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.

  • @Arbiter
    link
    127 months ago

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

    • @RegalPotoo
      link
      English
      707 months ago

      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?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        257 months ago

        I guess people just wanna be mad with him I mean what I think what they want is that they would find that the company was actually at fault and they actually did something wrong and then I guess someone gets fired. I think it’s what they wanted to hear, but honestly, this is the best outcome . 

      • paraphrand
        link
        English
        167 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.

        • @RegalPotoo
          link
          English
          217 months ago

          Absolutely, which is why they hired external consultants to do the review - they are a neutral third party, with a reputation of fairness to uphold

          • applepie
            link
            fedilink
            27 months ago

            Easy on the koolaid…

            Paying somebody by default makes them not neutral

            • @RegalPotoo
              link
              English
              57 months ago

              I’d love to hear how you managed to convince someone to do complex, detailed work over 8 months without paying them

              • applepie
                link
                fedilink
                -77 months ago

                that’s because you have a bootlicker’s imagination, dear.

      • @olosta
        link
        87 months ago

        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
          link
          English
          157 months ago

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

          • @olosta
            link
            -47 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.

            • @FoolHen
              link
              307 months ago

              That’s not gonna happen. They can’t publish private business and personal communications, names and data with the public. The point of hiring an external company is that they audit the case and come to a conclusion, and for the company to be reputable they must not be biased. If you don’t believe the conclusion why would you believe the details? They could also be manufactured or cherry picked.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  4
                  edit-2
                  7 months ago

                  Anonymized is still risky as people speech has a pattern. All it takes is one nutjob to dox and now everyone has a problem.

                  Edit to add further information why anonymization is hard. US survey and statistics data is jittered in a random way to protect the privacy since it is possible to backtrack the statistics to the person who answers the survey. I think it was explained in a minutephysics video.

                  That is a whole government department dealing with sensitive data and mathematical proof that their survey result is anonymous. What can a law firm do to guarantee anonymization? Remember, guarantee is a strong word here as it carries legal implication for the firm. If the firm cannot guarantee anonymization, then the company would not want to be liable when shit hits the fan.

            • @RegalPotoo
              link
              English
              107 months ago

              Would you give candid testimony if you knew that your boss - let alone the general public - were going to see it later?

              The breakdown you are wanting shouldn’t be generally available within LMG, let alone publicly available.

        • @Crismus
          link
          -47 months ago

          deleted by creator

          • @StereoTrespasser
            link
            57 months ago

            I think you need to sit back and reevaluate your position in this situation. You have no right to that information, and even if you did, nobody involved would care about your opinion.

            • Saik0
              link
              fedilink
              English
              27 months ago

              LTT has no right to our views… This isn’t a “what rights we have”. It’s if you want our views back, this is what we want to see.

              Clearly Linus cares about our opinions, otherwise he wouldn’t have hired the firm and done all of this from the beginning.

            • @Crismus
              link
              17 months ago

              I never said it was my right. I said that if they want people to believe them, they will need to show the report.

              If not, I treat them as I would any other money first company with a clueless owner. I probably won’t be the only one turned off.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        27 months ago

        Hired a professional firm that specializes in defending employers against employees and has a history of anti-union action. This isn’t some bootstrap law firm, it’s a multi billion dollar giant that makes its money by suppressing labor unrest.

      • applepie
        link
        fedilink
        0
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Hr are the worst bootlickers out there… Inherently biased againt the employee.

        They are not even pretending here.

    • @halcyoncmdr
      link
      English
      417 months ago

      Ah yes… They hired a third-party respected law firm specializing in labor and employment law, and allowed full access to records and employees to investigate the allegations. They took months to complete that investigation thoroughly and provide a report on the findings and recommendations going forwards.

      Because the results aren’t what you personally wanted, you attack the entire idea that an investigation paid for by LMG must inherently be biased in their favor because they paid for it.

