Madison reveals experiences working at LMG

[BigFatTeddy]

16 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

That's what I said.  An employee can't really sexually harass and employer.  Make the employer uncomfortable in that way and you  get fired or reprimanded or something.   The power imbalance is key to the concept.  

 

You are aware that physical intimidation exists, yes? And that employees can hold power within companies. Everybody here is calling for unions and I'm pretty sure that union leaders are protected specifically in all industrial countries.

 

16 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

In Madison's case, being the newest hire, the least connected person and jr to everyone means she would be in a vulnerable position to being harassed.

And also, just maybe, as a totally new concept, the fact that she would identify female as in both, gender and sex. Which might also be the most fundamental factor for sexual harassment in such a brotastic environment. Right? No? Okay.

[Cooldoe]

6 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

In practice though the only ones who post on Only Fans are posting porn.  

You did not understand my point. Some of the creator is OF was in patheon before they were banned from there and move to OF.

The content between one channel to another does not mix if you do not become a member of a channel you cannot see the content, very similar to patheon.

 

LMG channel member is mostly lmg community member that join as a joke as well. So the post and msg is between LMG member in OF only not from other channel

[Sasha2D]

9 minutes ago, Cooldoe said:

You did not understand my point. Some of the creator is OF was in patheon before they were banned from there and move to OF.

The content between one channel to another does not mix if you do not become a member of a channel you cannot see the content, very similar to patheon.

 

LMG channel member is mostly lmg community member that join as a joke as well. So the post and msg is between LMG member in OF only not from other channel

 

This is bullshit. You can definitely see other content on OF. 

[Uttamattamakin]

2 minutes ago, BigFatTeddy said:

 

You are aware that physical intimidation exists, yes? And that employees can hold power within companies. Everybody here is calling for unions and I'm pretty sure that union leaders are protected specifically in all industrial countries.

Ok.  It is not impossible for a group of employees to sexually harass their supervisor ... IF that supervisor is then not protected by his or her higher ups in the company then they have the case. 

That is not what is going on here. Linus is not some kind of victim. 

 

2 minutes ago, BigFatTeddy said:

 

And also, just maybe, as a totally new concept, the fact that she would identify female as in both, gender and sex. Which might also be the most fundamental factor for sexual harassment in such a brotastic environment. Right? No? Okay.

Never said that, or implied it.  

[Thepyrodex]

1 minute ago, Sasha2D said:

 

This is bullshit. You can definitely see other content on OF. 

I’m still waiting for the dedicated air circulation review channel to launch there.

 

”only fans on OnlyFans”

[Someona]

24 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

An employee can't really sexually harass and employer. Make the employer uncomfortable in that way and you  get fired or reprimanded or something.  

So a man cant sexually harass his female boss?

 

You hear what you're implying?

[David_Campbell]

Put your money where your mouths are https://www.childrenincrossfire.org/. Just google children in crossfire if you dont like links. You wont help anyone or figure anything out on this fourm but you can help a child right now.

[Thepyrodex]

Just now, Someona said:

So a man cant sexually harass his female boss?

 

You hear what you're implying?

Take a step back and a deep breath, then prepare your reply.
 

trolls are rampant so don’t feed them, just reject their argument clearly and calmly, especially if you are in the right (no opinions from me either way) 

 

also, relax it’s the weekend and hopefully nice outside where you are, enjoy it!

[DakotaCx]

3 hours ago, The Shining Wizard said:

Taran has spoken up about this:

 

 

 

Which in my eyes further the likelihood of this being her a very young hire not knowing what they signed up for, walking into the realities of a real job, and becoming overwhelmed/depressed. When you hate your job and/or coworkers you tend to see yourself as the victim of your experience, that perception becomes your reality. The self harm component, or claim of it, reinforces this degraded clarity of thought/coping skills. 

 

Taran comes across as an honest source with nothing to gain/lose here. If things were as bad and as blatantly toxic as she claims you'd think he would have witnessed at least one thing.

