10
submitted 5 months ago by sverit@lemmy.ml to c/technology@lemmy.world

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Rognaut@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago

It's unbelievable how much hate for LTT there is on this platform. I like them. No one is perfect. This investigation from a third party is a good thing and the findings are good as well. The statement about defamation, I feel, is warranted because the ex-employee made a ton of very damning claims and really hurt their image. The Fediverse is a great example of this damage.

The hate from this community towards LTT is extreme and unfounded.

[-] glimse@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

I'm glad this report showed their innocence but I unsubscribed after the GN/Billet Labs thing.

I might check them out again later but that situation made me kind of uncomfortable with supporting them

[-] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 5 months ago

fwiw, they changed their process and output amount a lot after that

[-] xkforce@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

According to who?

Tbh I don't trust anyone that reacted the way Linus did in response to GN's investigation or that only changes things once they get called out on it publically.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] glimse@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

I saw that which is why I'm willing to give them another chance. I really don't think Linus is a scummy guy or anything, they just grew too fast without thinking.

I haven't had a strong desire to get back into the channel but if a video pops up on my feed again, I might resub.

[-] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 5 months ago

personally, I think they handled the situation the best way the could.

Gamers Nexus had genuine good criticism, and they took it, took a moment to pause and implemented fixes.

Mistakes happen. And they learned from them

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

I agree but it did shake my confidence enough to make me back off. I watched LTT mostly for entertainment (GN for news and reviews) and I've since "filled that spot" so it'll probably only make its way back into my watch list once a different thing falls off.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] ShaunaTheDead@kbin.social 1 points 5 months ago

An investigation from a neutral third party is a good thing, but in this case LTT hired the third party investigator so the investigators obviously have an incentive to find LTT innocent of all charges since LTT is paying them through Linus Media Group (LMG). It's better than nothing, but it's like when there's an internal affairs investigation into police misconduct... by the police... Nobody believes it and for good reason.

[-] TORFdot0@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago

Who would be paying for an investigation if not LMG? Firms don’t hire auditors/investigators to give them a rosy report. They want the truth so they can adjust their processes so they don’t spend more money on regulatory actions/fines.

If the report is bad they just don’t release it to the public. But a third party audit lying to a firm to make them look good does not provide value. The company isn’t biased just because they are being paid by LMG, that’s just not how it works. LMG could just say they investigated themselves and found no wrong doing if that was their objective.

Saying that you don’t believe the report because the company investigating it was paid for by PMG shows that you are biased more than they are.

[-] puppy@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Firms don't hire auditors/investigators to give them a rosy report.

That's exactly why firms do it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwbq9OsHvp4

But a third party audit lying to a firm to make them look good does not provide value.

Why not? Making them look good IS providing value according to the client that pays tha audit firm.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTxt96DwaFk

If the absolute auditing giant EY doesn't say anything bad on behalf of their clients, this firm doing it is certainly within realms of possibility.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_0XEIFGK5o

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 months ago

I don't have LTT, I just find it worthless. Their content is frequently shallow, I dislike the presentation (clickbait-y titles and thumbnails, annoying segways, etc), and I find Linus himself annoying. Then again, I do watch their content from time to time, if they have something worth watching. That's not very often, but they do make some decent content occasionally. I rarely care about PC shenanigans, but sometimes I'll watch Jays2Cents if I want some of that (he's perhaps more annoying than Linus, but it is what it is, I guess).

I mostly watch Gamers Nexus for reviews, news, and benchmarks. I find the delivery much more in-line with what I'd like, though I find Steve a bit long-winded so I tend to skip a bunch in the videos. But the content is high quality.

To each their own though. My coworker really like LTT and went to LTX recently, so I'll watch a video here and there for water-cooler discussions.

The hate from this community towards LTT is extreme and unfounded.

Are you just going to ignore Linus and the companies abhorrent response to the situation? That alone should make anyone lose any respect they had for them.

[-] Aphelion@lemm.ee 1 points 5 months ago

Yeah, same for me. Linus' response was so stereotypicaly defensive, dismissive and shitty, I lost all trust. Couple that with GN's fact checking of LMGs sloppyness, and I was done ever watching their channel.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] ealoe@ani.social 1 points 5 months ago

If you're one of the people in this thread insisting this does nothing to exonerate LTT, what would you accept as evidence that they're innocent? I don't follow YouTube drama much at all, I just think it's wild when people form an opinion based on on set of statements and then are never open to learning more facts about the case ever again.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] Zedstrian@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 5 months ago

As with corporate mediators though, wouldn't such investigation companies have a financial incentive to favor their clients, so as to improve the odds of being rehired?

[-] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 months ago

Yes and no. The reason companies are hiring them is for the image of impartiality they bring. If your firm gets a reputation for just always siding with the company, regardless of what actually happened, that image gets destroyed.

Plus, I'm willing to bet that there's not a whole lot of recurring business from individual companies for this type of service. That would kind of defeat the purpose of being the "neutral third party".