      So what alternative would you suggest? They already hired a respected third party law firm specializing in this. Since you seem to think you know of a better way to investigate in a more unbiased manner.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        37 months ago

        Not the original commenter… but an investigation paid for by a company is not the same as an investigation by somebody who is incentivized to work for the aggreived.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          147 months ago

          But obviously they can’t force the potential victim to pay for an investigation when they’re the ones who need the report. Do you think instead that anyone accused in this way is literally incapable of countering the claims for themselves? There has to be an avenue for them to defend themselves, and this feels like the best thing they realistically could have done.

          Clearly a more thorough final report would help here, but I don’t see the point in attacking the money trail when that isn’t something that can be avoided.

        • @halcyoncmdr
          link
          English
          12
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          So you are saying that simply by accepting payment from a company any investigation must inherently be biased?

          That’s the entire reason a reputable third party was hired in the first place, because a reputable group won’t be incentivized to bias like that. That’s why they are reputable.

          The aggrieved are welcome to hire their own investigator, or file a lawsuit, or any number of other things. But all we got from that side were the original claims on social media, and advertising for their stream. Not exactly an unbiased source either.

      • @Crismus
        link
        -37 months ago

        There is no report, just a statement that is poorly written yet again. A few paragraphs on X written by them isn’t a report refuting the allegations. It’s another “Trust me Bro” statement.

        • @TropicalDingdong
          link
          187 months ago

          I mean did you expect them to give you a copy of the report with the original names, statements, personal files?

          How would you like the information presented to you?

          • @Crismus
            link
            -17 months ago

            You can redact a lot without losing the focus of what is found in a report of this magnitude. It happens a lot in many businesses that had investigations.

            If they don’t have the skill to write that, then why are they a media company to begin with?

            Why is the statement written personally instead of as a standard press release?

            This note sounds more to the point that Linus didn’t know anything of what happened, so nothing was wrong. Lastly, they said that they would have a report for us after the investigation was done. Without putting the report out, they can’t hope to put this all behind them. There will always be a shadow order them still. Also, saying that they don’t have to publish a report because they are a private company will only let more people think they are hiding something.

            The investigation was to show they weren’t hiding anything, and without a report showing the allegations were false they haven’t done anything.

            • Saik0
              link
              fedilink
              English
              17 months ago

              You can redact a lot without losing the focus of what is found in a report of this magnitude.

              Hell most of these reports often have what’s known as an executive summary. Which doesn’t contain the minute details that shouldn’t particularly matter to the public. The unaltered summary would have likely been sufficient to shut up the detractors. But they instead went with this weird weasel language…

          • applepie
            link
            fedilink
            -27 months ago

            Not as a cover up

            Nothing personal against lmg but this just good old corporate pay your way out of bad PR trick.

            Why would I respect this as worker or YouTube watcher?

            Also Linus made strong anti Union statements so we know how he thinks about the wage slaves who ain’t his buddies.

            • @TropicalDingdong
              link
              17 months ago

              Ok, so like you are cynical, but not nearly cynical enough.

              If they did this as a “cover-up”, the aggrieved parties will sue the ever living dicks off LMG.

              If LMG is making the claim they did a thorough investigation with an outside auditor, the aggrieved parties can contest that and sue.

              LMG is clearly confident enough in the results of the investigation to go to court over the matter. The second to last paragraph is a not-even-veiled threat.

              They are basically stating “if you are feeling froggy, leap”, as in, the investigation turned up jack shit, and if you want, bring it to court and we’ll massacre you; we did the investigation, and we have the facts.

              No sane company would do that unless they believed themselves to be 1000% in the right, with the

    • @TropicalDingdong
      link
      237 months ago

      I mean that seems a little cynical. They obviously did so to protect the company. And the barely veiled threat at the end suggest they would be more than happy to go to court with the results the investigation found. A court of law isn’t going to just take LMG’s word for it.

      This is Canada we’re talking about, not the US. They have laws you know.

      • @Arbiter
        link
        107 months ago

        The US is however a pretty low bar.

    • @TORFdot0
      link
      English
      137 months ago

      Firms don’t hire auditors to tell them everything is great. They actually want an unbiased report. They just don’t release to the public if it’s not flattering