Linus Tech Tips (LTT) release investigation results on former accusations

https://lemmy.ml/post/16013932

Linus Tech Tips (LTT) release investigation results on former accusations - Lemmy

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.

IDK how these typically work. Does the law firm release a summary of their findings? Or sign off on LTTs statement? Otherwise, it’s still just a statement they could have made with or without a successful investigation.

Also, I read the “we have a strong case for defamation” as a bit threatening. That didn’t need to be aired as a public statement.

Recommendation for better onboarding… very believable, that’s been most companies I’ve worked for.

Weren’t there a few (ex?) employees that came forward shortly after the initial accusations surfaced and confirmed it was true?

I could be misremembering things but I also vaguely recall the initial accusations being backed up with receipts. Wasn’t there an Imgur album with a whole bunch of screenshots of conversations proving the accusations weren’t made up? Or am I confusing two completely different situations together?

I didn’t follow the situation super closely, and moved on and forgot about it until I saw this post.

I didn’t follow it closely either, in fact this is the first I’ve heard about ex employees confirming and an album of screen shots.

However, I am hesitant to accept screenshots as proof of anything - this is a company of artistic tech nerds, I’m sure 70% of the staff could make a convincing screenshot and 30% of them will know to make the metadata match.

As for ex employees speaking up, it’s all hearsay. It could be true, but it could also not. There’s no reliable way to determine that with out substantial evidence backing them.

I would accept it if someone took them to the courts and won - unfortually thats a huge finaical burdern for an individual, so that’s unlikely to happen.

Alternatively if the labor board started issuing fines for crimes, that’d be a clear indicator something bad was happening.

In this case, I am sticking with inoocent until proven guilty.

If you’re referring to APrime, he did release an updated statement on Twitter/X.

Last year, I made the decision to leave LMG influenced by a series of negative emotions that clouded my judgement. So over the past few months, I’ve taken the time to apologize privately to Linus, Yvonne, and others on the team because my actions and words were unfair to them. Throughout my five years of employment there, they’ve shown nothing but kindness and forgiveness. We’ve had our differences, but none of them justified the comments I made or the disturbances I caused after my departure. My decision to leave was unfortunately precipitated by a challenging period in my personal life, which I felt was affecting my work. The “drama” unfolded while I was on vacation, a time when I was hoping to recharge. Instead, I returned feeling more frustrated & immediately quit. Since then, I’ve continued with therapy, which I had started in the Spring under the company health plan, and this eventually led to a diagnosis of certain mental health conditions. I’m grateful for the support I received, as it helped me understand and address these issues. I genuinely miss the people at LMG (though the feeling may not be mutual) & feel my motives for leaving were misguided. However, I’ve been fortunate to work with some incredibly talented and wonderful people since, & I’m excited about the prospect having more in the future. :)

Aprime.png (@Aprime) on X

Last year, I made the decision to leave LMG influenced by a series of negative emotions that clouded my judgement. So over the past few months, I’ve taken the time to apologize privately to Linus, Yvonne, and others on the team because my actions and words were unfair to them.

X (formerly Twitter)

“We’ve thoroughly investigated ourselves and found we did nothing wrong”

Is anyone shocked?

How would you suggest a firm to investigate wrongdoings other than asking a third party to do it?

Release an actual report of the investigation by the third party rather than a statement.

What claim was investigated, what proof did they find if any, what evidence did they have access to etc.

Finding no proof of wrongdoing or proof of no wrongdoing is a big difference.

Release your proof of a negative! Square your circle! Invent a perpetual motion machine!
You can't have "proof of no wrong doing," because you can't prove a negative.

Good point, thank you for pointing it out.

Maybe a better way to phrase it is that a report from the investigator could qualify what they considered/found when they said the claims were false, baseless etc, and any evidence they found/data they had access to. (E.g. if they could look at all internal communication but their data retention policy is 6 months and this happened 7 months ago, its not the same as not finding anything)

For example, “allegations of sexual harassment were ignored or not addressed” is a wide range. It could be there were no allegations recorded from the employee (as in, they weren’t reported), or they were addressed by a slap on the wrist or a “just don’t do that again” to introducing workplace behaviour training, forcing the perpetrator to go through it, suspending them without pay and so on.

