- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
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 must log in or register to comment.
One big question I’m wondering is if that company they hired to investigate themselves ever finds a company they’ve been hired to investigate (by that company) is in the wrong or if they are basically a PR company disguised as an investigation company.
It sucks that LTT is in this position because I acknowledge that it looks the same whether or not they are innocent, but it’s so hard to trust that these things are done in good faith when it’s likely more profitable to do it in bad faith.
LTT sold someone else’s property (prototype even, after failing to review it correctly). I doubt they are innocent.
Yeah, the way they handled that was IMO criminally negligent, assuming it wasn’t a deliberate attempt to sabotage that company. But it doesn’t imply anything about the sexual harassment issue.
Though their initial handling of that situation going viral is exactly why I’m skeptical about the integrity of this investigation. Each step Linus took just screamed: “we’ll just say what we think we need to say to make this problem go away” plus a dose of “I’ll apologize but also I still think I was right”. But he also saw just how badly all of that went. So it would be in character for the investigation to be just another version of this, but it would also make sense for him to have realized that a fake investigation would make things worse and that his only real way out was to let go of his fate and leave it to a legitimate investigation.
But both of those cases look the same from here so idk.
I’m astounded the investigator they hired found them innocent.
I mean that seems a little cynical. They obviously did so to protect the company. And the barely veiled threat at the end suggest they would be more than happy to go to court with the results the investigation found. A court of law isn’t going to just take LMG’s word for it.
This is Canada we’re talking about, not the US. They have laws you know.
The US is however a pretty low bar.
A pretty low bar… like our sponsor!
Firms don’t hire auditors to tell them everything is great. They actually want an unbiased report. They just don’t release to the public if it’s not flattering
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Assuming you aren’t trolling; LMG:
- Hired a professional HR firm
- Gave them access to their internal records and communications
- Gave them free reign to talk to whoever they need
- Tasked them to work out what happened, and provide them with instructions to improve their processes
If that isn’t the right thing to do, then what is?
Hired a professional firm that specializes in defending employers against employees and has a history of anti-union action. This isn’t some bootstrap law firm, it’s a multi billion dollar giant that makes its money by suppressing labor unrest.
They said at the time “We are committed to publishing the findings”. This has not happened yet as far as I know, and it’s critical. Accusations were specific, the investigation findings can’t be vague.
That’s my take as well. The statement reads like they fixed any issues that came up, so we’re innocent. Plus they were pretty antagonistic with that statement, so it seems like they still have no clue on how to write press releases.
I would like to see an actual report of the findings, not another “Trust me Bro” statement. I want to hear what the law firm says regarding the recordings that were leaked.
This statement isn’t what they said they would do when it all came out.
I think you need to sit back and reevaluate your position in this situation. You have no right to that information, and even if you did, nobody involved would care about your opinion.
I never said it was my right. I said that if they want people to believe them, they will need to show the report.
If not, I treat them as I would any other money first company with a clueless owner. I probably won’t be the only one turned off.
Those are the findings of the report - what kind of specifics were you expecting?
A break down of all the allegations with what evidence (testimonies, electronic messages…) they took into consideration before coming to the conclusion that the claim was false.
That’s not gonna happen. They can’t publish private business and personal communications, names and data with the public. The point of hiring an external company is that they audit the case and come to a conclusion, and for the company to be reputable they must not be biased. If you don’t believe the conclusion why would you believe the details? They could also be manufactured or cherry picked.
Would you give candid testimony if you knew that your boss - let alone the general public - were going to see it later?
The breakdown you are wanting shouldn’t be generally available within LMG, let alone publicly available.
Isn’t the classic phrase that HR is not your friend? They are there to manage you as a resource and to protect the bottom line.
Absolutely, which is why they hired external consultants to do the review - they are a neutral third party, with a reputation of fairness to uphold
I guess people just wanna be mad with him I mean what I think what they want is that they would find that the company was actually at fault and they actually did something wrong and then I guess someone gets fired. I think it’s what they wanted to hear, but honestly, this is the best outcome . 
