Madison reveals experiences working at LMG

[NubCak]

43 minutes ago, kn1ghtnsh1narmr said:

I would just like to add one thing.

 

I'm not a fan of SJWs.  I'm not one of these believe all women people.

 

If a manager told Madison, who believed she was being harassed by someone, to go have coffee with them.  They should be fired.

Wouldn't that depend on what type of "harassment" they are referring to?

There's a lot of snowflakes out there now adays that would call harassment on very normal social interactions.

[digitalscream]

6 hours ago, Reclus said:

Yes. They did investigate.. FFS don't make me defend them. The entire HR meeting was a result of the investigation made by HR  after her departure. 

Also you have found the information even when it's based on this thread. The entire point here is that there needs to be evidence. Not just your or LMG or Maddie's words.

The point of suing for defamation is to prove to your stake holders and investors that you are clean beyond any doubt and you will not allow anyone to just throw accusations at you. This isn't just about the money you can win in court. This is money that you might loose due to investors literally asking why haven't you sued this person if you are innocent? 

 

#1 - If they investigated, and the result was Linus holding that meeting, and it would've been his wife running the investigation (since she was HR at the time) then why was Madison's Twitter thread a complete shock and unrecognisable to him? Either you're right and he's lying in the response to The Verge, or you're completely inventing this investigation.

 

#2 - There are no other stakeholders or investors in LMG. It's 100% owned by Linus and Yvonne, so they have nobody to prove anything to.

[Cosmic Emotion]

9 hours ago, hmfaysal said:

Eh, when were you chosen the leader of those 15.4 mill? Just wanting to know, I would like to run for the position next time

You will need some critical thinking for that but be my guest.

[kn1ghtnsh1narmr]

32 minutes ago, NubCak said:

Wouldn't that depend on what type of "harassment" they are referring to?

There's a lot of snowflakes out there now adays that would call harassment on very normal social interactions.

Does it depend?

 

What if she said the harassment was looking at her across the room.

 

Can we all agree that saying go get coffee together outside of work is an incompetent answer that shows a lack of judgment?

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Reclus said:

Yes. They did investigate.. FFS don't make me defend them. The entire HR meeting was a result of the investigation made by HR  after her departure. 

Where did you find that the HR meeting was the result of an investigation?   This is the first time I have heard that claimed.

 

The original reddit user who posted the HR meeting (6 months ago) had this to say about it:

 

[hmfaysal]

54 minutes ago, kn1ghtnsh1narmr said:

I saw the bashing Madison and defending Madison.

If the leaked audio is true about the HR meeting, Linus did say to first to to solve it with the person.

It didn't sound like that was a new policy.

In one of Madison's tweets she did say they were lying in meeting, so they wouldn't look bad in front of the higher ups.

Solving a personal conflict with that person without intervention can be ok, depending on what it is.

The moment Madison brought up the sexual nature to a higher up and the response is go have coffee with them, that means their judgment is compromised.   I don't care who it was.  If that was said even by Linus or Yvonne they should be removed from the company.

 

You should totally remove them, we support you 

[Majestic12]

46 minutes ago, kn1ghtnsh1narmr said:

I saw the bashing Madison and defending Madison.

If the leaked audio is true about the HR meeting, Linus did say to first to to solve it with the person.

It didn't sound like that was a new policy.

In one of Madison's tweets she did say they were lying in meeting, so they wouldn't look bad in front of the higher ups.

Solving a personal conflict with that person without intervention can be ok, depending on what it is.

The moment Madison brought up the sexual nature to a higher up and the response is go have coffee with them, that means their judgment is compromised.   I don't care who it was.  If that was said even by Linus or Yvonne they should be removed from the company.

 

At work I always ask people to try and talk it over with the person they have beef with first. Only when it's clear it's not going to work we mediate and even then it often does more harm than good because the moment that other person (who often had no ill will) feels targeted, the chance of things improving between the two of them is almost always a big fat zero. 

A lot of people here don't get there's nothing as bad for moral as co-workers hating each-other and they'll do everything they can to smooth things over. This is not out of ill will but because they need to think what's best for the company as well. Too many people complain to a manager about someone and expect them to get punished. Can you imagine what would happen if they did this? Every workplace would change into a small Third Reich with snitches everywhere.