You are right it’s not proof of no wrongdoing, but it would serve as proof that they handled things in a generally suitable manner, rather than that they managed to twist things around to check a box for the investigator.

We’ve thoroughly investigated ourselves

but that’s the point… they didn’t

They paid someone with incentive not to find anything, to investigate what LTT decided to share. Yeah, no, I’m not resubscribing.
so now it’s just shit you made up… (i cannot believe i’m defending lmg)
I think you’re forgetting initial responses from LMG to this whole fiasco. They didn’t appear to be acting in good faith then and so I’m setting a bar for trust higher than I would otherwise.
i think they did act in good faith, but since linus can’t handle any form of criticism and most of them are inexperienced with stuff like this they made a metric fuckton of mistakes… however, this has nothing to do with the outcome of the investigation. “setting a bar for trust higher” does not mean “the outcome is invalid because i think they paid the investigators hush money”
The outcome of the investigation is a statement by a third party which can’t present proof so ultimately this is still about trust.
I get it’s fun to dunk on them with a meme comment, but that’s literally the exact opposite of what they did.

We’ve thoroughly investigated ourselves

They didn't though?

We paid for someone to investigate ourselves and coincidentally they found nothing?

That’s the thing though… how could you investigate something (which costs time, thus money) without letting someone pay for it? Would you suggest that alleged victims should pay for the investigation instead?

What construction would be reasonable for you to investigate wrongdoings?

Uh… Do you work for free? I sure don’t. If courts assigned an impartial investigator, I certainly didn’t hear about it.
I’m sure you have sources on how an independent, third-party wasn’t engaged to investigate this, right?
As with corporate mediators though, wouldn’t such investigation companies have a financial incentive to favor their clients, so as to improve the odds of being rehired?

Yes and no. The reason companies are hiring them is for the image of impartiality they bring. If your firm gets a reputation for just always siding with the company, regardless of what actually happened, that image gets destroyed.

Plus, I’m willing to bet that there’s not a whole lot of recurring business from individual companies for this type of service. That would kind of defeat the purpose of being the “neutral third party”.

As someone who used to work in a job that involved giving companies reports they paid for, I gotta say while large auditing firms will likely defend their reputation before the company that hired them, mid and small companies will just follow the paycheck. Doesn’t look that big to me.
Roper Greyell LLP

At Roper Greyell LLP, our employment and labour lawyers combine legal expertise and industry experience to deliver our clients practical and cost-effective solutions to their workplace and privacy law challenges in BC and Canada.

Roper Greyell LLP

Haven’t you seen The Big Short?

m.youtube.com/watch?v=vE8E7_PNm98

The Big Short: Ratings Agency "What are you 4?!"

YouTube

It’s a business completely built on reputation for impartiality and thruthfullness. The second they take money to to tilt their findings and it’s discovered, their whole business it dead.

Having worked at a company that had to hire a similar firm, I can tell you they had a huge contract up front that stipulates that they will find everything, they will be impartial, and if you, as their customer try and obfuscate or hinder their findings, they’ll terminate the contract, and report any actions they’re legally required to report.

That’s niave. You don’t think words are spoken behind closed doors. All the paperwork is to cover their ass so they can point to it later when questions. Everything gets swept under the rug when you are hired to investigate the people who hired you.
I mean I guess its slightly reassuring. Truth is, its hard to trust a “moderator” that you paid for. Its just the nature of how shit works.

That’s pretty much my thinking too. I mean, what’s the less biased alternative to get to the truth here? The law firm has an incentive to satisfy the people paying them, but they also have their own reputation to maintain.

So I guess I’d be inclined to skeptically believe their findings. Although, it would be better if the firm released their own summary (or endorsed this one).

The thing is that it’s the best they can do, which is about all we can ask for. No one is going to do a good job at the investigation for free.
The summary could’ve been an official statement from the lawfirm in formal letterhead. But I’m not PR on LTT, so what do I know. They just keep fumbling and bumbling about like the idiots they collectively are.
That’s kinda where I’m sitting

Yea idk.

