Seems more like the layoffs were about laying off the union members. Some CEOs perceive unions as cancer that has to be stopped from metastasis. In countries with stronger union protection laws this move would have been illegal
The executive class exploit the labour of the working class to benefit themselves. CEOs are in general opposed to collective action among the workers beneath them as any shift of power to the workers necessarily represents a loss of power for the executive.
It's probably illegal even in this case, as the US does have some union protection laws. But AFAICT enforcement is very lacking. The typical theory versus practice scenario where in practice they are not really effective.
It is theoretically illegal in the US. It's just plausible that Rentseekr have managed to either stay within the letter of the law while violating its spirit, or have produced enough plausible deniability to deter a legal challenge.
I wonder if a compromise between "French-style" and "American-style" would be the government taking over the layoff business. Need to cut headcount? Send the Department of Labor your payroll, and they'll tell you who to lay-off.
In the UK we have large unions that represent the individuals regardless where they work. I’ve not heard of company-specific unions here, although I’ve not looked for them either. Presumably companies must still recognise the unions.
Is it more common in the US to have company-specific unions? Are the large “independent” unions present at all?
I would assume that being larger and independent of an employer would make them more useful to their members.
Watching, casually, the news of Bandcamp’s and Moog’s unions over the last year, I couldn’t shake the feeling they wouldn’t work out as they’d be too small and likely their leadership inexperienced.
They weren't a company-specific union but a branch of OPEIU which looks like a general union for what letting agents call "professionals". To translate what I think was happening into British parlance: they were trying to negotiate employer recognition plus a collective bargaining arrangement.
I don't know if their leadership was good or not but American trades unionism is pretty different to ours. Employees typically don't have a huge amount of legal rights and so getting your workplace unionised is much more of a battle than here. On the other hand, America has de facto closed shops which are illegal pretty much everywhere in Europe.
I've worked for a company in the UK which had a "staff association", which was orthogonal to any part of the business (i.e., no conflicting interests) and as such operated as a de facto union -- in the employee assistance and collective bargaining senses -- for the company's employees. While it was recognised by HR, ultimately its functions were incorporated by HR into the company as a matter of policy and the independent association was disbanded, amongst much consternation from the loss of true impartiality.
In Austria, companies can have a Betriebsrat, the... company-council, I suppose. It's made up of employees and they have some legal powers like delaying someone getting fired, they should provide legal health and generally support employees in any kind of "altercation" with the employer/manager side etc.
It's not mandatory and not all companies have it. I once joked, at my first job: "We should create a Betriebsrat!", my boss took me to his office and explained to me for an hour how horrible those are for a company. Companies are absolutely not allowed to prevent employees from forming one and he was incredibly afraid of having one in his company...
Bandcamp has served me well for many years, but I don't use it anymore.
I would really like to see something like Castopod [0], but for artists! Spinning up a website where you showcase and sell your music should (and could!) be as easy as using Wordpress, either via a subscription or self-hosted – on your own domain.
Being plugged into the Fediverse makes it much easier to interact with fans and build a connection with your audience. It also makes it easy for people to share and talk about a track or and album. None of this requires that you tie yourself to yet another VC-funded startup and a closed garden.
Maybe someone is building something like this already, that I am not aware of?
If you're not a technical type you will not be bothered with setting up a website so that's why I think centralized services will always win.
It's similar to why people don't make their own websites but just post to social media.
I can imagine a 1-click solution that would set up everything. But bandcamp also has this functionality where labels can list their artists etc so I think it wouldn't work that well.
People need to stop spouting the idea that plugging into the fediverse is "easy." Maybe for you, maybe for me, but the vast chorus since Twitter started circling the drain says otherwise.
While I am a fan of federated social, it does not solve the problem for artists of replacing Bandcamp in any way, shape, or form. Bandcamp provided a storefront, payment handling, a distribution mechanism[1], and a potential audience + editorial that kept people coming back.
A Castopod for Musicians does none of this.
[1] Distribution of digital media, anyway. Distributing physical media was still an exercise left to the artist.
> Songtradr had no access to union membership information and we executed our employment offer process with full-consideration of all legal requirements
I know this won't be a popular thing to say, but I'd like to take a moment to thank Songtradr for consulting their lawyers and full-considering all legal requirements.
I believe them when they say they didn't legally acquire the union's documentation on membership. But they "carried out a comprehensive, full company evaluation that involved a detailed examination of each role" and seem pretty anal about their legal requirements. It's become expected that a prospective employee's social media accounts will be "evaluated" as part of the hiring process, so I imagine that was the case here, too. (Do you think any of the union members, the union-curious or even the anti-union weirdos ever mentioned the union on twitter?)
It goes on to explain that the "evaluation considered several factors such as product groups, job functions, employee tenure, performance evaluations[0]," and amusingly "the importance of roles for smooth business operations".
