this post was submitted on 24 May 2024
324 points (88.8% liked)

Technology

59143 readers
2232 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
[–] ShaunaTheDead@kbin.social 7 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (8 children)

An investigation from a neutral third party is a good thing, but in this case LTT hired the third party investigator so the investigators obviously have an incentive to find LTT innocent of all charges since LTT is paying them through Linus Media Group (LMG). It's better than nothing, but it's like when there's an internal affairs investigation into police misconduct... by the police... Nobody believes it and for good reason.

[–] PotatoPotato@lemmy.world 64 points 5 months ago

Of course LTT hired the investigator, who else would hire an investigator?

[–] JohnnyCanuck@lemmy.ca 52 points 5 months ago

The law firm would be putting themselves on the line for LTT if there was any further legal action, or if the subject of the investigation brought forth more evidence.

I doubt LTT is big enough to give them the incentive to do that.

Hiring a third party investigator is not the same as internal affairs. Internal affairs have only one client and little incentive to bite the hand that feeds them.

If LTT goes down after this and it comes out that the law firm missed something major or outright lied, it would call into question every investigation they've done (at least recently) and destroy their reputation.

[–] JRush@lemmy.ca 41 points 5 months ago (1 children)

If the law firm bungled the investigation, it would affect their reputation and future business. Wouldn't that mean they have a monetary incentive not to favor LMG in their investigation?

[–] TORFdot0@lemmy.world 17 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Who would be paying for an investigation if not LMG? Firms don’t hire auditors/investigators to give them a rosy report. They want the truth so they can adjust their processes so they don’t spend more money on regulatory actions/fines.

If the report is bad they just don’t release it to the public. But a third party audit lying to a firm to make them look good does not provide value. The company isn’t biased just because they are being paid by LMG, that’s just not how it works. LMG could just say they investigated themselves and found no wrong doing if that was their objective.

Saying that you don’t believe the report because the company investigating it was paid for by PMG shows that you are biased more than they are.

[–] puppy@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Firms don't hire auditors/investigators to give them a rosy report.

That's exactly why firms do it.

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

But a third party audit lying to a firm to make them look good does not provide value.

Why not? Making them look good IS providing value according to the client that pays tha audit firm.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTxt96DwaFk

If the absolute auditing giant EY doesn't say anything bad on behalf of their clients, this firm doing it is certainly within realms of possibility.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_0XEIFGK5o

[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 14 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Withholding payment based on results with a negative outlook is illegal.

[–] essteeyou@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

If the results are negative you just pay them and don't release the results.

[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, but there's still the possibility of them releasing it. Anyway, my point is that there's no monetary incentive for them to skew the results.

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

Not within the span of one client, no, but businesses would have an incentive to hire firms that are more likely to find them innocent.

[–] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 6 points 5 months ago

The law firm will gloss over as much as it can do safely, but if there was clear evidence of wrongdoing, they would have to report it or risk severe consequences. I am not familiar with Canadian regulations so I cannot comment on what those consequences would exactly be, but there would definitely be some.

[–] 0xD@infosec.pub 3 points 5 months ago

That's not how this works. Maybe if you get some business consultants, but this ain't it. Just because you hire them yourself, doesn't mean that they'll fall in line with your wishes.

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

There's a big difference, it's not like Linus did the investigation himself like the police do