this post was submitted on 23 May 2024
131 points (92.8% liked)

Linus Tech Tips

3788 readers
1 users here now

~~⚠️ De-clickbait-ify the youtube titles or your post will be removed!~~

~~Floatplane titles are perfectly fine.~~

~~LTT/LMG community. Brought to you by ******... Actually, no, not this time. This time it's brought to you by Lemmy, the open communities and free and open source software!~~

~~If you post videos from Youtube/LTT, please please un-clickbait the titles. (You can use the title from https://nitter.net/LTTtranslator/ but it doesn't seem to have been updated in quite some while...)~~

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Here's the entire thing if you don't want to go to that link:

There were a series of accusations about our company last August from a former employee. Immediately following these accusations, LMG hired Roper Greyell - a large Vancouver-based law firm specializing in labor and employment law, to conduct a third-party investigation. Their website describes them as “one of the largest employment and labour law firms in Western Canada.” They work with both private and public sector employers.

To ensure a fair investigation, LMG did not comment or publicly release any data and asked our team members to do the same. Now that the investigation is complete, we’re able to provide a summary of the findings.

The investigation found that:

  • Claims of bullying and harassment were not substantiated.

  • Allegations that sexual harassment were ignored or not addressed were false.

  • Any concerns that were raised were investigated. Furthermore, from reviewing our history, the investigator is confident that if any other concerns had been raised, we would have investigated them.

  • There was no evidence of “abuse of power” or retaliation. The individual involved may not have agreed with our decisions or performance feedback, but our actions were for legitimate work-related purposes, and our business reasons were valid.

  • Allegations of process errors and miscommunication while onboarding this individual were partially substantiated, but the investigator found ample documentary evidence of LMG working to rectify the errors and the individual being treated generously and respectfully. When they had questions, they were responded to and addressed.

In summary, as confirmed by the investigation, the allegations made against the team were largely unfounded, misleading, and unfair.

With all of that said, in the spirit of ongoing improvement, the investigator shared their general recommendation that fast-growing workplaces should invest in continuing professional development. The investigator encouraged us to provide further training to our team about how to raise concerns to reinforce our existing workplace policies.

Prior to receiving this report, LMG solicited anonymous feedback from the team in an effort to ensure there was no unreported bullying and harassment and hosted a training session which reiterated our workplace policies and reinforced our reporting structure. LMG will continue to assess ongoing continuing education for our team.

At this time, we feel our case for a defamation suit would be very strong; however, our deepest wish is to simply put all of this behind us. We hope that will be the case, given the investigator’s clear findings that the allegations made online were misrepresentations of what actually occurred. We will continue to assess if there is persistent reputational damage or further defamation.

This doesn’t mean our company is perfect and our journey is over. We are continuously learning and trying to do better. Thank you all for being part of our community.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 41 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Ah yes... They hired a third-party respected law firm specializing in labor and employment law, and allowed full access to records and employees to investigate the allegations. They took months to complete that investigation thoroughly and provide a report on the findings and recommendations going forwards.

Because the results aren't what you personally wanted, you attack the entire idea that an investigation paid for by LMG must inherently be biased in their favor because they paid for it.

So what alternative would you suggest? They already hired a respected third party law firm specializing in this. Since you seem to think you know of a better way to investigate in a more unbiased manner.

[–] Maddier1993@programming.dev 3 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Not the original commenter.. but an investigation paid for by a company is not the same as an investigation by somebody who is incentivized to work for the aggreived.

[–] scratchee@feddit.uk 14 points 5 months ago

But obviously they can’t force the potential victim to pay for an investigation when they’re the ones who need the report. Do you think instead that anyone accused in this way is literally incapable of countering the claims for themselves? There has to be an avenue for them to defend themselves, and this feels like the best thing they realistically could have done.

Clearly a more thorough final report would help here, but I don’t see the point in attacking the money trail when that isn’t something that can be avoided.

[–] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 12 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

So you are saying that simply by accepting payment from a company any investigation must inherently be biased?

That's the entire reason a reputable third party was hired in the first place, because a reputable group won't be incentivized to bias like that. That's why they are reputable.

The aggrieved are welcome to hire their own investigator, or file a lawsuit, or any number of other things. But all we got from that side were the original claims on social media, and advertising for their stream. Not exactly an unbiased source either.

[–] Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 5 months ago

And should it come to the lawsuit both parties can present their findings.

[–] Crismus@lemmy.world -3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

There is no report, just a statement that is poorly written yet again. A few paragraphs on X written by them isn't a report refuting the allegations. It's another "Trust me Bro" statement.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 18 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I mean did you expect them to give you a copy of the report with the original names, statements, personal files?

How would you like the information presented to you?

[–] Crismus@lemmy.world -1 points 5 months ago

You can redact a lot without losing the focus of what is found in a report of this magnitude. It happens a lot in many businesses that had investigations.

If they don't have the skill to write that, then why are they a media company to begin with?

Why is the statement written personally instead of as a standard press release?

This note sounds more to the point that Linus didn't know anything of what happened, so nothing was wrong. Lastly, they said that they would have a report for us after the investigation was done. Without putting the report out, they can't hope to put this all behind them. There will always be a shadow order them still. Also, saying that they don't have to publish a report because they are a private company will only let more people think they are hiding something.

The investigation was to show they weren't hiding anything, and without a report showing the allegations were false they haven't done anything.

[–] applepie@kbin.social -2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Not as a cover up

Nothing personal against lmg but this just good old corporate pay your way out of bad PR trick.

Why would I respect this as worker or YouTube watcher?

Also Linus made strong anti Union statements so we know how he thinks about the wage slaves who ain't his buddies.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

Ok, so like you are cynical, but not nearly cynical enough.

If they did this as a "cover-up", the aggrieved parties will sue the ever living dicks off LMG.

If LMG is making the claim they did a thorough investigation with an outside auditor, the aggrieved parties can contest that and sue.

LMG is clearly confident enough in the results of the investigation to go to court over the matter. The second to last paragraph is a not-even-veiled threat.

They are basically stating "if you are feeling froggy, leap", as in, the investigation turned up jack shit, and if you want, bring it to court and we'll massacre you; we did the investigation, and we have the facts.

No sane company would do that unless they believed themselves to be 1000% in the right, with the