 

I don't doubt off colour jokes take place there, maybe even too freely from figures like James, but we also know she is one to engage in that banter naturally as well which can blur the lines and open the door to some unintentional offense because some people can be dumb at picking up on social cues, and other people can be dumb about not communicating when lines are crossed or they are offended effectively.

 

Judging from the "bombshell" audio leak of the meeting it sounds like this was acknowledged with expectations reinforced, and multiple avenues of reporting implemented. (Including third part HR, and anonymously).

 

It's possible this was a result of Madison expressing her issues to multiple people upon departure. But if anything to me it shows they responded to it, well before her expose.

 

She continues to attack their responses via her Twitter posts, which I find to be an immature way of handling something like this.

 

I've worked with people like her before, who when they were let go turned to social media or other outlets to express their frustration they weren't the problem, the company was. 

 

I could very well be misreading everything and be completely wrong, sure... but the more that comes out, the longer it goes on it just seems more like one of those situations.

 

Factual or not, I hope she seeks help. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Cooldoe]

18 minutes ago, The Shining Wizard said:

Taran has spoken up about this:

 

 

 

It is interesting that both colin and teren specifically mention that they did not see the incident but corroborate that madison story is consistent

[CrabbyDadTech]

1 hour ago, Uttamattamakin said:

In James's defense ... if he was talking to Linus it's not sexual harassment.   Sexual harassment needs a power difference and/or a hostile work environment.  You can't harass the person who has their name on the building.  That person can FIRE you. 

Does not make it appropriate in that meeting, and the fact that Linus fosters and tolerates that is cause enough for me to believe Madison. 

[Someona]

3 minutes ago, Thepyrodex said:

Take a step back and a deep breath, then prepare your reply.
 

trolls are rampant so don’t feed them, just reject their argument clearly and calmly, especially if you are in the right (no opinions from me either way) 

 

also, relax it’s the weekend and hopefully nice outside where you are, enjoy it!

My heart rate is sub 60

[Thepyrodex]

Just now, Someona said:

My heart rate is sub 60

Great, then use that calm and channel it into a good reply.

 

it was friendly advice as it is easy for trolls to get people worked up and I wanted to remind you to take a second to set back and enjoy the good things.

 

seriously, nothing but kindness 

[castlev]

14 minutes ago, DakotaCx said:

Which in my eyes further the likelihood of this being her a very young hire not knowing what they signed up for, walking into the realities of a real job, and becoming overwhelmed/depressed. When you hate your job and/or coworkers you tend to see yourself as the victim of your experience, that perception becomes your reality. The self harm component, or claim of it, reinforces this degraded clarity of thought/coping skills. 

 

Taran comes across as an honest source with nothing to gain/lose here. If things were as bad and as blatantly toxic as she claims you'd think he would have witnessed at least one thing.

 

I don't doubt off colour jokes take place there, maybe even too freely from figures like James, but we also know she is one to engage in that banter naturally as well which can blur the lines and open the door to some unintentional offense because some people can be dumb at picking up on social cures, and other people can be dumb about not communicating when lines are crossed or they are offended effectively.

 

Judging from the "bombshell" audio leak of the meeting it sounds like this was acknowledged with expectations reinforced, and multiple avenues of reporting implemented. (Including third part HR, and anonymously).

 

It's possible this was a result of Madison expressing her issues to multiple people upon departure. But if anything to me it shows they responded to it, well before expose.

 

She continues to attack their responses via her Twitter posts, which I find to be an immature way of handling something like this.

 

I've worked with people like her before, who when they were let go turned to social media or other outlets to express their frustration they weren't the problem, the company was. 

 

I could very well be misreading everything and be completely wrong, sure... but the more that comes out, the longer it goes on it just seems more like one of those situations.

 

Factual or not, I hope she seeks help. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have the best job in the world, that's all I'll say. However there have been moments of friction there where I felt like I didn't fit in (not a gender/gay thing but personality clash).

