In the American President Rewatchables, it appears that Simmons and his co-host confuse John Mahoney with John Spencer. Also suggests that John Mahoney got his big break in Reality Bites, which is just...a totally Bill Simmons thing to think.
Honestly, Simmons acting like things or people don’t exist until he’s aware of and enamored with them is one of my favorite manifestations of his narcissism. It’s hilarious.In the American President Rewatchables, it appears that Simmons and his co-host confuse John Mahoney with John Spencer. Also suggests that John Mahoney got his big break in Reality Bites, which is just...a totally Bill Simmons thing to think.
His newest one is SPAC, it really is a lot of funHonestly, Simmons acting like things or people don’t exist until he’s aware of and enamored with them is one of my favorite manifestations of his narcissism. It’s hilarious.
No chance. They are relatively new as it is. I think they really popped into the consciousness when Draft Kings went public through a SPAC, Diamond Eagle, earlier this year.Did any non-banking person know what that was until 6 months ago?
I'm going to be totally honest, i was real confused about what the Saratoga Performing Arts Center had to do with SimmonsDid any non-banking person know what that was until 6 months ago?
Unfamiliar with the attacks, but I listened to his show with JackO and he monologues about the election; and he says something along the lines of "I don't know if people can talk to each other anymore, you see it on Twitter...especially if you have a platform like mine. You say one wrong thing, or a quote is taken out of context, and all of a sudden you are being canceled."The newest attack on Simmons is that he said “Some people voted for Trump because of cancel culture.”
Unless there’s some context I’m missing that seems like a very dumb criticism. He’s obviously correct.
Simmons is now one of many media figures using their privileged platforms to bitch about being cancelled or the possibility of it. And irony weeps.The take thread is here if you want to dive in...
View: https://twitter.com/ShakerSamman/status/1324810127543693312
I made under $50k a year working for Bill Simmons and I voted for Joe Biden because of concerns about fair labor practices, among dozens of other reasons.
Bill Simmons explaining that white people who make under $50k voted Trump because of concerns about cancel culture and the death of free speech is the second-best thing to come out of this election.
I mean, isn't around 50k for your first job out of college in the journalism world decent?The take thread is here if you want to dive in...
View: https://twitter.com/ShakerSamman/status/1324810127543693312
I made under $50k a year working for Bill Simmons and I voted for Joe Biden because of concerns about fair labor practices, among dozens of other reasons.
Bill Simmons explaining that white people who make under $50k voted Trump because of concerns about cancel culture and the death of free speech is the second-best thing to come out of this election.
By adding fair labor practices, yes i see it is a shot at BS. And then he threw in a reply to support @ringerunionHis point isn’t that he “only“ got 50k, he was refuting Simmons argument (as related by Marchman) that specifically people who made under 50k voted Trump because of “cancel culture”.
It doesn’t sound like this is a fair labor/ Ringer issue. It’s more of a “Simmons said something revealing about himself” issue.Isn't the obvious difference that Shaker Samman is a guy who's in his early 20s, was lucky enough to go to Duke, land a $50K a year job right out of college in an elite industry, write high profile columns in that job, get to live in Los Angeles, and has an entire career ahead of him while Simmons' theoretical Trump voter who lives in Arkansas has a much lower chance in life to make more than that?
Like, what specific fair labor practices is The Ringer not following? What exactly is the charge here?
JA was great on a past episode. I havent caught this one yet. Bill is the true Captain Intangibles. I don’t know exactly what he does to facilitate but I often like people with Bill more than I like them elsewhere and Bill is always just Bill.Bill's Book of Basketball podcast on Allen Iverson with JA Adande is terrific. Bill and Adande should just do every episode together; they just trade great stories.
Yeah, the Shaq episode was the previous one he was on last year. I've enjoyed the other episodes with other names, but Adande is great because he has the beat reporting chops and has a bunch of different stories from covering these guys, which works well with Bill's more outside observations.JA was great on a past episode. I havent caught this one yet. Bill is the true Captain Intangibles. I don’t know exactly what he does to facilitate but I often like people with Bill more than I like them elsewhere and Bill is always just Bill.