[0] performance evaluations were just one of several factors evaluated (comprehensively) in the detailed examination during the full company evaluation
> I know this won't be a popular thing to say, but I'd like to take a moment to thank Songtradr for consulting their lawyers and full-considering all legal requirements.
That's just the bare minimum they have to do to not get sued, is that really thankworthy?
They consulted their lawyers to be able to structure the buyout and the layoffs in such a way as to have plausible deniability for busting the union. Are you saying that it's to their credit to not have bulled forward with blatantly illegal union busting, but rather to have done enough diligence to possibly have stayed within the letter of the law?
Well, I did say I knew that wouldn't go down well here...
No, nobody should be thanking them for this.
We should be mocking them for making such a ridiculous, offensive and typical statement. As if anyone would expect them to not have the forethought to check where the line would be. As if a company protecting itself in the usual way is a reason for why no actual people should think ill of them. As if we should be thanking them.
Note that all they are saying is they weren't given access to membership information. The only way they could have had access is if it were given to them. When I say "legally acquire" I'm not ruling out other means of accessing that information directly, but the trick being performed here is mentioning this when it's irrelevant. They don't need access to membership information to know who is "on their side".
For another perspective, in Germany, if you are an elected representative of the workers (Personalrat) you have special protection against being laid off during your term. It's basically impossible (technically it is but it never happens and the requirements are very strict). There's pros and cons to this of course.
These are not the union bargainers though but rather the people who represent workers' interest in the company (they need to sign off on contract changes etc.). The bargainers are usually working for the union and not a company.
If I understood correctly, they are claiming that Epic effectively laid off everyone and sold some of the assets to SongTradr. SongTradr then made offers to half the previous employees. As these people were not previously SongTradr employees, SongTradr hasn't laid off anyone because of their union activities - they didn't employ them in the first place. At least I expect that's their argument.
Seems like the way the sale was set up, it was deliberately done to avoid any commitments to the Bandcamp workforce. No idea of the legality of this, but if I was a Bandcamp employee that was lucky enough to move to SongTradr, I'd be polishing my resume, because it doesn't bode well for them being a good employer.
If I understand the statement below right, 27 of the union members received offers
> “Of those laid off, 40 were in the union bargaining unit out of a total 67 members. None of the eight (8) democratically elected bargaining team members received a job offer.”
The probability of getting caught multiplied by the economic value of the consequences of getting caught is the only thing that matters in business in the US. If that number is zero or close enough to zero, then the activity is effectively legal.
My thoughts too. This is going to be tedious for those of us with larger collections… too bad there doesn’t seem to be a way to bulk download from my library.
This is just a guess from a UE game developer, but:
a) Epic makes Unreal Engine and runs an asset store that includes sounds and music. Why not include bandcamp and their huge catalog in that store?
b) Epic makes Fortnite, which has tons of music industry tie-ins through purchasable emotes, song tracks, and free in-game concerts. Bandcamp sounds like a great avenue to expand existing agreements to sell music through Fortnite.
c) Epic also acquired Harmonix, which is the original developer of Guitar Hero and various music game spinoffs. Who knows wtf they're doing with Harmonix, but Harmonix+Bandcamp seems like an easy business strategy. "Buy this album on bandcamp and get it in the new Harmonix game too", and vice versa.
Epic has their hands in an awful lot of pies these days, and their layoff statement seemed to be a straightforward admission that their eyes were bigger than their stomach.
And Bandcamp CEO Ethan Diamond, who agreed to the original acquisition. Looking back 2 years ago he was making the usual promises that nothing would happen to it, after all his parachute depended on saying so.
SongTradr recently acquired 7digital. They plan to put the Bandcamp catalogue in there, so my biggest fear is that they get rid of Bandcamp as a separate product and just force everyone to use 7digital.
That would make sense, considering they fired most writers (which is one of the things that was making Bandcamp special) and would confirm that everyone who said "The buyer doesn't understand what they are buying" were 100% correct. For them, Bandcamp was some sort of "itunes store for weird music".
I think the NLRB recently changed their rules and any interference or law breaking automatically confirms the union.
The problem then becomes bargaining—companies (see Starbucks) can drag out negotiations indefinitely. This part of labor law probably can’t be changed without congress unfortunately. The PRO Act included rules which forced companies to negotiate within a certain time window but it didn’t pass.
I'm the most pro-union person you'll ever meet, but this is so cringe. Strikes work when you can shut down a factory and physically keep the scabs from getting in with a picket line. Not so much when you're a remote tech worker who can be instantly replaced by an equally competent third-worlder for $2/hr. You gotta know where your bargaining power lies, or you're just being an idiot.
> I'm the most pro-union person you'll ever meet, but this is so cringe. Strikes work when you can shut down a factory and physically keep the scabs from getting in with a picket line. Not so much when you're a remote tech worker who can be instantly replaced by an equally competent third-worlder for $2/hr. You gotta know where your bargaining power lies, or you're just being an idiot.