 

Looking back I realized I wasn't being the best employee I could be. I had personal problems at home at the time. It was affecting my overall happiness, I had a short fuse, I had become lazy.

 

I remember at the time a supervisor brought it up to me and made that suggestion, I thought they were crazy. I was living in the moment, I couldn't see it from the outside. I honestly just thought I was surrounded by assholes.

 

It was even tougher to get to the point where I am, because now there I was, I had to change my mind, escape my bad attitude, and fight to be a productive person. It's not something that happened overnight, but took lots of "put my best foot forward" pep talks in the mirror. It's harder than being a new employee that goes in fresh. Bad history was already there.

 

The point is, I know how it is to feel the way Madison has described, considering her brother had died at the time. Was my age responsible for me being able to turn it around? I dunno, perhaps I'd been younger, I would have gone on every day blaming others, posting on Twitter.

 

Looking back, I thank God they had patience.

[DakotaCx]

1 minute ago, castlev said:

I have the best job in the world, that's all I'll say. However there have been moments of friction there where I felt like I didn't fit in (not a gender/gay thing but personality clash).

 

Looking back I realized I wasn't being the best employee I could be, not because I had a bad attitude, but because I had personal problems at home at the time. It was affecting my attitude.

 

I remember at the time a supervisor brought it up to me and made that suggestion, I thought they were crazy. I was living in the moment, I couldn't see it from the outside.

 

It was even tougher to get to the point where I am, because now there I was, I had to change my mind, escape my bad attitude, and fight to be a productive person. It's not something that happened overnight, but took lots of "put my best foot forward" pep talks in the mirror. It's harder than being a new employee that goes in fresh. Bad history was already there.

 

The point is, I know how it is to feel the way Madison has described, considering her brother had died at the time. Was my age responsible for me being able to turn it around? I dunno, perhaps I'd been younger, I would have gone on every day blaming others, posting on Twitter.

 

Looking back, I thank God they had patience.

I think a lot of us have been there to some degree. I see it as a milestone for personal growth when you realize you have far more power over your perceptions/attitude than you realize, and often it's not what others do but how you choose to react that matters.

 

I think it's probably hard to reach that milestone when your social media following will continue to be your own personal echo chamber. I'm glad when I was her age we just had MySpace Top 8 to worry about. 

 

[Uttamattamakin]

26 minutes ago, CrabbyDadTech said:

Does not make it appropriate in that meeting, and the fact that Linus fosters and tolerates that is cause enough for me to believe Madison. 

Yeah not saying not to believe her.  Just saying lets not try to make Linus looks like a victim of James wanting to bang him or something. 

 

5 minutes ago, HenrySalayne said:

The morals and ethics you are implying are frightening. Do you think it's acceptable to burn through employees until you find somebody who can endure the job? Or do you think the job should be designed to not wear employees until they break down?

It's appalling that they tried to put all of that on one young woman.  Same time though lots of companies churn and burn through new hires.  Turnover is one of the big signs that an employer is not great.  

[BigFatTeddy]

1 minute ago, HenrySalayne said:

This is not "my" approach, it is standard procedure for years. It's very worrisome if you are doing this for 25+ years and this is the first time you are hearing about it. Especially if you thought to this point, you can "make an agreement with your employees" on occupational hazards. WTF dude, seriously. How can you be so oblivious?

 

But feel free to read through the CCOHS homepage, if you are Canadian. You definitely have to learn a thing or two in your old days.

 

Sure, whatever. Viel Spaß im Arbeitsschutz. 

 

At least you gave a great insight into what it's like to have a discussion with a German compliance guy.

[Uttamattamakin]

37 minutes ago, Someona said:

So a man cant sexually harass his female boss?

 

You hear what you're implying?

The female boss can fire the man.    It's not me saying or implying things.   

