this post was submitted on 23 May 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)

Linus Tech Tips

3747 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 34 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago (2 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.

[–] Eheran@lemmy.world 4 points 3 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 1 points 3 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.

[–] m0darn@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 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 2 points 3 months ago

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.

[–] troglodytis@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

Cool. Release the report.

[–] ashok36@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago (3 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 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 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 1 points 3 months ago

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.

[–] BleatingZombie@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago

I've made my final judgement. That was one long message saying "We're guilty and we know it, but we're not going to tell anyone"

[–] Arbiter@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] RegalPotoo@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (2 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?

[–] paraphrand@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

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.

[–] olosta@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 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 -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] olosta@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

A break down of all the allegations with what evidence (testimonies, electronic messages..) they took into consideration before coming to the conclusion that the claim was false.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

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

(shamelessly stolen)

[–] franklin@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 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 1 points 3 months ago

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

[–] jaykay@lemmy.zip 0 points 3 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

[–] scutiger@lemmy.world 1 points 3 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.

[–] Tramort@programming.dev 0 points 3 months ago (1 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.

[–] BennyHill@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 months ago

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.

[–] Zikeji@programming.dev 0 points 3 months ago (1 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 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 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.

[–] TagMeInSkipIGotThis@lemmy.nz -1 points 3 months ago

I just want to jump in here as the whole thing about the tonnes of factual errors stuff...

A lot of the allegations about the accuracy of their data basically came down to arguments about the validity of statistics garnered from testing methodology; and how Labs guy claimed their methods were super good, vs other content creators claiming their methods were better.

My opinion is that all of these benchmarking content creators who base their content on rigorous "testing" are full of their own hot air.

None of them are doing sampling and testing in volume enough to be able to point to any given number and say that it is the metric for a given model of hardware. So the value reduces to this particular device performed better or worse than these other devices at this point in time doing a comparable test on our specific hardware, with our specific software installation, using the electricity supply we have at the ambient temperatures we tested at.

Its marginally useful for a product buying general comparison - in my opinion to only a limited degree; because they just aren't testing in enough volume to get past the lottery of tolerances this gear is released under. Anyone claiming that its the performance number to expect is just full of it. Benchmarking presents like it has scientific objectivity but there are way too many variables between any given test run that none of these folks isolate before putting their videos up.

Should LTT have been better at not putting up numbers they could have known were wrong? Sure! Should they have corrected sooner & clearer when they knew they were wrong? Absolutely! Does anybody have a perfect testing methodology that produces reliable metrics - ahhhh, im not so sure. Was it a really bitchy beat up at the time from someone with an axe to grind? In my opinion, hell yes.

[–] Hahah_Montana@lemmy.wtf 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] Cqrd@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 months ago (1 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.

[–] Strykker@programming.dev 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I see you can't read.

They hired an outside group to come in and perform an investigation, this is like the exact opposite of what police "internal investigations" do.

[–] Cqrd@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

"Canada's largest", but companies don't hire you if you consistently make the companies paying you look bad. Like HR, these sorts of companies help protect the people paying them.

[–] Strykker@programming.dev -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Jesus fuck you all so fucking cynical it's a miracle you can put your pants on without shitting them in fear.

[–] Cqrd@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You didn't even see a report from this company, just what LTT said they said, and you believe them outright. This is what being a fucking shill is, man. Can't you see that daddy Linus isn't going to reward you for your blind loyalty to him? He'll never notice you and your blind devotion.

[–] TagMeInSkipIGotThis@lemmy.nz -1 points 3 months ago

You don't put out a statement saying "This company looked at us & found this:" without running the statement by the company in question first.

Well, you can, but you'll usually find yourself in hot water if the things you're claiming the company found run contrary to what they actually found.

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip -1 points 3 months ago

We've moved on