always meant taking especially care of the poor ones. It didn't make sense to send a million dollars to a public school and another to a private - that would have considered very dumb.
So why did we twist the old term, introduce a new one and now get into semantic discussions instead of discussing rights and policy?
[+] [-] PaywallBuster|3 years ago|reply
> We are committed to protecting the benefits we have, fixing historical disparities within and across departments, and promoting equitable conditions and economic stability for all of our colleagues
[+] [-] nektro|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MrBuddyCasino|3 years ago|reply
Equality and centralisation go hand in hand, as evidenced by every communist/socialist regime ever and the simple insight that suppressing human nature requires a suffocating (secret) state police that controls every aspect of its subject's lives, and they cannot co-exist with freedom and de-centralisation.
[+] [-] camdenlock|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jitix|3 years ago|reply
However, kudos to them if they’ve found a verifiable model that takes into account all historical injustices done to all people who are currently in the US labour force (including new immigrants from Africa, South Asia, South America, Central Asia, etc).
[+] [-] LastTrain|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thylacine222|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CircleSpokes|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chasing|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] amrocha|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] muglug|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ineptech|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andsoitis|3 years ago|reply
and
> When we use our voices, we do so because we care about the future of Bandcamp
These two "principles" are in tension with each other, so it will be interesting to see how selfless (do what's best for Bandcamp, even it means I need to lose my job or get paid less or get less time off etc. etc.) or how selfish this group will be.
[+] [-] jacoblambda|3 years ago|reply
These aren't really in tension with each other at all.
> (do what's best for Bandcamp, even it means I need to lose my job or get paid less or get less time off etc. etc.)
Unions aren't particularly afraid of layoffs. They'll fight reductions in force (RIF) and unnecessary layoffs but the main focus is guaranteeing that those individuals who are let go get compensated adequately and are provided a sufficient cushion to bounce back and find their next job.
When it comes to priorities, number 1 and 2 are equally that the company survives and benefits are not cut. If you have to let people go to meet those priorities that is fine but as soon as you start carving away at peoples' hard earned benefits, then all of a sudden any perceived bump in the road can be used to undermine the union and your benefits.
[+] [-] zztop44|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] scaramanga|3 years ago|reply
As we've seen, capitalism has constantly driven itself in to crisis with those at the top always managing to protect themselves.
Maybe the rest of us will get a chance to insulate ourselves from our own incompetence rather than being simply crushed by management and laid off when their bad decisions have come home to roost.
If we're going to have crises, I'd rather they be of my own making, and I'd rather be looked out for.
[+] [-] pauldbourke|3 years ago|reply
Can someone explain this in plain english?
[+] [-] tarkin2|3 years ago|reply
No one cared about unions when they could easily find new jobs.
Now that's not so certain with the rise of AI. (Edit: and all these redundancies, yes)
[+] [-] warbeforepeace|3 years ago|reply
The AI boom overall will most likely add more jobs to tech with everyone wanting to invest resources in it.
[+] [-] f6v|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Apocryphon|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] roflyear|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eikenberry|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nmeofthestate|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] LesZedCB|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] web3-is-a-scam|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wootland|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ishvanl|3 years ago|reply
Not sure whether this is saying that Bandcamp has already established a cooperative stance with the union, or if it's saying that doing so should be Bandcamp's next step. I'm hoping that it's the first option, but otherwise this is definitely a positive development.
[+] [-] culi|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kundi|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] CombMatter33|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tomcam|3 years ago|reply