You can't call yourself "the most pro-union person you'll ever meet" if your opinion is equivalent to "unions are only appropriate for those who already have structural power".
The US has an ultra-employer-slanted legal system, where a workplace changing hands can have the new owner firing all employees then deciding whom to re-hire, rather than needing cause for any termination, and being required to act with minimal good faith, to hold a session hearing with candidates for termination to allow them to make their case for keeping them in employ etc.
But, hey songtradr, here some ideas for Bandcamp's new name!
Does anyone know the size of Bandcamp's catalogue. I'm just wondering about hardware costs (storage) would be for prospective competitors who intend to swoop up Bandcamp's customers (artists and listeners). Audio is a lot less demanding than video, and since there's no DRM it's basically just static files with some access control.
Another factor to consider is that BC makes files available to download in a variety of formats (MP3, FLAC, AAC, etc.) Presumably they're transcoding on the fly from a lossless format and not storing all those extra files...
I get the impression there's an attitude from the newer generation of tech workers--the ones that are more progressive and less libertarian--about their right to unionize. They were so interested in union politics and the reading about the glory days of unions that they overlooked their current situation.
You don't sell a company to break up a union and lay off half the staff. Bandcamp wasn't a good fit any more, and it was over-staffed. Unions worked during their heyday because there was a labor shortage, so they had leverage. Bandcamp employees didn't have that leverage.
They (Epic) literally bought Bandcamp as fuel against their ongoing litigation vs Apple. They've outright admitted so [1]. This wasn't about Bandcamp being a 'good fit' or 'overstaffing'. This was because now that the litigation was over, they had no more use for the bludgeon they bought.
By most accounts I've seen, pre-epic bandcamp was not struggling at their size. Perhaps this is uninformed, but it will be interesting to see what information comes to light after NDAs expire.
I suspect Epic had plans for bandcamp, for various reasons they had a change of heart... and re-sold partially out of a combination of frustration and the shifting economy. This wouldn't be the first time a somewhat purpose-driven company had a post-acquisition fallout, and it won't be the last.
The hack is knowing that this will lead many other Bandcamp staff who want a union to look for new jobs. Bandcamp bust their union and do a cheap layoff at the same time.
For some context, it’s important to understand the degree to which Bandcamp’s success and ubiquity with independent music is built on a people-first, anti-corporate culture. Bandcamp is an obsession for a very large and engaged segment of the independent music world. A good friend, a professional musician, told me “I feel like I’m watching my childhood home burn to the ground.” This is far from a unique sentiment. People are mourning. I’m building an alternative[0] to Bandcamp, announced the day after Epic’s sale, and I am receiving a disruptive volume of messages from people looking to sign up and get involved in response to this. It’s not just users, it’s bands and labels and people who’ve contributed to Bandcamp over the years. Many of these are people with large voices and followings and businesses of their own.
This has been building for some time. The Epic sale set it in motion. The formation of the union was a signal to supporters that the staff distrusted the new owners and were taking steps to protect the company’s mission. The Songtradr sale escalated it. The perception of targeting union members is being interpreted as confirmation of all fears.
So while the tech industry has dealt with high-profile layoffs for the past year, I don’t think most if any of those companies have the cultural significance of Bandcamp or have a for-the-people ethos baked into their DNA. This is much more significant than layoffs after an acquisition. The perception of targeting union members could do irreparable harm to a brand built on honesty, support, and integrity.
This just feels like an ad. Bandcamp hasn't changed one bit since the sale to Epic. 99% of users don't know anything about Bandcamp's operations let alone that the staff planned to unionise. Bandcamp has been around for a long time. People have libraries. Artists have their entire discogs on it. Niether of those camps are moving unless something fundamentally changes to force their hand - which hasn't happened yet.
Is that contact form the best way to get in touch with you about getting involved?As a programmer and amateur DJ it breaks my heart to see the best website for buying tracks go down in flames.
I was wondering why noone had started a bandcamp alternative as I read this article. Bandcamp isn't a complicated product. It's the people and content that define its value.
If trust and goodwill are eroded, then the platform loses its value.
Glad to see an independent initiative in this space.
Someone makes something awesome that people love, it gets bought by a giant company, the giant company extracts as much value as possible and discards the corpse, someone makes an awesome new version. This is the software lifecycle.
Stupid question: why weren't the employees unionized before epic took over? From what I'm reading it seems like it would've been easy considering the corporate culture it had. I know, hindsight and all, but I guess my point is that I'm wondering if Epic did something that led to unionizing. It sucks since it looks like bandcamp was doing pretty ok and didn't need to be sold around.
If you want to build trust in this industry, I think you'll need to do better than cloning an existing product and slapping a "for the people" label on it. Content creators of all types are exhausted by the endless nickel and diming, so at this point, transparency is going to be the only way to attract a mass audience.