The very sad truth is also that managers think "Who is more essential to our company". I've been put in that spot in the past and it's NOT fun: if you know one of your most vital workers did something you can't accept and another co-worker feels slighted you have to thread carefully. Most people who never were in charge of a company would say "just fire the guy" but if you want everyone to be out of a job REAL fast (= bankruptcy), that's how you do it ... . It's a fine line to walk and you need to find a way to admonish your vital worker (you do NOT want him to feel as if he's untouchable) without destroying his motivation or making him quit. 

 

A long block of text but the whole coffee response reads to me like a (very) weak attempt to do just that: try & smooth things over to protect the person involved. I can imagine they saw Madison as less valuable and from her Twitter responses it seems she realizes this as well.

[kn1ghtnsh1narmr]

3 minutes ago, Majestic12 said:

At work I always ask people to try and talk it over with the person they have beef with first. Only when it's clear it's not going to work we mediate and even then it often does more harm than good because the moment that other person (who often had no ill will) feels targeted, the chance of things improving between the two of them is almost always a big fat zero. 

A lot of people here don't get there's nothing as bad for moral as co-workers hating each-other and they'll do everything they can to smooth things over. This is not out of ill will but because they need to think what's best for the company as well. Too many people complain to a manager about someone and expect them to get punished. Can you imagine what would happen if they did this? Every workplace would change into a small Third Reich with snitches everywhere.

The very sad truth is also that managers think "Who is more essential to our company". I've been put in that spot in the past and it's NOT fun: if you know one of your most vital workers did something you can't accept and another co-worker feels slighted you have to thread carefully. Most people who never were in charge of a company would say "just fire the guy" but if you want everyone to be out of a job REAL fast (= bankruptcy), that's how you do it ... . It's a fine line to walk and you need to find a way to admonish your vital worker (you do NOT want him to feel as if he's untouchable) without destroying his motivation or making him quit. 

 

A long block of text but the whole coffee response reads to me like a (very) weak attempt to do just that: try & smooth things over to protect the person involved. I can imagine they saw Madison as less valuable and from her Twitter responses it seems she realizes this as well.

I disagree.

If they were agruing about stealing a stapler.  Ok.

You tell a manager someone is harassing me. 

You do not tell them to meet outside of work.

 

Madison's claim is that "I was told that certain issues were "sexual tensions" and I should just "take the co-worker out on a coffee date to ease it out". "

 

You take the specific allegation it only makes it worse.  My point is you don't even need all of that.

Someone says they were harassed.

You don't tell them to meet with that person outside work.

Not complicated.

Can we all agree on something?

[Cosmic Emotion]

25 minutes ago, hmfaysal said:

Really? I know your heart is going away for her, without even realizing you are wimping really hard 

Amazing response as always. You need to teach me some things as a macho man I guess so I am not a "wimp". Personal attacks are allowed here though, good to know.

[Majestic12]

3 minutes ago, kn1ghtnsh1narmr said:

I disagree.

If they were agruing about stealing a stapler.  Ok.

You tell a manager someone is harassing me. 

You do not tell them to meet outside of work.

 

Madison's claim is that "I was told that certain issues were "sexual tensions" and I should just "take the co-worker out on a coffee date to ease it out". "

 

You take the specific allegation it only makes it worse.  My point is you don't even need all of that.

Someone says they were harassed.

You don't tell them to meet with that person outside work.

Not complicated.

Can we all agree on something?

If it comes from one or only a very limited amount of people you're right but she's so vague I can't tell that so I assumed it was separate remarks by separate people which seemed more likely to me. If she complained to the manager about a single person and he did half the things she described on Twitter then yeah, that coffee suggestion is idiotic. There's a point where it's clear you're not going to solve this yourself and someone needs to step in.

[nowItContinues]

On 8/16/2023 at 8:55 AM, Riccardo Cagnasso said:

So let's recap.

