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

Linus Tech Tips

3782 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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 72 points 5 months ago (1 children)

You know who else is bullying the competition? Our sponsor!

(shamelessly stolen)

[–] captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 12 points 5 months ago

That segue would definitely lead to a Dbrand ad.

[–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 49 points 5 months ago (3 children)

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.

[–] m0darn@lemmy.ca 43 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I know a lawyer at Roper-Greyell. The firm specializes in defending/protecting companies around employment law. They probably also consult on best practices for companies to avoid suits.

They are a law firm, but they are LMG's law firm. Note that we're reading what LMG wants to share about the report, not the report itself.

It's a legal strategy to say, "Investigators didn't find anything seriously wrong, and we're considering suing you for defamation"

A lot of the other replies to your comment read between the lines in some insightful ways. I would just like to also add that "claims of bullying and harassment were not substantiated" means that the investigation didn't find evidence. Not that the bullying/ harassment didn't occur. It is kind of meaningless without knowing what information was looked at. What sorts of substantiation could reasonably be expected from the investigation?

It's possible that the person making allegations has evidence that the investigators didn't.

[–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 17 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, the language used and things said don't inspire much confidence. Especially the defamation part. Are they being kind by dropping the matter? Are they pretending to be strong when they know they don't have a defamation case? Or did they include that to silence her?

Though if it's either of the two last cases, all she has to do is double down on her position and she wins because the only move to beat that is to actually file the defamation case (and win it or settle to turn it into an expensive draw). And a suit would come with discovery.

[–] m0darn@lemmy.ca 9 points 5 months ago

Are they being kind by dropping the matter?

I believe they are sincere that they just want this all to go away. It's self interest though, not kindness.

Are they pretending to be strong when they know they don't have a defamation case? Or did they include that to silence her?

I think what they are saying is "shut up or the lawyers will make a lot of money".

[–] Eheran@lemmy.world 28 points 5 months ago (1 children)

LTT sold someone else's property (prototype even, after failing to review it correctly). I doubt they are innocent.

[–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 17 points 5 months ago

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.

[–] applepie@kbin.social 15 points 5 months ago (5 children)

We don't know if they are wrong or right here but we do know that these investigations are 100% PR stunt.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] jaykay@lemmy.zip 46 points 5 months ago (2 children)

It seems like people want… a volunteer (no money involved) who has never heard of LMG (unbiased) to interview people without permission (LMG wouldn’t know about the investigation and couldn’t prepare), access information and then release all of it. Remember to include finger prints of everyone interviewed in case the statement are falsified.

I’m exaggerating here but it looks like no matter what they do, someone will have a problem with it.

Like… investigators were paid to… investigate. They’re not gonna get paid more for not finding anything or gonna refund the money if they do. 100% they have this in their contract

[–] Tramort@programming.dev 21 points 5 months ago (3 children)

But it's also going to reduce their chances of getting hired for this kind of work.

Sponsored investigations cannot be impartial unless the investigator is blinded with respect to who hired them.

[–] Chewy7324@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

On the other hand, if an investigator is found out to do bad investigations, their credibility gets lost. Some corporations likely would choose them for exactly that reason, but most won't, so there's some incentive to do a proper job.

Given I don't know of bad rumors about this corporation, I'd go with @ashok36@lemmy.world's take that the following statement was written by a lawyer and thus sexual harassment did happen but was addressed.

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

Given that this issue was made public, it wasn't addressed well enough for at least some parties involved. Hopefully harassment won't be an issue going forward.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ashok36@lemmy.world 34 points 5 months ago (4 children)

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.

[–] red@sopuli.xyz 20 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Correction, the only way to read this is that allegations happened, and said allegations were not ignored, but investigated. The statement doesn't tell us wether those allegations were found to have merit.

[–] TagMeInSkipIGotThis@lemmy.nz 15 points 5 months ago (1 children)

That's not the only way to read that at all. Your interpretation is that sexual harrassment was not ignored & was addressed; but the sentence is actually that allegations were not ignored and were addressed.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] bitfucker@programming.dev 10 points 5 months ago (3 children)

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Zikeji@programming.dev 27 points 5 months ago (5 children)

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.

[–] Synthuir@lemmy.ml 27 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (4 children)

Here you go.

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.

[–] bitfucker@programming.dev 9 points 5 months ago

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] baseless_discourse@mander.xyz 16 points 5 months ago

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.

[–] rbesfe@lemmy.ca 6 points 5 months ago

How was it pitiful? To me it showed a clear improvement plan and wasn't just some YouTuber "I'm sorry we were caught" apology.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] franklin@lemmy.world 24 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Mountain_Mike_420@lemmy.ml 15 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Well yes you can. I am sure the investigation company poured through digital (timestamped) logs, messages, data, emails…

[–] franklin@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

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.

[–] troglodytis@lemmy.world 23 points 5 months ago

Cool. Release the report.

[–] Arbiter@lemmy.world 12 points 5 months ago (4 children)

I’m astounded the investigator they hired found them innocent.

[–] RegalPotoo@lemmy.world 69 points 5 months ago (8 children)

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?

[–] M500@lemmy.ml 25 points 5 months ago

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 . 

[–] paraphrand@lemmy.world 16 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] RegalPotoo@lemmy.world 21 points 5 months ago (3 children)

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

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] olosta@lemmy.world 8 points 5 months ago (4 children)

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.

[–] RegalPotoo@lemmy.world 15 points 5 months ago (5 children)

Those are the findings of the report - what kind of specifics were you expecting?

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 41 points 5 months ago (9 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.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 23 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Arbiter@lemmy.world 10 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The US is however a pretty low bar.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 16 points 5 months ago

A pretty low bar.. like our sponsor!

[–] TORFdot0@lemmy.world 13 points 5 months ago

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

[–] Hahah_Montana@lemmy.wtf 7 points 5 months ago (2 children)

LTT? Linus Tech Tips? Am I missing something here...?

[–] Cqrd@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 5 months ago (5 children)

At the same time it came out that they were pretty shitty to one of the products they reviewed and some other terrible reviewing practices they had, sexual abuse allegations came about. That was a while ago, but thankfully it seems they investigated themselves and found no issue. Works for the police, works for LTT.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›