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/law-crime-and-justice/human-rights/human-rights-protection/sex-discrimination-harassment.pdf

 

This is how the world works.   NOTE in the above "it says there does not need to be an imbalance of power".  Then it talks about people on the same level abusing eachother. 

 

The issue is that Madison had no power to say no or to get out of the situation without huge consequences.  

Linus has his name on the building and his first initial on everything.  James does not.  So James's off color joke while in poor taste at the time is not harassment.  

Lets keep it focused on the person who had no power, and the least seniority.  That's the issue.  At most you can say it shows the environment etc etc.   I say it is a good example of what not to do being given by James, in the form of a joke, directed towards the big boss, who it is legally impossible for him to sexually harass.  Sorry I'm not sorry that laws aren't written to the standards of post tumblr very young millennials and older zoomers. 

The line in that passage that I think really matters is "Can include by a customer or client".  Being subjected to a job duty that exposes her to tons of D and V picks via Only Fans, in addition to the internal harassment.  What Madison alleges sounds like she was sexually harassed in every possible way. 

 

[DakotaCx]

30 minutes ago, HenrySalayne said:

The adverse mental health effects of content moderation are known. It's the responsibility of the employer to reduce the risk of adverse health effects to a minimum and closely monitor the health of their employees so they won't become disabled.

The morals and ethics you are implying are frightening. Do you think it's acceptable to burn through employees until you find somebody who can endure the job? Or do you think the job should be designed to not wear employees until they break down?

I don't think an employer explicitly needs to do that, aside from staying within confines of the law of course.

 

I think that's just a quality that separates good employers that care about retention, with those who don't. That's just part of business, and there are schools of thought for both approaches.

 

For me personally, I subscribe to the belief that investing more upfront will payoff through low turnover and retained experience. 

 

That being said, I also believe there is a responsibility for the employee to be their own advocate and if conditions aren't satisfactory not hesitate to find something else. 

 

We have the luxury of being able to do that in North America. There is a reason why social media moderators and other "harmful" or less valued positions tend to be outsourced to countries where people may not have the luxury of being able to leave. Though, I think it's a bit of a false equivalency comparing her role to that of something like a dedicated YouTube content reviewer in terms of perceived or measurable harm. 

 

All of that is just a long way of saying employees have to be their own advocates, determine what compromises or circumstances they are willing to tolerate, and not solely rely on an employer to do what they believe is right. 

[Someona]

3 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

 

 

So even in the one definition you decided to source, it states that "but there does not need to be an imbalance of power for it occur"

 

Let's hear it from Canada itself:

 

Quote

Sexual harassment can include discriminatory comments, behaviour, and touching. It may take the form of jokes, threats, comments about sex, or discriminatory remarks about someone's gender

So when Madison told that sex joke at the work place to Linus if Linus felt awkward that means that she sexually harassed him.

[BigFatTeddy]

3 minutes ago, HenrySalayne said:

If you are from Germany your business must have a mandatory Sifa (DGUV V2). This person can explain to you in detail what I just told you and assist you in the risk assessment.

 

Edit:

Dude. That's not my point. I will give you your word for the day: hazard pay, in German: Gefahrenzulage. Just step back two steps and think why this exists.

 

I can always pay somebody (within limits) to expose himself to danger. No one ever questioned that there are law to abide. And that was not the point. If not explicitly mandated by law and regulation, and for sure looking at dicks as a social media manager ist not (yet) covered by law, I can always find an arrangement - if nothing else simply by compensating the person.

 

Please stop. Please just stop.

[Cooldoe]

35 minutes ago, HenrySalayne said:

The adverse mental health effects of content moderation are known. It's the responsibility of the employer to reduce the risk of adverse health effects to a minimum and closely monitor the health of their employees so they won't become disabled.

The morals and ethics you are implying are frightening. Do you think it's acceptable to burn through employees until you find somebody who can endure the job? Or do you think the job should be designed to not wear employees until they break down?

We live in the real world and not in fantasy world.