[-] Pudutr0n@feddit.cl 1 points 5 months ago

As someone who used to work in a job that involved giving companies reports they paid for, I gotta say while large auditing firms will likely defend their reputation before the company that hired them, mid and small companies will just follow the paycheck. Doesn't look that big to me.

[-] lemming741@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago
[-] Vivendi@lemmy.zip 1 points 5 months ago

So basically they hired a law firm that gets paid by corporations to dissolve evidence and destroy lawsuits and they "didn't find anything"

Right, another day in capitalist heaven

[-] Mataresian@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 months ago

Though that is fruit for thought I can not find any information to back op that claim. I did however found articles about them defending remote working. It's a bit too easy to me to throw out claims such as this without backing it up with facts. But if you do have any other examples I would love to read them.

[-] rayashino@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

I did not do any research but to me the comment you replied to made me pause and think for a bit.

If someone immediately assumes that a third party investigator is just being paid off by the firm they're investigating, how is that firm supposed to prove their "innocence" to someone like that? A second investigator could just get a paycheck aswell, so that doesn't change anything. They obviously can't just publish the relevant information for privacy reasons.

What else are they supposed to do? I think that a certain amount of mistrust is good, especially when it comes to things where money and/or reputation is on the line, but the closer you get to personal relationships the more harmful unwarranted mistrust can be. Idk why I'm writing this reply to you, its more directed at the original comment poster, but ig I'm continuing on a tangent

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

It's hard to trust a firm that is explicitly being paid by the company they're investigating. I could be convinced that they are actually a neutral third party and that their investigation was unbiased if they had a track record of finding fault with their clients a significant portion of the time. (I haven't done the research to see if that's the case.)

However, you have to ask yourself - how many companies would choose to hire a firm which has that track record? Wouldn't you pick one more likely to side with you?

The way to restore credibility is to have an actually independent third party investigation. Firm chosen by the accuser, perhaps. Or maybe something like binding arbitration. Even better, a union that can fight for the employees on somewhat even footing with the company.

[-] dustyData@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

What else are they supposed to do?

Unions, arbitrate with the employee the selection of the investigative firm, have the government labor office choose the firm, there are options. They went and unilaterally chose the guys who plaster on their webpage that their goal is to help businesses. Not a single mention of employees rights or ethics.

Their work is to make problems go away for the companies. I'm sure they are awsome at their job. But certainly I agree there's no win scenario for LTT here, and they are beyond fucked as a company anyways. Like all tech bro media companies, they have no clue what they are doing while they grow exponentially and end up hurting people, intentionally or not, but have too much power and money to ever face any consequences.

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

Honestly, the best evidence they could provide to someone like that is suing Madison for defamation and winning. But they don't want that, I don't want that, and I'm sure you don't want that either. It would also look mega bad for LTT. Which is why I think they mentioned that they could sue in the post, but chose not to.

And it's not like some rando is going to be invested enough to pay a 3rd party to investigate LTT without a conflict of interest being there.

Everything else kinda needs to stay locked up due to employee privacy and data protection laws. So, I honestly can't see how they can "win".

I will say, LTT is a big corporation, and there is a massive power deferential between them and a single person. And given how difficult it is to stand up that, especially when you're afraid of rocking the boat and losing your job, plus how fucking annoyed I am about the Billet Labs debacle and how they responded to that. I still believe that most of what Madison said was true, or at the very least, she believes what she's saying is true

[-] Dariusmiles2123@sh.itjust.works 0 points 5 months ago

Could someone just give us a quick summary of what LTT is accused of?

Do we know if there is a court case about it? As this would be more interesting than just a release from the company auditing them?

Personally, I clearly don’t know so much about LTT, but I love their videos.

[-] sverit@lemmy.ml 0 points 5 months ago

Here is a good writeup how it started: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/gamers-nexus-vs-linus-tech-tips-billet-labs-review-controversy

Relevant part is this:

On August 16th, 2023, ex-LTT employee Madison Suop posted a thread on X explaining her reasons for leaving Linus Tech Tips and the kind of workplace misconduct she purportedly experienced during her time there: https://x.com/suuuoppp/status/1691693740254228741

[-] jet@hackertalks.com 0 points 5 months ago

It's important to talk about the timing. This person waited until there was already drama with Linus tech tips and they're very unfavorable review of the liquid cooler they put on the wrong device. Which is a f***** up review.

The dogpiled on, did not involve the labor board, made the accusations and then said I don't want to be involved and walk away. So the investigation is not about the water cooler review, which was the initial trigger for all the media, but about the accusations that were basically dropped drive-by-style

[-] Pieisawesome@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago

How else were they supposed to air their accusations?

LTTA fans would have immediately gone after her for her accusations if she randomly made them. LTT fans have done this in the past.

She definitely bandwagoned, but it was likely the safest way.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 24 May 2024
10 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

59436 readers
1147 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS