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.

  • Rentlar@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    76
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    I think part of it was the stress of the grindset that Linus running the show was getting all the staff into. Pushing out content at a regular schedule, getting sponsorships and all of that.

    The whole GN saga with data accuracy and the donated cooler that made LMG look inward for a bit and improve their process was for the best I think.

    The investigation to me is just one element making sure LMG weren’t getting off on the wrong foot.

    I think the complainant wasn’t wrong or defamatory at all to bring up concerns because even in LTT’s channel there was a video where the front and center stars of the team comment on how stressful things can be. When there’s an implicit hierarchy imbalance (Linus can say “we’re all equals here” all he wants) but fact is there’s a leadership structure in one way or another, which can cause one to take certain treatment in different ways.

    • Dagnet@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      52
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      It was a necessary “drama” imo. You mentioned the stress the team was put through but also I think Linus’ ego needed to be brought down a lot. The way he talked on wan show about the cooler is like someone who thinks he is a tech god, saying something is bad is expected but outright claiming the product is worthless and will never amount to anything is just bad taste specially when you got it for free AND didn’t bother testing it properly.

      One can hope this situation will bring positive lasting change to the way the company is run but also the image Linus has of himself.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        33
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        specially when you got it for free

        This is irrelevant IMO, getting a product for free shouldn’t impact your review at all. The issue is they didn’t test it properly, which is what people watch the video for.

        That said, I like GN’s policy here: no free stuff.

          • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            Yup, and I never said you didn’t. I just pointed out that “getting something for free” should have absolutely nothing to do with the product review. The review is about the merits of the product and whether it’s worth the asking price, how much they paid for it is completely irrelevant information.

            • Dagnet@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              It does make it worse because by accepting a free item they have a commitment to making at the very least a decent review, they didnt have to accept it, they could have sent it back (specially considering it was their prototype, you cannot buy a product at that stage). If they bought it and decided to shove it up their ass to test how well it cools their intestines I would find it extremely weird but fuck it, they bought it and they can do w/e they want with it.

              • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                7 months ago

                The only issue I see is the implication that if they leave a negative review, they won’t get free stuff anymore. So if the reviewer is honest and willing to buy the products they review, I don’t see an issue with accepting random free stuff in exchange for taking the effort to review it.

                That said, GN’s policy is great too, they buy the stuff they review so there are no conflicts of interest.

                • Dagnet@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  The problem is that they couldn’t buy it if they wanted, product wasn’t release yet. This kind of review can only happen by receiving the product for free, if they weren’t happy with that they shouldn’t have accepted it and since they did accept then they have to make a review in due time with proper procedures then return the product (and the GPU that apparently they lost) as fast as possible.

              • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                by accepting a free item they have a commitment to making at the very least a decent review

                Clearly not, because they didn’t. And we wouldn’t want free stuff to require good reviews, that’s called bribery.

                • explore_broaden@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  11
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  I’m reading “decent review” as “put in the effort to make a thorough review” instead of “good review,” and I definitely agree that by accepting the free product they should be agreeing to put some effort into the review.

                • Dagnet@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  That’s why the thing being ‘free’ makes what they did after even worse, they committed to it and fucked up royally. And I never said ‘good reviews’ just well done reviews instead of using a non supported GPU and just drawing conclusions out of his ass