You know who else is bullying the competition? Our sponsor!
(shamelessly stolen)
I recall this and the allegations / issues with the vendors they reviewed as being my “final straw” to stop viewing their content. This itself had a prominent place in my memory, but I don’t recall much about the other scandal / issues at the time. Anyone recall that stuff and if they were similarly addressed? All I remember was I stopped caring after that pitiful we’re sorry video from the new CEO.
Long and the short of it is that they had been making tons of factual errors by just being sloppy. They were growing super fast and investing tons of money in Labs, touting how accurate and trustworthy they were while making a bunch of dumb mistakes. Oh, also being just really unaware of how it comes off having your YouTube channel employees doing construction and installation work on your McMansion while some of them were still living in their parents’ basement.
There’s more to it than that, that video (and its follow-up) are definitely worth the watch if you have the time.
Edit: Linus has been consistently anti-union, saying he’d feel as if he failed as a boss if his employees unionized. It comes off like ‘oh how did it get so bad that you felt this was the only option, why didn’t you just talk w/ me’, but he’s really just completely misunderstanding the purpose, function, and history of unions. He really just seems completely clueless as to his power dynamic as a boss in general.
I feel his sentiment as he is someone that grows from a small, family-like group which he leads. But that model indeed is incompatible with the pace that they are expanding. He saw that he is not fit for the role of CEO and has since stepped down. But yes, I know he still has a major stake in the company. It is kind of a complex problem. You can’t stop the owner from wanting to be the janitor at his own company.
There is also sexual assult allegation from their previous employee madison:
https://old.reddit.com/r/LinusTechTips/comments/15shoyx/madison_on_her_ltt_experience/
I believe this investigation is primarily related to that allegation.
Cool. Release the report.
You can’t investigate employee abuse allegations months after the fact everything there is circumstantial and proving anything after the fact is near impossible this was obviously an act done to cover the business.
I’m not saying they are wrong to do so. I’m just saying that anyone expected any other outcome isn’t living in reality.
Well yes you can. I am sure the investigation company poured through digital (timestamped) logs, messages, data, emails…
Most places I’ve worked have data retention policies in place that would twart to any such efforts.
To add this any party that’s perpetrating abuse would obviously know to avoid recorded communication. I’m my anecdotal experience people tend to think better of it when they have time to actually type it out.
Lastly given the sensitive nature of the investigation and the third party being hired it was obvious we’d never get a look behind the curtain at the methodology and without that any statement is worthless.
Allegations that sexual harassment were ignored or not addressed were false.
The only way to read this, assuming the lawyers wrote the statement, is that sexual harassment did happen but was “addressed”. Otherwise they’d just say the claims of sexual harassment were unsubstantiated.
I’d like to know more about how those claims were addressed before making final judgement.
I don’t think of it that way. I think the allegation of sexual harassment were ignored is false means sexual harassment report is not ignored, not that it did happen. It means there is a procedure to report it, and to handle it. Remember, innocent until proven guilty. If you just fire the accused employee before the proof is sufficient, it is also giving the accuser power to misuse the reporting procedure. Didn’t like someone? Accuse them of sexual harassment.
Why do I interpret it that way? Because for sexual harassment to be noticed, it must be reported. Otherwise, how tf will the company know anything? So, a report did come, now what to do? A. Ignore it, told every party “tough shit” B. Do something and give sanction/disciplinary action if proven true
But what do I know, I am not a lawyer so I know jack shit about workplace regulation.
So if they report but the accused is some higher up… There is no report. Easy.
I’ve made my final judgement. That was one long message saying “We’re guilty and we know it, but we’re not going to tell anyone”
Hahahahahhaha
Furthermore, from reviewing our history, the investigator is confident that if any other concerns had been raised, we would have investigated them.
Can you make it look like even more of a joke? (outside of Russia, they are King, of course)