 

- people in the management criticize the quality of her work, as they should be since it's their job

- she doesn't like it and starts complaining about her superiors

- they point out that their management is made up of accomplished professionals and she's a newbie that could be fired anytime

- she gets offended at the fact that they didn't fire all the senior management because she was complaining

- she alleges that she was "inappropriately grabbed" whatever it means

- she's perplexed by the fact that LTT cares about what public faces put in the video and weather they will stick with the brand

Honestly, you are downplaying quite a bit. Ill go by it point for point.

- Critique shouldn't be a problem. Telling someone their work is dogshit is a problem. Ofcourse I wasn't there so I don't know the exact words used. But telling something isn't up to standards is something else than calling it dogshit.

- unhelpful statement by you. Be a bit more human and understand that this was a horrible situation in her experience.

- having that specific feeling will make you suck at your job. No matter how far down the tree you are. You should feel safe so you can do your best work. If that feeling isn't there that is LMG's failure. Especially when she didn't feel safe to speak about it.

- again, the fact she felt she couldn't address this is LMG's failure.

- what you are describing is a problem in the media world. If you are seen as a face of the company, you will be protected against anything but rape and murder.  This isn't LMG exclusive, but it is their failure.

 

The big issue here is that mental wounds are invisible and very easy to downplay. If Madison was bruised her case would be easier and LMG's HR could've done more.

 

Don't get me wrong I think these are growing pains combined with toxic "nerd/incel-culture". The perpetrators need to be rehabilitated and if - impossible at LMG - let go.

 

This is a techspace wide issue. You told me without telling me you are a.part of the problem. Work out your issues, I know this can be seen as a harsh attack by me to you as someone you do not know at all. But at this moment. Based on these reactions. You might be hurting, or hurting others with your own behaviour.  Look at it closely in the coming period, and find some help treating the behaviour you show or is being shown to you. Because you are dealing with some yourself.

[Cosmic Emotion]

To the people personally attacking anyone else, you don't seem to realize that the community as well is held accountable here. You're only making matters worse.

Someone found my Youtube channel and started bullying me because I went against Linus. Get real. This is never gonna end well for Linus or even the community of people supporting him. If you wanna help, at the very least be decent.

[hmfaysal]

9 minutes ago, nowItContinues said:

Honestly, you are downplaying quite a bit. Ill go by it point for point.

- Critique shouldn't be a problem. Telling someone their work is dogshit is a problem. Ofcourse I wasn't there so I don't know the exact words used. But telling something isn't up to standards is something else than calling it dogshit.

- unhelpful statement by you. Be a bit more human and understand that this was a horrible situation in her experience.

- having that specific feeling will make you suck at your job. No matter how far down the tree you are. You should feel safe so you can do your best work. If that feeling isn't there that is LMG's failure. Especially when she didn't feel safe to speak about it.

- again, the fact she felt she couldn't address this is LMG's failure.

- what you are describing is a problem in the media world. If you are seen as a face of the company, you will be protected against anything but rape and murder.  This isn't LMG exclusive, but it is their failure.

 

The big issue here is that mental wounds are invisible and very easy to downplay. If Madison was bruised her case would be easier and LMG's HR could've done more.

 

Don't get me wrong I think these are growing pains combined with toxic "nerd/incel-culture". The perpetrators need to be rehabilitated and if - impossible at LMG - let go.

 

This is a techspace wide issue. You told me without telling me you are a.part of the problem. Work out your issues, I know this can be seen as a harsh attack by me to you as someone you do not know at all. But at this moment. Based on these reactions. You might be hurting, or hurting others with your own behaviour.  Look at it closely in the coming period, and find some help treating the behaviour you show or is being shown to you. Because you are dealing with some yourself.

How do people call dogshit then? Whats the best method of sugarcoating it?

You know what "Nerd/Incel" culture is? Steve just showed everyone. They called LTTs dogshit out. What would have happened to Maddie if she worked at GN? Lets take a wild guess

 

Nerd culture is about excellence. We call the word nerd in a derogatory way. Whats your problem with excellence? 

[Kaine_ver.1.22474487139]

I'm curious about how HR would handle things said "on the clock" vs "off the clock" and if "implied consent" has any merit in social spaces like a bar where having a drink after work would have a certain expectancy of unprofessional discussion and behavior and how far that would extend to something like LTT's staff rooms and activities where they can game after the day's work is done.