When everyone knows hosting costs equate to a fraction of a penny per sale, you'll need to strongly justify that 5% fee. You'll need to pay ~3.5% in PRO fees just to have public playback on the site -- even if there's not a single cover song among the uploaded albums -- so let both the artist and fan know where that money is going and why.
A huge problem with the "pay what you want" model is that the host and PRO still get to middleman what is fundamentally a tip from the fan. Find a way to implement a secondary form for tips that go straight to an account the artist owns, without making the purchase form more complicated, and you'll have an attractive and unique feature.
However, Fourthwall already has a polished version of your product roadmap and charges less for it, albeit without the music-specific theming, and even Patreon recently implemented direct digital sales. You're facing an uphill battle against entrenched and VC-backed products.
If you succeed in making it a Bandcamp alternative please make the tos and privacy terms extremely brief and transparent, for me (and I imagine many other privacy-minded people) that's one of the most important factors in deciding to try and trust a service these days
> For some context, it’s important to understand the degree to which Bandcamp’s success and ubiquity with independent music is built on a people-first, anti-corporate culture.
That is why I'm wondering if the new owner doesn't care about what makes basecamp work and just wants to use all of basecamp data for its "AI" business. Otherwise you're left with another owner who doesn't understand what they bought.
Thank you for making this a public benefit company. We need more companies to follow this route to protect against future enshittification. But with public benefit corporations, I’ve been wondering, is it possible at some point for the board vote to change to some other type of entity, like a C-corp? And what rules are in place to enforce that it is working in the public benefit?
Cory Doctorow talks about using Ulysses pacts like this to protect against future bad behavior, but I’m wondering, what is the strength of the pact?
In any case anyone wants to read about a EU perspective:
Over here in Germany the "trick" of doing an asset deal to get rid of employees (and any benefits they may have earned over time) is very risky, and can fire back massively.
It's not a black-and-white thing, but the labor courts have check-lists:
- Are people at the new company work on the same tasks as they did in the old one?
- Are people at the new company still using the old office space, and are seated where they were before?
- Are salaries or work contracts near-identical?
- ... and then some.
If you get a couple of "yes" here, you now are in a world of pain: In this case the whole transaction is regarded as a (not sure if that is a good translation of the German word "verdeckter Betriebsübergang") "hidden transfer of business", and you would suddenly automatically get ALL employees and benefits back, with no easy option to fire anyone afterwards. If someone had been at the previous company for 10 years, it legally would now be also have been employed for 10 years with the new company.
This is why the asset deal trick to get rid of employees is only done by very uneducated managers over here :)
Super informative. I must reveal my bias toward a free market here, but I also remember keenly what it was like to be a powerless employee.
Germany appears to have by far the strongest economy in the EU but with higher unemployment than the USA. I’d love to hear your thoughts on the balance there vs the USA? I can imagine compelling arguments for each approach.
In your analogy, why did this successful, profitable company (Bandcamp) need to be acquired?
Following that, why did Epic choose to get rid of a successful, profitable, independent sub-company that would have helped keep Epic profitable?
It sure looks like Bandcamp was already failing and unprofitable, and selling out to Epic was a desperate attempt to keep the company alive. Songtradr seems to agree with Epic that bandcamp is not solvent and cannot continue operating as it was.
This sucks because Bandcamp is great, but it's not hard to see the writing on the wall. All Epic did here is inject cash into bandcamp's corpse to keep it alive for an extra year or two, before it had to cut the IV drip.
I find it so weird to read these stories on how Americans cope with unionizing. In the Netherlands where I live it is very common and normal to be member of a union. Most branches have a union, IT sector is a "free sector" and does not have a union. My wife works as a teacher and she is member of a union.
IT here is also a priviledged sector, in that it's in most cases an employee's market - few people in IT have their job or the wages at risk, layoffs are rare, etc.
There are some unions for IT personnel, but they aren't very popular or well-known.
There's also the mandatory employee representation (called the Ondernemingsraad in Dutch); every company over 50 employees is required to have one of those. But again, this is rare in IT companies. In part because a few companies I've worked for, IT providers / consultancies, use the 'cell division' tactic (https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celfilosofie), where a company is divided up into smaller cells of at most 50 people, either by geographic location or specialism, each operating as their own company (on paper).
On the surface this is clever because it means the colleagues will be able to know everyone, or a department is specialized, or a company's finances is more secure. But underneath, it means no cell will ever become large enough to require employee representation. On the surface there is no need because everyone is paid and treated well, but at the same time, another one of these was sold to investors and has shifted course, buying up companies across europe now. I think employees would like to have a say in that, but that's not good for the owners / shareholders.
Yeah American companies go scorched earth against any union activity. The Starbucks in my city unionized and they immediately shut it down and fired everyone. And look how long the writers strike went on- how much money did that cost them versus the cost of just negotiating a little
Honestly I feel like it just must be egotistical powerful men who don’t want to lose control over those they see as beneath them, to the point that they’re willing to do the wrong thing from a business point of view.