The reality is if company is there to make money not to bubble wrap their employee. Your statement seem want the company to create protection bubble around employee which is just unreasonable

 

Yes company have some responsibility to protect their employees but only up to a reasonable point. Most of the protection mandated is about internal working conditions protection not from stress of managing outside world. There can be resources to help them cope with mental issue but it is not employer responsibility to baby their employee

 

People get mental challenge not just in social media jobs. Fast food worker is a good example of stressful work environment. If there is a 'Wild Karen' in the restaurant and berating fast food worker. What do you think will happen? Will the govt sue the fast food company due to placing their employee to face 'wild Karen'? No right?

 

I am working in Sales, so we have clear target and KPI and if we fail to meet the target we will be fired. Can I claim that setting target is unfair because it harm my mental health due to the stress of the target? In reality the answer is no. As if I fail to hit my target the company might suffer some loss.

In work life there always be uncomfortable and difficulty that you must face with you job but it is your jobs as employees to manage the job that is still under their responsibility. It is not the employer job to put you in safety bubble.

 

That is why the employer usually do screening in interview process to screen out someone that would not fit. After that there are 3 month trial period where they evaluate employee fit on the job. Even if you pass the month probation you still have yearly review for your job.

If you cannot cope with the job, it is most company policy that you will be moved to other department or fired.

[Cooldoe]

1 minute ago, HenrySalayne said:

Which country?

Indonesia but I have worked in Canada before as well

 

Sales compensation, bonus and salary normally tied to sales performance in most country as far as I know

[castlev]

1 hour ago, HenrySalayne said:

The adverse mental health effects of content moderation are known. It's the responsibility of the employer to reduce the risk of adverse health effects to a minimum and closely monitor the health of their employees so they won't become disabled.

The morals and ethics you are implying are frightening. Do you think it's acceptable to burn through employees until you find somebody who can endure the job? Or do you think the job should be designed to not wear employees until they break down?

IF the requirements are clear, the employee has a duty to themselves to be honest with themselves if they can handle it. IF the requirements are not clear, the employer is at fault.

[leadeater]

4 hours ago, BigFatTeddy said:

Yes, you're perfectly right about this. But what's not stated here is that I must enable everybody to do a specific job. So, of course, I can find an agreement with staff to accept specific risks. This is standard practice in every industry. A bus driver will accept the risk of having a car accident. The bus driver's employer will not be obligated to block every street the bus drives through to prevent all risks. The same logic applies to all tasks and jobs out there.

 

2 hours ago, HenrySalayne said:

No, you cannot find an agreement with staff. In which world are you living? This would open the door for shady employers to pressure their employees into unnecessary risks. It would be highly unacceptable!

 

And your example with a bus driver just shows a complete lack of understanding how risk assessment works. There are in fact many layers of measures implemented to prevent accidents altogether and reduce repercussions of accidents. What do you think an airbag or the seatbelt is? A technical measure to reduce injury. Or the drivers licence? It's an organisational measure to ensure proper training. There are mandatory medical exams. There is regular mandatory retraining. The workspace has to be ergonomic to prevent adverse health effects from sitting all day long and operating a bus. The list goes on and on to achieve an acceptable level of risk (not a risk-free environment - which would be utopistic).

And this is done for ALL workspaces and tasks. It doesn't matter if a person is just sitting on a desk, you are obligated by law to do a proper risk assessment. And I'm talking from a European/German perspective about these things, so details may differ, but from what I read on the CCOHS website, the basic principles are identical. And why shouldn't they in a developed country?

Any employer who ignores risk assessment on occupational hazards is simply unqualified to employ people.

I think you are missing the actual point. You can list all the things you did but ultimately it actually has nothing to do with what was being said. You can have all those things in place however an employer cannot stop an accident from happening. If you sign an employment contract to be a bus driver then you are in fact accepting that having one is a possible chance as part of your employment. Nobody could ever offer you employment as a bus driver without that risk.

 

You're arguing around the actual fundamental point.