[saintlouisbagels]

I wonder if HR was proper enough to give Madison an exit interview when she quit. That would seem like the easiest paper trail evidence for the external investigation.

But that would be too easy - it probably doesn't exist.

[hmfaysal]

10 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

Not just social but legal.  This whole matter is one of civil torts.  

Legally speaking here is what could happen. 

Madison retains counsel who sues for sexual harassment, and petitions a court for what is called discovery.  This would compel LMG to hand over to her lawyers every document that could be related to the matter. 

 

LMG does their own investigation and could theoretically try to counter sue for defamation.   Defamation is really hard to prove against a public entity.  Even outside the USA, in most common law jurisdictions a public entity is expected to just accept a bit of dirt on their name from time to time. 

 

Anyway when it comes to BC where this all went down, where LMG is located, and the law that would apply. 

 

MULTIPLE of the things on that sheet happened to her. 

In fact if LMG winds up not having to make Madison RICH after this it'll be on the technicality that she well.  I hate to say it... She did need to put on her big girl pants.  She needed to put them on,  retain counsel, find out what her rights are, and sue them as soon as things happened.   She may have waited to long because she was thinking about this in an immature way.  She was afraid of what other immature people would think of her and say about her.  She needed to be enough of an iron lady to take charge that way.  

It's not her fault.  NOne of this makes anything right.  Six months is barely time for someone young to really process and recover from something that could be a trauma let alone... put on their big girl pants. 

The great state of Illinois in the USA will give someone 300 days

The Republic of Texas in the USA 300 days. 

California  THREE YEARS 

Madisons only mistake in all of this, IMHO being the person with less power, was thinking that the laws and protections that would exist in Canada would be anythging like those that exist in the USA. 

 

We haven't annexed them yet. 

 

Someday we will, or fall in the attempt.  Until then Canada is this strange monarchy next door with a doofy looking king that cheated on his beautiful wife.    Looking at it that way is any of this really a surprise? 

No no, there were no mistakes on her part. She and some of her colleagues did try to record illegit behavior at office. The only problem is, there isn't a shred of evidence. Office full of cameras, hidden cameras, employees recording each other without consent, still nothing close to anything has been recorded. No email threads, no teams messages, nothing. All she has going for her is Steve's expose, and another ex Colin. 

Good stuff, as I have said, she should get some money out of this fiasco, she deserves it. Money or something or anything. Maybe Billet labs should sponsor her, or Maybe Steve should hire her at whatever pay she asks for, thats only fair. 

[NubCak]

1 hour ago, kn1ghtnsh1narmr said:

Does it depend?

 

What if she said the harassment was looking at her across the room.

 

Can we all agree that saying go get coffee together outside of work is an incompetent answer that shows a lack of judgment?

That's not harassment.

Telling your employees to go deal with their own bullshit is a fine way if you ask me. 

If it starts to affect your production at work, then i'd take issue. 

You don't need to be friends or friendly with everyone at work.

[RasmusDC]

2 hours ago, Mutex01 said:

No kidding.   I also find it amazing that the official HR policy Linux presented immediately after Madison left the company was something like:

 

If you receive feedback about someone at this company, your first response is "Have you spoken with this person?" followed immediately by "You need to speak with this person.".    The next option was Linux/Yvonne, then finally an external HR company.  

 

It is things like this that remind me that Linus has basically zero experience outside his own company.  

i really don´t get that premise. So you are confronted by a collogue that has been in a situation that is NOT great, maybe office bullying, harassment, whatever. 

 

The process Linus is presenting here, is a Garnished standard HR process. YOU GO to your manager, because you need to get this in control, in control is not to HIDE it, it is to STOP it, NOW... before a investigation happens, and to get the investigation going, so you can LOCATE what has actually happened, it is to protect BOTH parties of at this point the "allegedged" crime.

 

what he also is stating is that, IF your management in direct, FAILS you, you go to HIM, which means you escalate.

 

i don´t see ANYTHING wrong with this process.

 

however it can be abused, it can also be the tool for a lot of people, to ACTUALLY try to "hide" the facts, we agree on that. but with an HR organization that is the same, they are HIRED by management, i have NEVER to see an HR organisation, where an escalation in problems with ethics & other elements, are not feed directly from HR back into management. that is just the facts of life.