Unions in America are much more militant and much less cooperative, much more likely to go to zero-sum negotiations than in Europe. They also are far far far more corrupt than unions in Europe.
Same in Germany but e.g. I work in a company that does mechanical engineering, so I can join the IG Metall. If I'd work for the public I could join Verdi etc. However, I believe there is also no specific Union for "pure" IT.
IT doesn’t traditionally gafe unions in the USA. Teachers are unionized here and are one of the most powerful political forces. They are also a likely reason why so many people here don’t like unions.
Not every employee is a good negotiator. And poor negotiators get underpaid in a market system even when they are great at their job. Unions fix this market inefficiency by having good negotiators act on their behalf.
We've been developing a curated alternative to Bandcamp for electronic music, which also replaces Soundclound and Mixcloud. It's called Formaviva (https://formaviva.com)
We are a bootstrapped team of musicians, loyal to independent music so we want out platform to stay that way.
> Unless otherwise stated, Samorastnik d.o.o. and/or its licensors own the intellectual property rights for all material on Formaviva.
Where's the "otherwise" for people that post music on your platform?
I was actually searching for your legal status (which kind of legal persona you are and in which jurisdiction). I couldn't find a thing on your website.
Here's the bit of the article they put in the middle after all the outrage:
> "On Monday, October 16, 2023 over half of Bandcamp was laid off as a result of Epic Games’ divestiture to Songtradr,” Bandcamp United said in a statement. “Of those laid off, 40 were in the union bargaining unit out of a total 67 members. None of the eight (8) democratically elected bargaining team members received a job offer."
I can't be bothered to work out the odds on that happening randomly but by intuition is that it's not super unlikely. Especially when you consider that the kinds of people who have time to lead a union are likely to be the kinds of people without important jobs.
> the kinds of people who have time to lead a union are likely to be the kinds of people without important jobs
... Wow. That's something you'd never hear in Europe (outside of a golf course, at least).
For the record, leading a union is an important job, and all that's required to want the job is a sense of fairness.
In reality, many people balance multiple responsibilities, including leadership roles in unions alongside demanding jobs.
The statement undermines the significance and complexity of leading a union. Union leadership often requires strategic thinking, negotiation skills, and a strong understanding of labor laws, which many would consider important skills.
People with high-responsibility jobs may still prioritize union involvement because they see it as a vital activity that aligns with their career or personal values.
Stereotyping people who are involved in union leadership as having anunimportant job is a damn near uniquely American notion. It's the result of decades of mind-warping propaganda.
Some comments were deferred for faster rendering.
siva7|2 years ago
qwery|2 years ago
The executive class exploit the labour of the working class to benefit themselves. CEOs are in general opposed to collective action among the workers beneath them as any shift of power to the workers necessarily represents a loss of power for the executive.
Draiken|2 years ago
NoGravitas|2 years ago
axus|2 years ago
ilyt|2 years ago
the_other|2 years ago
Is it more common in the US to have company-specific unions? Are the large “independent” unions present at all?
I would assume that being larger and independent of an employer would make them more useful to their members.
Watching, casually, the news of Bandcamp’s and Moog’s unions over the last year, I couldn’t shake the feeling they wouldn’t work out as they’d be too small and likely their leadership inexperienced.
calpaterson|2 years ago
I don't know if their leadership was good or not but American trades unionism is pretty different to ours. Employees typically don't have a huge amount of legal rights and so getting your workplace unionised is much more of a battle than here. On the other hand, America has de facto closed shops which are illegal pretty much everywhere in Europe.
Xophmeister|2 years ago
Traubenfuchs|2 years ago
It's not mandatory and not all companies have it. I once joked, at my first job: "We should create a Betriebsrat!", my boss took me to his office and explained to me for an hour how horrible those are for a company. Companies are absolutely not allowed to prevent employees from forming one and he was incredibly afraid of having one in his company...
unknown|2 years ago
[deleted]
rsolva|2 years ago
I would really like to see something like Castopod [0], but for artists! Spinning up a website where you showcase and sell your music should (and could!) be as easy as using Wordpress, either via a subscription or self-hosted – on your own domain.
Being plugged into the Fediverse makes it much easier to interact with fans and build a connection with your audience. It also makes it easy for people to share and talk about a track or and album. None of this requires that you tie yourself to yet another VC-funded startup and a closed garden.
Maybe someone is building something like this already, that I am not aware of?
[0]: https://castopod.org/
comatory|2 years ago
I can imagine a 1-click solution that would set up everything. But bandcamp also has this functionality where labels can list their artists etc so I think it wouldn't work that well.
unknown|2 years ago
[deleted]
jzb|2 years ago
While I am a fan of federated social, it does not solve the problem for artists of replacing Bandcamp in any way, shape, or form. Bandcamp provided a storefront, payment handling, a distribution mechanism[1], and a potential audience + editorial that kept people coming back.