After having dealt with some audits (although not this exact topic), in general they followed the same format. “Assert that we do the thing we claim to be doing”. So if the thing they claim to be doing is a low bar, the audit means nothing. If they dont release any evidence, or a report of what they were ascertaining it means very little IMO.

I can’t remember if the employee released any evidence with her claims either though, but in general I’d prefer my odds with assuming her story is closer to the truth against a company which has had other mishaps recently, underpinned by evidence. All of which they tried to brush under the carpet.

So yeah. I’m pressing X for doubt.

It’s unbelievable how much hate for LTT there is on this platform. I like them. No one is perfect. This investigation from a third party is a good thing and the findings are good as well. The statement about defamation, I feel, is warranted because the ex-employee made a ton of very damning claims and really hurt their image. The Fediverse is a great example of this damage.

The hate from this community towards LTT is extreme and unfounded.

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.
Of course LTT hired the investigator, who else would hire an investigator?
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?
Bro, CEOs pay them to not find things. Finding things would make CEOs not want to pay them
That’s…no…that’s not how this works.
Do you think a CEO would want to hire a firm that MISSES facts? Facts that would make said CEO vulnerable to a costly lawsuit?
These firms build their business on a reputation for thorough, truthful investigation, and they put a contract in place that says that when they’re engaged by a company. It would destroy their own business if they took money to tilt their findings.
Yea, and Monsanto needs to produce suicide seeds that can’t generate crops. It’s not that they’re greedy or brutalist in their control of the market at all.
Wow what a false equivalency strawman argument.
I doubt you pay a doctor for him to say something you want to hear

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.

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.
Withholding payment based on results with a negative outlook is illegal.
If the results are negative you just pay them and don’t release the results.
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.
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.

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.

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

That’s exactly why firms do it.

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.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTxt96DwaFk

If the absolute auditing giant EY is caught of lying on behalf of their clients, this firm doing it is certainly within realms of possibility.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_0XEIFGK5o

Why Auditors Aren't Independent Of Their Clients

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

The defamation statement was maybe a bit much, but also warranted. People need to know that just throwing accusations out there that are just plainly not true is actually legally problematic.

I also don’t get why people feel this is “threatening people who want to speak up in the future”.

If your “speaking up” has merit, it’s not defarmation. Plain and simple.

Companies make mistakes (and aparently some were made in this case, and dealt with).

But I find it concerning that people also just blindly trust and and all claims that individuals make about these kind of situations. Believe that they are telling the truth, but also verify that this is actually true. The latter part is important. Blind trust is as damaging as not doing anything at all about a proble, There are people out there who get laid off for legitimate reasons, and try to retaliate for that. Even by claiming BS reasons.

I wish you never have to find yourself facing a corporation. The power imbalance is so massive that you feel like an ant, it’s the most disempowering experience anyone could face in legal terms. LTT could destroy people’s lives and it would be decades if ever, for them to ever have to face consequences.

This is why I always default to believing the individual over the corporation. The corporation has no soul, no heart, no conscience and no remorse. Imagine being a person who wants to speak up about something else you know for certain happened, but a million dollar law firm just put in writing that such kind of thing didn’t happen. You have no recourse or power, it’s your word against a literal army of lawyers. Regardless of whether the investigation was good or not. The result still has a silencing effect.

It’s one of those things you just have to accept about this kind of social media and, in a sense, Lemmy users specifically. I’m not too surprised that parts of this community are in the camp of disliking things because they are popular and don’t fit their specific wants/needs. Many people are here because they dislike the more popular Reddit, after all.

In a more general sense, most people when they don’t like something are neutral about it, and those people won’t show up in the comment section, so all we see are these more “extreme” opinions.

I enjoy watching LTT videos, but you won’t find me jumping into comment sections saying I’m a huge fan and there’s no way they could have done something bad because I like their channel, for example. Getting the independent audit was a good idea, and I’m glad they went through it. I don’t think the defamation comment was necessary, but that doesn’t mean the rest of the message is worth ignoring.

The hate from this community towards LTT is extreme and unfounded.

Are you just going to ignore Linus and the companies abhorrent response to the situation? That alone should make anyone lose any respect they had for them.