I think Adande’s story that killed me was something like he played pickup with Shaq
The head coach of the Golden State Warriors. A former ace of the New York Yankees. A onetime star of “The Bachelorette.”
Steve Kerr, C. C. Sabathia and Rachel Lindsay were among the roughly 25 outside contributors to host or co-host new podcasts this year at The Ringer, the digital media company founded and run by the former ESPN personality Bill Simmons. The influx of celebrity talent being brought on as contractors has raised concerns among many full-time employees, who say it may close off their opportunities for advancement and weaken the company’s union.
As Kliq said, The Ringer makes almost all of its money with podcasts. The writing is basically a vanity project. Obviously it's in the company's best interest to continue to focus on the thing that actually brings in the money.That's a really interesting piece. I have a fair amount of sympathy for the union for what appears to be Simmons retatliating against union members, and it seems pretty clear Simmons is trying to undercut the union (see the Rusillo thing). On the other hand, it's a site focused, in one way or another, on celebrity. I think it's hard to have a position arguing that bringing in celebrities is unfair. After all, half the site boils down to lets follow the insane minutia of the lives and careers of actors, musicians and sportmen because they are more fun and interesting than the rest of us.
This is true but it’s missing a point made in the article.As Kliq said, The Ringer makes almost all of its money with podcasts. The writing is basically a vanity project. Obviously it's in the company's best interest to continue to focus on the thing that actually brings in the money.
Well, Rusillo obviously got a great deal for what he's doing for the Ringer and most likely didn't join the Union as part of whatever deal he made with Simmons. I am pretty sure Rusillo's podcast is pretty successful because it's awesome.(I just looked it up, he's 9th on the sports list, ahead of Lowe, Cowherd, Woj, and Matthew Berry. That's a decent level, to say the least)This is true but it’s missing a point made in the article.
Isn’t part of the problem that Simmons either isn’t letting the new podcasters join the union (in the case of Russillo) or hiring them as contractors? That seems to be more of the complaint within the article than focusing on podcasting instead of writing
I don't think that's the case. If these high-profile people were being brought in as employees, not contractors, and allowed to join the union, then I suspect the Ringer rank-and-file would be far more accommodating. I think the main gripe is that management is engaging in union-busting, won't come to the bargaining table regarding a CBA, and won't clearly define what employees can do to advance their careers.This just seems like employees griping because the company is bringing in bigger stars.
I dunno, I look at the Sports Hub and see lower level folks busting their asses to start and gain reps on podcasts that probably don't get a ton of listeners (e.g. Ty Anderson, Bankroll Boys). Unless there's some mechanism that prevents these folks from doing the same thing with their own podcasts outside the Ringer umbrella, I think that's probably an easy first step. I don't get the impression that the Sports Hub is paying them to do that outside of whatever ad money they bring in, but I could be wrong.I don't think that's the case. If these high-profile people were being brought in as employees, not contractors, and allowed to join the union, then I suspect the Ringer rank-and-file would be far more accommodating. I think the main gripe is that management is engaging in union-busting, won't come to the bargaining table regarding a CBA, and won't clearly define what employees can do to advance their careers.
But setting aside my pinko tendency to side with labor in all matters, I don't see how alienating the writers is an effective strategy for Simmons or Spotify. The Ringer seemed very good at developing podcast talent, and a good chunk of it came from the site's writers or editors (Concepcion, Rubin, Serrano, Ryan, etc.). Cutting off that pipeline in favor of splashing cash for celebrity contractors doesn't seem like a great use of resources to me.