A Castopod for Musicians does none of this.
[1] Distribution of digital media, anyway. Distributing physical media was still an exercise left to the artist.
qwery|2 years ago
I know this won't be a popular thing to say, but I'd like to take a moment to thank Songtradr for consulting their lawyers and full-considering all legal requirements.
I believe them when they say they didn't legally acquire the union's documentation on membership. But they "carried out a comprehensive, full company evaluation that involved a detailed examination of each role" and seem pretty anal about their legal requirements. It's become expected that a prospective employee's social media accounts will be "evaluated" as part of the hiring process, so I imagine that was the case here, too. (Do you think any of the union members, the union-curious or even the anti-union weirdos ever mentioned the union on twitter?)
It goes on to explain that the "evaluation considered several factors such as product groups, job functions, employee tenure, performance evaluations[0]," and amusingly "the importance of roles for smooth business operations".
[0] performance evaluations were just one of several factors evaluated (comprehensively) in the detailed examination during the full company evaluation
creshal|2 years ago
That's just the bare minimum they have to do to not get sued, is that really thankworthy?
jzb|2 years ago
There's nothing here to be thankful for, not a damn thing.
NoGravitas|2 years ago
qwery|2 years ago
Well, I did say I knew that wouldn't go down well here...
No, nobody should be thanking them for this.
We should be mocking them for making such a ridiculous, offensive and typical statement. As if anyone would expect them to not have the forethought to check where the line would be. As if a company protecting itself in the usual way is a reason for why no actual people should think ill of them. As if we should be thanking them.
Note that all they are saying is they weren't given access to membership information. The only way they could have had access is if it were given to them. When I say "legally acquire" I'm not ruling out other means of accessing that information directly, but the trick being performed here is mentioning this when it's irrelevant. They don't need access to membership information to know who is "on their side".
micromacrofoot|2 years ago
dancemethis|2 years ago
ilyt|2 years ago
It's disgusting
kriro|2 years ago
These are not the union bargainers though but rather the people who represent workers' interest in the company (they need to sign off on contract changes etc.). The bargainers are usually working for the union and not a company.
Animats|2 years ago
[1] https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/di...
mhandley|2 years ago
Seems like the way the sale was set up, it was deliberately done to avoid any commitments to the Bandcamp workforce. No idea of the legality of this, but if I was a Bandcamp employee that was lucky enough to move to SongTradr, I'd be polishing my resume, because it doesn't bode well for them being a good employer.
0xpgm|2 years ago
> “Of those laid off, 40 were in the union bargaining unit out of a total 67 members. None of the eight (8) democratically elected bargaining team members received a job offer.”
barryrandall|2 years ago
hipadev23|2 years ago
darthrupert|2 years ago
philipwhiuk|2 years ago
The company is being acquired and then they are choosing not to issue a bunch of people contracts.
2d8a875f-39a2-4|2 years ago
jcpst|2 years ago
tadhgpearson|2 years ago
FireInsight|2 years ago
levifig|2 years ago
sn0wleppard|2 years ago
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/04/epic-games-drags-ban...
sprgit8|2 years ago
a) Epic makes Unreal Engine and runs an asset store that includes sounds and music. Why not include bandcamp and their huge catalog in that store?
b) Epic makes Fortnite, which has tons of music industry tie-ins through purchasable emotes, song tracks, and free in-game concerts. Bandcamp sounds like a great avenue to expand existing agreements to sell music through Fortnite.
c) Epic also acquired Harmonix, which is the original developer of Guitar Hero and various music game spinoffs. Who knows wtf they're doing with Harmonix, but Harmonix+Bandcamp seems like an easy business strategy. "Buy this album on bandcamp and get it in the new Harmonix game too", and vice versa.
Epic has their hands in an awful lot of pies these days, and their layoff statement seemed to be a straightforward admission that their eyes were bigger than their stomach.
thrillgore|2 years ago
Bandcamp is heading for the dead pool, and it fucking sucks because it's my go to online music store. God damnit Epic.
politelemon|2 years ago
d--b|2 years ago
Scotch3297|2 years ago
ZiiS|2 years ago
derelicta|2 years ago
Kiro|2 years ago
jszymborski|2 years ago
nielsbot|2 years ago
The problem then becomes bargaining—companies (see Starbucks) can drag out negotiations indefinitely. This part of labor law probably can’t be changed without congress unfortunately. The PRO Act included rules which forced companies to negotiate within a certain time window but it didn’t pass.
timeon|2 years ago
TaylorAlexander|2 years ago
unknown|2 years ago
[deleted]
ramesh31|2 years ago
chimeracoder|2 years ago
You can't call yourself "the most pro-union person you'll ever meet" if your opinion is equivalent to "unions are only appropriate for those who already have structural power".
