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.

(page 2) 38 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

I think part of it was the stress of the grindset that Linus running the show was getting all the staff into. Pushing out content at a regular schedule, getting sponsorships and all of that.

The whole GN saga with data accuracy and the donated cooler that made LMG look inward for a bit and improve their process was for the best I think.

The investigation to me is just one element making sure LMG weren't getting off on the wrong foot.

I think the complainant wasn't wrong or defamatory at all to bring up concerns because even in LTT's channel there was a video where the front and center stars of the team comment on how stressful things can be. When there's an implicit hierarchy imbalance (Linus can say "we're all equals here" all he wants) but fact is there's a leadership structure in one way or another, which can cause one to take certain treatment in different ways.

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

It was a necessary "drama" imo. You mentioned the stress the team was put through but also I think Linus' ego needed to be brought down a lot. The way he talked on wan show about the cooler is like someone who thinks he is a tech god, saying something is bad is expected but outright claiming the product is worthless and will never amount to anything is just bad taste specially when you got it for free AND didn't bother testing it properly.

One can hope this situation will bring positive lasting change to the way the company is run but also the image Linus has of himself.

[-] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

specially when you got it for free

This is irrelevant IMO, getting a product for free shouldn't impact your review at all. The issue is they didn't test it properly, which is what people watch the video for.

That said, I like GN's policy here: no free stuff.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] xkforce@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago

I feel like the fact they paid the same party that investigated them is an obvious enough conflict of interest to dismiss this out of hand. Whether the report is actually trustworthy or not, there is an incentive to come to a conclusion that aligns with whomever paid them and that alone should make people question the conclusions being made.

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

At my work we pay auditors to assess our security controls and I would chose a different company if I thought they were being anything less than honest with us on their findings. The agreements and SOW are set up at the beginning of the engagement, so the investigators get paid regardless of their findings. It's not like the bond rating agencies on Wall Street.

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

There's a difference in stakes and impact and intent: the client firm is actively interested in finding security holes and the outcome of a negative security report does not (usually) directly affect the continuing operations of the business or impact on the personal reputations of the business owners their ability to conduct business, or how moral they're perceived by society.

A negative report here would be a devastating blow on Linus himself, his business is built around him and relies on audiences trusting him, it would also open up the door for legal action that could result in massive monetary damages and fines.

I've had "independent" valuations and audits. I've seen how these firms work - and it's not independent. They obey the people that pay them or they don't get any work in the future from anyone else "that firm destroyed my business".

The most suspect aspect of the report is that they found nothing negative, everything was perfect. This on its face doesn't ring true for any business I've ever seen, as well as how they responded to the accusations and how many people came out to accuse them.

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

You don't think it's possible that the accusations were mostly unfounded and the LTT crew are just decent people? They did bring up some issues with onboarding which are completely expected on smaller companies.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] jet@hackertalks.com 0 points 5 months ago

Okay. So what should LTT have done?

Ignore it completely and not respond?

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

Invite a third party to do it. The funds could have come from crowd-sourcing.

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

They hired an outside firm to audit them. That's industry best practice

As far as the payment for the outside fund, I think they would have come under even more criticism if they crowdfunded the third party investigation. And then they would still be accused of having undue influence, because they would have chosen the third party.

In one sense they did crowdfund it, they just paid for the whole thing themselves.

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

They hired an outside firm to audit them. That's industry best practice

That practice has lost its credibility.

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

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

Sounds like you have a bit of a hate boner.

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

I'd like to receive criticism to what I presented instead of you resorting to ad-hominem, please.

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

Nobody wants to watch a video to participate in a text-based debate

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

Nobody wants to watch a video to participate in a text-based debate

Why not? What's wrong with using the most presentable, easy to digest content? If I needed to present a graph to support my claim would you rather have me describe that information in text rather than link to a picture or a video that shows that graph?

Also, there's no need to watch the videos in length either to get what I'm presenting either. They describe and support proof to my 2 claims,

  1. Investigator should be independent
  2. There should be no conflict of interest in where money is coming from to pay the investigator

I presented 3 videos in a few comments but didn't want to spam it to every reply. But here they are for your convenience.

  1. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qwbq9OsHvp4
  2. https://youtu.be/CTxt96DwaFk?si=0KHoVdFElOoH0-Za
  3. https://youtu.be/C_0XEIFGK5o?si=Yc_hONVBDGcEV_t6

If you were thinking that we were having a debate, why don't you stick to debate rules and present a rebuttal to my claims?

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

I had a longer comment here but it failed to post and I don't care enough to retype it. TL;DR: Not everyone can watch videos in their current situation or at all, and videos are often long and you have to fish the person's point out of it instead of them making their own point (making the other person put in way more effort than you did). Your summary alleviates the second point, which is appreciated. I don't care about the underlying debate that much, but to reply, I don't see an alternative for who would pay for the investigation, since the alleged victim did not wish to pursue it themself.

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

Technology

59436 readers
1120 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