this post was submitted on 24 May 2024
325 points (89.0% liked)

Technology

59669 readers
3115 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
 

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] 62 points 6 months ago (7 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 55 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 35 points 6 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 6 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 6 months ago

It's entirely possible that literally everything she claimed was false or exaggerated but there's still enough evidence of Linus acting less than decently on the WAN show with regard to his other actions that cast doubt.

The man who took another company's prototype and auctioned it off then claimed that they already had an agreement before contacting them somehow had zero evidence of abuse of power? We should assume that his willingness to abuse his power ends at his businesses doorstep because some of his co-workers are decent people?

[–] [email protected] 21 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Of course it's possible. But after that devastating Gamers Nexus debacle, Linus being actively dismissing of peoples concerns until it became a public issue, the multiple employees saying they were worked off their feet unable to do their job properly, and generally being a toxic environment... this firm gives it a perfectly clean bill of health - that's not likely.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 6 months ago

yeah, lets remember that the sexual misconduct allegations were just a part of a far larger overall issue with regards to LTT. From Linus being a cunt about warranties, to stealing prototypes and refusing to return them, to lying to the public about having to come to an agreement with the said victims of the theft before ever having even contacted the victims in the first place, to putting out a fake apology video where they joke about the actual crimes they committed.

and this firm they paid saying they are clear does nothing to absolve them from all the other shitty, asshole, dishonest shit they've done, nor does it make Linus any less of a cunt.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 months ago

Yep, the law firm here says anything bad and they're opening themselves for ltt being sued by ex employee. And if employee loses ltt will go after law firm for defamation.

[–] [email protected] 46 points 6 months ago (6 children)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 31 points 6 months ago (35 children)

Okay. So what should LTT have done?

Ignore it completely and not respond?

load more comments (35 replies)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 6 months ago (1 children)

So they just have to sit around and hope that another company does the investigation then for free? I really don't know what you want, I understand your point, but there's literally no solution to that problem.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 6 months ago

They sue for defamation or don't

[–] [email protected] 11 points 6 months ago

Yeah, but who pays for it then?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 6 months ago

The point of these firms are to be an imperial 3rd party. You pay your notary to confirm that you signed a document. But if they just lied for whoever paid them they wouldn't be trusted to provide that service.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

These firms get paid before they release their findings. They have no incentive to make their clients look good, and it would tarnish their reputation as a neutral third party

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago

ROFL, their incentive is the next job. Companies aren't going to higher a company that finds against its clients....