You might be right about the union busting, that sees to be what is happening. But Rubin and Ryan are management, not Union. And I can't see how focusing on podcasts is a bad idea for the Ringer, considering there just isn't any money in writing on the internet. People don't read, they watch or listen.I don't think that's the case. If these high-profile people were being brought in as employees, not contractors, and allowed to join the union, then I suspect the Ringer rank-and-file would be far more accommodating. I think the main gripe is that management is engaging in union-busting, won't come to the bargaining table regarding a CBA, and won't clearly define what employees can do to advance their careers.
But setting aside my pinko tendency to side with labor in all matters, I don't see how alienating the writers is an effective strategy for Simmons or Spotify. The Ringer seemed very good at developing podcast talent, and a good chunk of it came from the site's writers or editors (Concepcion, Rubin, Serrano, Ryan, etc.). Cutting off that pipeline in favor of splashing cash for celebrity contractors doesn't seem like a great use of resources to me.
Yep, you're right. I kind of conflated my "the union is pissed off at management" and "The Ringer is marginalizing the website and its stable of talent in favor of big-name podcasts" points. They're related, but I should have explained myself better.But Rubin and Ryan are management, not Union.
I would be shocked if Ringer employees don't have no-compete agreements in place, especially when it comes to podcasts.I dunno, I look at the Sports Hub and see lower level folks busting their asses to start and gain reps on podcasts that probably don't get a ton of listeners (e.g. Ty Anderson, Bankroll Boys). Unless there's some mechanism that prevents these folks from doing the same thing with their own podcasts outside the Ringer umbrella, I think that's probably an easy first step. I don't get the impression that the Sports Hub is paying them to do that outside of whatever ad money they bring in, but I could be wrong.
I'm clueless on that stuff, does that apply to your own work if it's not for another company?I would be shocked if Ringer employees don't have no-compete agreements in place, especially when it comes to podcasts.
I don’t think there is, the NYT article mentioned that O'Shaughnessy is creating a podcast for her new gig.I would be shocked if Ringer employees don't have no-compete agreements in place, especially when it comes to podcasts.
A lot of people here are staggeringly inconsiderate when it comes to labor issues.Jesus, the Ringer union has started to sound like a bunch of fucking crybabies.
A media outlet has brought in knowledgable and popular personalities to boost ratings. Boo fucking hoo.
Yeah. This is all bullshit to me. Sorry.A lot of people here are staggeringly inconsiderate when it comes to labor issues.
If you worked at a place for years making a salary that was average at best for your position and for the work you did, and your wealthy well-connected boss sold your company for a massive sum and then turned around and started using other wealthy well-connected people to do the work you're already doing while also failing to increase your compensation, you wouldn't be too happy about it, would you? The point isn't that Simmons and the Ringer are using famous people to sell the product; it's that they're using famous people on a contract basis to undercut their own employees and sabotage a union drive. That's immoral, unethical, and just plain wrong. It's Simmons' attempt to get out from having to compensate his employees fairly or put the protections in place that they want.
I understand that there isn't a lot of sympathy for the people who work in media and write about sports and pop culture complaining about pay, but what the Ringer is doing is categorically union busting. Add to that a Ringer Union tweet from today about how the bosses there are flat-out not negotiating with them on their demands, and it's pretty clear that Simmons et al aren't interested in playing fair with their employees. To call them "fucking crybabies" for demanding a fair wage and worker protections and not to be undercut by their boss and his rich friends is ignorant and dickish as all hell.
Not just here - it's endlessly frustrating to me to watch this country turn its back on unions without even knowing why they're doing it. Smart people who should know better - like the people in this thread happily shitting on The Ringer union and cheering on rich assholes like Bill Simmons - seem to love carrying water for management to do whatever the fuck they want to workers. It's fucking depressing.A lot of people here are staggeringly inconsiderate when it comes to labor issues.
I think you meant Raja Bell, or did I miss some breaking news? Did check his Twitter just in case!Same for Rajai Davis, who has a lot of league connections.
