3 ms·
> Songtradr had no access to union membership information and we executed our employment offer process with full-consideration of all legal requirements I know
by qwery 3y ago
> 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
- creshal 3y 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. That's just the bare minimum they have to do to not get sued, is that really thankworthy?
- slikrick 3y agoapparently the bar for companies is that low that HN is bootlicking the bare minimum. it's honestly hilarious. this is extremely shady, and I don't know why people are trusting the source directly lol. they wouldn't say they did anything untoward, ever
- glitcher 3y agoYou are here, so you are also HN. There are also other HN comments here that disagree with the parent post just as you do. Saying what HN does or does not do is almost always going to be provably false and tends to add nothing of value to the conversation. I would even go so far as hypothesizing that on any given controversial topic there tends to be a large divide of opposing opinions on clear display. But maybe I just think that because I'm HN.
- micromacrofoot 3y agothey’re a licensing company, legal requirements are their bread and butter
- jzb 3y agoWhat, exactly, is to be thankful for? I'd have been thankful if Songtradr had carried over Bandcamp entirely, all employees, and proceeded from there. There's nothing here to be thankful for, not a damn thing.
- dancemethis 3y agoYeah, it's not popular. Most won't thank them for the upcoming enshittification of Bandcamp.
- NoGravitas 3y agoThey 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?
- ilyt 3y agoWhy you're thanking corporation for doing their due dilligence before squashing union movement in company ? It's disgusting
- qwery 3y agoReply to replies: 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".