this post was submitted on 23 May 2024
134 points (92.4% liked)

Linus Tech Tips

1053 readers
3 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
[–] [email protected] 46 points 6 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

[–] [email protected] 21 points 6 months ago (2 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.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 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 @[email protected]'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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

This! Would you hire a mechanic who you know does what you say but 1/3 cars they "repair" ends up breaking again 6 months later?

As noted above, I think the statement is that allegations were made and they were not ignored, and/or were addressed.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Its like forced arbitration where a "impartial" arbitrator is hired by the company to settle disputes and IIRC the stats are that the company who pays them wins like 99% of cases.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago
[–] scutiger 4 points 6 months ago

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

Well you're not wrong, but the point is that the external investigator is not the one releasing these statements, and therefore nothing said can really be trusted. I couldn't imagine them letting the investigators release the findings themselves anyway, that's a dangerous proposition if they find shit that hadn't even been mentioned yet.