Spotify is absolutely a big part of it. Gimlet is another podcast company trying to unionize after Spotify acquired them, and iirc I've seen similar complaints about the pace of the negotiations.What I expect this is really about is Spotify. That company undoubtedly does not want its Ringer employees to enjoy benefits and protections the rest of its employees do not.
Sports fan siding with the team over the players? why I never.Not just here - it's endlessly frustrating to me to watch this country turn its back on unions without even knowing why they're doing it. Smart people who should know better - like the people in this thread happily shitting on The Ringer union and cheering on rich assholes like Bill Simmons - seem to love carrying water for management to do whatever the fuck they want to workers. It's fucking depressing.
I dunno, I think most people are happy to admit that Bill is in the "rich asshole" stage of his career as a manager. It's also possible to point out that maybe the union is reaching a bit on certain points. Like the Duke kid two years out of school cited earlier in this thread who was complaining about a salary that seemed pretty competitive for his position and stage of his career. On one hand I feel for him, it sucks not making a ton of money, but at the same time I think a lot of us started out with pretty low salaries in big cities for the first few years of professional life. At least in my situation, that's something I'd complain about to my friends and family, I never would have blasted it over Twitter while looking for a new job. Those nits aside, most of what they're pushing for is admirable and not really up for debate.Not just here - it's endlessly frustrating to me to watch this country turn its back on unions without even knowing why they're doing it. Smart people who should know better - like the people in this thread happily shitting on The Ringer union and cheering on rich assholes like Bill Simmons - seem to love carrying water for management to do whatever the fuck they want to workers. It's fucking depressing.
There is some similarity to what's going on with writers trying to unionize and how people perceived the players for griping about wanting to unionize and enforcing their collective bargaining rights. That is, "It's a dream job! Stop complaining and be happy! Thousands of people would love to be in your shoes!" But at the end of the day, thousands of people cannot hit a baseball being thrown 90 miles an hour, and thousands of people cannot write as well as most of the writers that are trying to unionize.Not just here - it's endlessly frustrating to me to watch this country turn its back on unions without even knowing why they're doing it. Smart people who should know better - like the people in this thread happily shitting on The Ringer union and cheering on rich assholes like Bill Simmons - seem to love carrying water for management to do whatever the fuck they want to workers. It's fucking depressing.
However to expand on this, a super majority of people KNOW they cannot hit a baseball thrown at 90 miles an hour, but social media has made like half the country THINK they are journalists/writers. That doesn't make the actual writers any less talented, but makes corporate management think their staff is quite replaceable.But at the end of the day, thousands of people cannot hit a baseball being thrown 90 miles an hour, and thousands of people cannot write as well as most of the writers that are trying to unionize.
At their core Unions are about creating a labor value that is artificially higher than the current market. Sometimes this is because a labor market is artificially distorted, let's use a coal mine in WV that employs 90% of a town in 1890 as an example. There is little ability to find information about jobs in other locations, and monopsony conditions prevents fair negotiation in that location. In that case a union asking for industry standard levels of safety procedures and a wage equivalent to those in a less distorted market seems very fair. In this case, the Ringers union appears to exist in a very fair and open market where there is an ease of movement, and what seem to be relatively fair if not high wages for their industry. Looking at their demands a lot of people are seeing it as over-reach instead of evening out an unfair market. Unless you see all labor markets as inherently unfair, which seems to be a popular opinion.I dunno, I think most people are happy to admit that Bill is in the "rich asshole" stage of his career as a manager. It's also possible to point out that maybe the union is reaching a bit on certain points. Like the Duke kid two years out of school cited earlier in this thread who was complaining about a salary that seemed pretty competitive for his position and stage of his career. On one hand I feel for him, it sucks not making a ton of money, but at the same time I think a lot of us started out with pretty low salaries in big cities for the first few years of professional life. At least in my situation, that's something I'd complain about to my friends and family, I never would have blasted it over Twitter while looking for a new job. Those nits aside, most of what they're pushing for is admirable and not really up for debate.