 

So if you want a different process, then you have to have a goverment agency with full power, so you can whistleblow to that, and get an investigation started, but to be honest, that is "brutal" to a company, and even though we should trust every "feedback" from staff.. some is blown out of proportion, some is simply misunderstanding, others are FACT and needs to be handled.

 

But it is an Impossible solution, an in my 45 years as a human being and my many years as an adult in a lot of different levels of an organization, i have still to see a good process for this..

 

It unfortunatly is dependent on people, it always is, and the fun part of this is the COMPANY owner, the company values, can be the best in the world, all these good intentions are often "washed away" down through all levels of management, the more you have of these, the LESS you are actually in control, you can make all the rules you would like, the instance shit like this happens, reactions becomes reflexes, and sometimes self protection.... 

 

that is just in my experience. but in my many years i think i have seen a factor of 100 more abuse of staff, than sexual harrasment, i have seen so many leaders, not be capable of their positions, and so many employees fight an unfair fight, against people that are just not the right profile, or for that sake just decent human beings. 

 

But there are also EXCELLENT leaders, people that care, inspire trust.

[Reclus]

1 hour ago, digitalscream said:

#1 - If they investigated, and the result was Linus holding that meeting, and it would've been his wife running the investigation (since she was HR at the time) then why was Madison's Twitter thread a complete shock and unrecognisable to him? Either you're right and he's lying in the response to The Verge, or you're completely inventing this investigation.

 

#2 - There are no other stakeholders or investors in LMG. It's 100% owned by Linus and Yvonne, so they have nobody to prove anything to.

1. Or you are either unknowingly or deliberately misconstruing what  constitutes an investigation in a work place. I won't sentence after sentence transcribe what was told on that meeting and why. You have your conclusion from what you heard, I have mine. The reason this makes sense to me because I had to do hundreds of briefs and investigations like this. This is how a corporate environment reacts to issues at a workplace.

2. They have sponsor deals, loans, mortgages etc...

I don't want to belittle you  but it seems to me you have very little experience working or dealing with a corporate entity. 

[hmfaysal]

Well Madison should atleast have gotten the help of a PR firm. Thats what I think. Her twitter thread had a shock effect, which isn't long lasting though. It sounded like she wasn't qualified for the job, in her own words. The mental breakdown and physical harm part may have the shock value now, couple days, but isn't helping her cause of getting some money out of this. A PR firm would have done a much better job at presenting her issues and securing her a paycheck or something . 

[digitalscream]

14 minutes ago, Reclus said:

1. Or you are either unknowingly or deliberately misconstruing what  constitutes an investigation in a work place. I won't sentence after sentence transcribe what was told on that meeting and why. You have your conclusion from what you heard, I have mine. The reason this makes sense to me because I had to do hundreds of briefs and investigations like this. This is how a corporate environment reacts to issues at a workplace.

2. They have sponsor deals, loans, mortgages etc...

I don't want to belittle you  but it seems to me you have very little experience working or dealing with a corporate entity. 

LOL, I've got 30 years of working in corporate environments.

 

1 - Explain to me, then, how both things can be true - that an investigation was conducted and resulted in Linus holding that meeting, but Linus was telling the truth when he said that Madison's allegations are a complete surprise. I mean sure, it's possible that Yvonne ran the investigation (she was head of HR at the time), then told Linus to run the meeting but refused to tell him why it was necessary (and still hasn't to this day), but given what we know of their relationship I think that's highly unlikely. Ergo, those things are mutually exclusive - you can't have it both ways.

 

2 - "This is money that you might loose due to investors literally asking why haven't you sued this person if you are innocent" - sponsors and creditors are not investors. Pretty bloody obvious, that. And it's been made clear that LMG has no investors, never has and never will.

[RasmusDC]

2 minutes ago, hmfaysal said:

Well Madison should atleast have gotten the help of a PR firm. Thats what I think. Her twitter thread had a shock effect, which isn't long lasting though. It sounded like she wasn't qualified for the job, in her own words. The mental breakdown and physical harm part may have the shock value now, couple days, but isn't helping her cause of getting some money out of this. A PR firm would have done a much better job at presenting her issues and securing her a paycheck or something . 