SixDouble5321|2 years ago
And why hire people in silicon Valley where they cost double what they would pretty much anywhere else?
einpoklum|2 years ago
But, hey songtradr, here some ideas for Bandcamp's new name!
* Banned Camp
* Boot Camp
* Sudden Death Camp
* Union Busting Camp
* Camp Greed
etc.
datenwolf|2 years ago
crtasm|2 years ago
https://bandcamp.com/api/mobile/24/serverinfo?platform=andro...
brian626|2 years ago
ChrisArchitect|2 years ago
Earlier: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37935333
Tao3300|2 years ago
dehrmann|2 years ago
You don't sell a company to break up a union and lay off half the staff. Bandcamp wasn't a good fit any more, and it was over-staffed. Unions worked during their heyday because there was a labor shortage, so they had leverage. Bandcamp employees didn't have that leverage.
afterburner|2 years ago
Besides, unemployment is low, so I'm not sure why you're talking about there not being a labour shortage.
fzeroracer|2 years ago
[1] https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/04/epic-games-drags-ban...
micromacrofoot|2 years ago
I suspect Epic had plans for bandcamp, for various reasons they had a change of heart... and re-sold partially out of a combination of frustration and the shifting economy. This wouldn't be the first time a somewhat purpose-driven company had a post-acquisition fallout, and it won't be the last.
gslin|2 years ago
atleastoptimal|2 years ago
onion2k|2 years ago
manxman|2 years ago
crabmusket|2 years ago
garba_dlm|2 years ago
the only 'business' left for people in that 'industry' is to charge rent which is taxes
unknown|2 years ago
[deleted]
dschuetz|2 years ago
sickcodebruh|2 years ago
This has been building for some time. The Epic sale set it in motion. The formation of the union was a signal to supporters that the staff distrusted the new owners and were taking steps to protect the company’s mission. The Songtradr sale escalated it. The perception of targeting union members is being interpreted as confirmation of all fears.
So while the tech industry has dealt with high-profile layoffs for the past year, I don’t think most if any of those companies have the cultural significance of Bandcamp or have a for-the-people ethos baked into their DNA. This is much more significant than layoffs after an acquisition. The perception of targeting union members could do irreparable harm to a brand built on honesty, support, and integrity.
[0] - https://ampwall.com
basisword|2 years ago
cbreezyyall|2 years ago
sspiff|2 years ago
If trust and goodwill are eroded, then the platform loses its value.
Glad to see an independent initiative in this space.
yoyohello13|2 years ago
mardifoufs|2 years ago
bryans|2 years ago
When everyone knows hosting costs equate to a fraction of a penny per sale, you'll need to strongly justify that 5% fee. You'll need to pay ~3.5% in PRO fees just to have public playback on the site -- even if there's not a single cover song among the uploaded albums -- so let both the artist and fan know where that money is going and why.
A huge problem with the "pay what you want" model is that the host and PRO still get to middleman what is fundamentally a tip from the fan. Find a way to implement a secondary form for tips that go straight to an account the artist owns, without making the purchase form more complicated, and you'll have an attractive and unique feature.
However, Fourthwall already has a polished version of your product roadmap and charges less for it, albeit without the music-specific theming, and even Patreon recently implemented direct digital sales. You're facing an uphill battle against entrenched and VC-backed products.
g-b-r|2 years ago
wnevets|2 years ago
That is why I'm wondering if the new owner doesn't care about what makes basecamp work and just wants to use all of basecamp data for its "AI" business. Otherwise you're left with another owner who doesn't understand what they bought.
https://www.songtradr.com/blog/posts/ai-metadata-better-sear...
throwaway290|2 years ago
What is the difference of your service with eg. Deezer? Someone in another thread mentioned it offers lossless DRM-free downloads these days.
dimal|2 years ago
Cory Doctorow talks about using Ulysses pacts like this to protect against future bad behavior, but I’m wondering, what is the strength of the pact?
unknown|2 years ago
[deleted]
rgrieselhuber|2 years ago
unknown|2 years ago
[deleted]
Dah00n|2 years ago
Fischgericht|2 years ago
Over here in Germany the "trick" of doing an asset deal to get rid of employees (and any benefits they may have earned over time) is very risky, and can fire back massively.
It's not a black-and-white thing, but the labor courts have check-lists:
- Are people at the new company work on the same tasks as they did in the old one? - Are people at the new company still using the old office space, and are seated where they were before? - Are salaries or work contracts near-identical? - ... and then some.
If you get a couple of "yes" here, you now are in a world of pain: In this case the whole transaction is regarded as a (not sure if that is a good translation of the German word "verdeckter Betriebsübergang") "hidden transfer of business", and you would suddenly automatically get ALL employees and benefits back, with no easy option to fire anyone afterwards. If someone had been at the previous company for 10 years, it legally would now be also have been employed for 10 years with the new company.