Madison was great on screen, she seemed to have a fun back and forward with linus. maybe, the search for a place for her in the company, ALSO because of the PUSH from the community, lead to a job that was not for her.

 

I still think with the few times she got on camera as a LTT staffer, she did great. the Mediapart... to be honest, this SoMe work is complex, and also high risk. 

 

But that also falls as a responsibility of a company, however, it must also admit that there was a BIG community push for this to happen, so some of the blame also falls a bit back on that part of the story.

[Reclus]

1 hour ago, Mutex01 said:

Where did you find that the HR meeting was the result of an investigation?   This is the first time I have heard that claimed.

 

The original reddit user who posted the HR meeting (6 months ago) had this to say about it:

 

Again a case of people reading and coming to different conclusions.

I look at this and see that management has noticed  or was notified of a problem, identified the cause, worked on a solution and implemented it. To do so they clearly investigated it since the points are addressing the issue and not some random stuff. How good the investigation was or the depth of it is a different matter that should be handled by the law if done poorly.

More over I simply can't take OP seriously when he dismisses all solutions presented on the meeting and also expects that managers will be called out in front of staff for supposed behaviour only to come to conclusions that the meeting did it's job by raising awareness on a possible issue at work.

I am not defending LMG. But I can clearly see an angry mob unwilling to be reasonable when it comes to serious issues.

 

[Reclus]

4 minutes ago, digitalscream said:

LOL, I've got 30 years of working in corporate environments.

 

1 - Explain to me, then, how both things can be true - that an investigation was conducted and resulted in Linus holding that meeting, but Linus was telling the truth when he said that Madison's allegations are a complete surprise. I mean sure, it's possible that Yvonne ran the investigation (she was head of HR at the time), then told Linus to run the meeting but refused to tell him why it was necessary (and still hasn't to this day), but given what we know of their relationship I think that's highly unlikely. Ergo, those things are mutually exclusive - you can't have it both ways.

 

2 - "This is money that you might loose due to investors literally asking why haven't you sued this person if you are innocent" - sponsors and creditors are not investors. Pretty bloody obvious, that. And it's been made clear that LMG has no investors, and never has.

I gave you my explanation. You either understand it and have counter arguments or you just scream louder. You are playing semantics, not the point of the argument. I won't argue with an angry mob.

Enjoy your riot.

 

[RasmusDC]

10 minutes ago, digitalscream said:

LOL, I've got 30 years of working in corporate environments.

 

1 - Explain to me, then, how both things can be true - that an investigation was conducted and resulted in Linus holding that meeting, but Linus was telling the truth when he said that Madison's allegations are a complete surprise. I mean sure, it's possible that Yvonne ran the investigation (she was head of HR at the time), then told Linus to run the meeting but refused to tell him why it was necessary (and still hasn't to this day), but given what we know of their relationship I think that's highly unlikely. Ergo, those things are mutually exclusive - you can't have it both ways.

 

2 - "This is money that you might loose due to investors literally asking why haven't you sued this person if you are innocent" - sponsors and creditors are not investors. Pretty bloody obvious, that. And it's been made clear that LMG has no investors, and never has.

Also depends, to be honest, in some companies the process is to decouple management until a conclusion is made, also what he states is that the allegations surprised him, there has been words, that i am sure of, but has this story grown, are there more in the bucket now, has the party involved, dug more up from her memory.. that was shared with management.

 

and again how much was actually escalated. for us as a community the story has grown a LOT with the LAST tweet blast from the involved (X blast, what ever). so is that also the case for the company..

 

i think this needs time to be examined, and handled, if any REAL criminal activity was done, then it of course should be investigated by the police, not by internal investigations, or like the new CEO stated an external investigator.. to be honest, if i was the head of, and handled the business, i would still not share the conclusion, WHY not.. because it is not for the community to PICK apart, it is to fix something that got broken, somewhere in this whole mess, the partners involved, the LTT employees, Linus and Madison, if we get this solved with these parties being happy. then the fix is DONE... then nothing is owed to the community..

 

Fair enough to fight on review quality, and other stuff, but these people cases. these needs to be protected, not just for the company but also for the people.