This is why the asset deal trick to get rid of employees is only done by very uneducated managers over here :)
tomcam|2 years ago
Germany appears to have by far the strongest economy in the EU but with higher unemployment than the USA. I’d love to hear your thoughts on the balance there vs the USA? I can imagine compelling arguments for each approach.
unknown|2 years ago
[deleted]
ilyt|2 years ago
sprgit8|2 years ago
Following that, why did Epic choose to get rid of a successful, profitable, independent sub-company that would have helped keep Epic profitable?
It sure looks like Bandcamp was already failing and unprofitable, and selling out to Epic was a desperate attempt to keep the company alive. Songtradr seems to agree with Epic that bandcamp is not solvent and cannot continue operating as it was.
This sucks because Bandcamp is great, but it's not hard to see the writing on the wall. All Epic did here is inject cash into bandcamp's corpse to keep it alive for an extra year or two, before it had to cut the IV drip.
jjulius|2 years ago
Epic basically bought Bandcamp, hung out with it for a bit, then sold it to Songtradr who promptly shot it in the head as soon as Epic turned around.
savanaly|2 years ago
ivolimmen|2 years ago
nabla9|2 years ago
In Europe sectoral unions and sectoral bargaining is the norm. In the US federal law does not allow that. Each firm must unionize individually.
In the US unions and enterprices play zero sum game against each other. If the firm unionizes, the firm loses relative to non-unionized competition.
Example: the current UAW (United Auto Workers) dispute in the US. If UAW wins, unionized enterprises lose to Tesla.
Cthulhu_|2 years ago
There are some unions for IT personnel, but they aren't very popular or well-known.
There's also the mandatory employee representation (called the Ondernemingsraad in Dutch); every company over 50 employees is required to have one of those. But again, this is rare in IT companies. In part because a few companies I've worked for, IT providers / consultancies, use the 'cell division' tactic (https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celfilosofie), where a company is divided up into smaller cells of at most 50 people, either by geographic location or specialism, each operating as their own company (on paper).
On the surface this is clever because it means the colleagues will be able to know everyone, or a department is specialized, or a company's finances is more secure. But underneath, it means no cell will ever become large enough to require employee representation. On the surface there is no need because everyone is paid and treated well, but at the same time, another one of these was sold to investors and has shifted course, buying up companies across europe now. I think employees would like to have a say in that, but that's not good for the owners / shareholders.
weberer|2 years ago
It sounds exactly like America then.
fallingfrog|2 years ago
Honestly I feel like it just must be egotistical powerful men who don’t want to lose control over those they see as beneath them, to the point that they’re willing to do the wrong thing from a business point of view.
the_other|2 years ago
[0]: https://www.cwu.org/
InTheArena|2 years ago
katzenversteher|2 years ago
nemo44x|2 years ago
pjmlp|2 years ago
hknmtt|2 years ago
[deleted]
gizmo|2 years ago
occz|2 years ago
mbix77|2 years ago
[deleted]
Ylpertnodi|2 years ago
kundi|2 years ago
We are a bootstrapped team of musicians, loyal to independent music so we want out platform to stay that way.
We're also hiring: https://formaviva.com/jobs
PS: I'm one of the team members
dsign|2 years ago
From the "Terms of Service":
> Unless otherwise stated, Samorastnik d.o.o. and/or its licensors own the intellectual property rights for all material on Formaviva.
Where's the "otherwise" for people that post music on your platform?
I was actually searching for your legal status (which kind of legal persona you are and in which jurisdiction). I couldn't find a thing on your website.
IshKebab|2 years ago
> "On Monday, October 16, 2023 over half of Bandcamp was laid off as a result of Epic Games’ divestiture to Songtradr,” Bandcamp United said in a statement. “Of those laid off, 40 were in the union bargaining unit out of a total 67 members. None of the eight (8) democratically elected bargaining team members received a job offer."
I can't be bothered to work out the odds on that happening randomly but by intuition is that it's not super unlikely. Especially when you consider that the kinds of people who have time to lead a union are likely to be the kinds of people without important jobs.
Also can't they just elect new leaders?
The meeting does sound suss though.
mandmandam|2 years ago
... Wow. That's something you'd never hear in Europe (outside of a golf course, at least).
For the record, leading a union is an important job, and all that's required to want the job is a sense of fairness.
In reality, many people balance multiple responsibilities, including leadership roles in unions alongside demanding jobs.
The statement undermines the significance and complexity of leading a union. Union leadership often requires strategic thinking, negotiation skills, and a strong understanding of labor laws, which many would consider important skills.
People with high-responsibility jobs may still prioritize union involvement because they see it as a vital activity that aligns with their career or personal values.
Stereotyping people who are involved in union leadership as having anunimportant job is a damn near uniquely American notion. It's the result of decades of mind-warping propaganda.
danjc|2 years ago
leipie|2 years ago
rendall|2 years ago
Divide first, by implying that some class of workers are not worthy of collective bargaining agreements.
Then conquer, because unions aren't powerful.