Madison reveals experiences working at LMG

[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.

[HenrySalayne]

4 minutes ago, DakotaCx said:

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. 

 

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. 

I agree, but finding another job should be the last straw. The first thing should be to speak with your employer. They should also have an incentive to create a positive, inviting work environment. Unhappy employees do less work and take more sick days. If the employer is unable or unwilling to fix the work environment, switch positions or look for another job.

[HenrySalayne]

3 minutes ago, Cooldoe said:

I am working in Sales, so we have clear target and KPI and if we fail to meet the target we will be fired.

Which country?

[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.

[Majestic12]

2 hours ago, Cooldoe said:

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

I still hold my opinion that she likely believes her own story 100% but that she had tunnel vision and interpreted many things the wrong way or let them become "bigger" than they were (intended to be).

 

No-one is perfect and at work I've said stuff I regretted as well to my (female) colleagues. With male colleagues I can be pretty honest & open but with my female colleagues I need to thread very carefully because they take things to heart much quicker. I had discussed a customer complaint with a male colleague during the investigation stage and discovered a female colleague was to blame and she gave me a whole lecture about how sexist it was for me to discuss her mistakes with another male colleague. I'm not kidding ... .

 

My gut instinct tells me Madison is capable of this as well - she seemed (and still seems) to be struggling with insecurities and was likely seeing ghosts. Some of the "nastier" stuff will likely have happened for real and it won't have helped her insecurities but she lacks the experience to properly be able to emotionally handle what many may consider "normal" office politics where people have good & bad days.

[Uttamattamakin]

1 hour ago, Someona 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:

 

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

Only if the people are equal.    But whatever.  I'm sure a boss and chairman of the board of directors could totally sue a secretary for sexual harassment. 

 

50 minutes ago, HenrySalayne said:

I agree, but finding another job should be the last straw. The first thing should be to speak with your employer. They should also have an incentive to create a positive, inviting work environment. Unhappy employees do less work and take more sick days. If the employer is unable or unwilling to fix the work environment, switch positions or look for another job.

Not only should that be the first thing... but... to start a case with the government one has to show that they reported the harassment and nothing was done.  These sort of government questionaires tend to ask. 

Did you report it internally?  What was done? 
Has anyone similarly situated reported a similar event?  What was done? 

etc. etc. 

[Cooldoe]

Just now, Majestic12 said:

I still hold my opinion that she likely believes her own story 100% but that she had tunnel vision and interpreted many things the wrong way or let them become "bigger" than they were (intended to be).

 

No-one is perfect and at work I've said stuff I regretted as well to my (female) colleagues. With male colleagues I can be pretty honest & open but with my female colleagues I need to thread very carefully because they take things to heart much quicker. I had discussed a customer complaint with a male colleague during the investigation stage and discovered a female colleague was to blame and she gave me a whole lecture about how sexist it was for me to discuss her mistakes with another male colleague. I'm not kidding ... .

 

My gut instinct tells me Madison is capable of this as well - she seemed (and still seems) to be struggling with insecurities and was likely seeing ghosts. Some of the "nastier" stuff will likely have happened for real and it won't have helped her insecurities but she lacks the experience to properly be able to emotionally handle what many may consider "normal" office politics where people have good & bad days.

I do have the same view with you on this

It seem to be Mandison clearly believe her version of the story.

Unfortunately she can be confidently wrong as well.

[dave6018]

On 8/16/2023 at 10:28 PM, Middcore said:

 

Really says a lot about your mindset when your first instinct is to find other women to blame. 

I think your missing the point, if their is a culture at ltt, which I don't think their is! It wouldn't just be Madison who would of been affected by this!! I'm not quite sure how your thinking I'm blaming a women!!  

[Uttamattamakin]

5 minutes ago, Majestic12 said:

....

She wrote of being physically and inappropriately touched.  That's not ghost. 

[Middcore]

Just now, dave6018 said:

I think your missing the point, if their is a culture at ltt, which I don't think their is! It wouldn't just be Madison who would of been affected by this!! 

 

As I discussed in multiple other posts, you cannot make the assumption that a person who abused or harassed Madison would necessarily have done the same to all the other women working there. The psychology of it doesn't work like that. Some malefactors target individuals for a variety of reasons. 

[Mertrodome]

10 minutes ago, leadeater said:

 

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.

Sure, but if the employer some day decided they want to run a different type of bus that is similar, but different in a few key ways, and just expects them to do it, even without any training and when they've expressed that they're not comfortable driving it, it kinda moves past the accepted, understood risk and becomes its own thing.

It's not to suggest that risk assessment is the same thing as removing all risk, but it is about finding the appropriate way to minimise that risk. And that the risk to mental health of using a different, and expressly NSFW, platform should probably have been treated like bringing in a new form of bus. Especially when the employee tasked with it expressed reservations about it.

 

But like I said earlier, we don't actually know if LMG had this kind of thinking. It's entirely possible they did exactly what's being spoken about already before assigning Madison to the OnlyFans account. Really we're all just speaking hypothetically here anyway.

[dave6018]

On 8/16/2023 at 10:44 PM, William Isted said:

The response of someone who hasn’t gone back in the thread for info. And someone I wouldn’t want to know IRL.

No but somebody who has dealt with this in the real world, but what do i know. If you did your own research and study Madison tweets you will find it very interesting!!  Just let's say I can see why she didn't do the legal route!!  Your last bit killed me!! You don't want to know me how will I sleep at night!! How old are you 5? 

[HenrySalayne]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

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.

On the contrary. As you stated correctly, an employer cannot guarantee a bus driver to never be involved in an accident. But a lot of people here are arguing from the opposite perspective, that being involved in an accident is part of the job and there is nothing anybody could do about that. And this mentality is simply wrong.

Quote

If she can't handle the way humanity is on the internet, then she has a mental problem and the wrong job which is no one's fault.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

If you are a social media manager for any company you will be confronted with things you probably aren't comfortable with. That is the nature of the internet and someone who works with social media should be aware of that.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

So, if she got sent dick pics on normal channels, it would also be "the company's" task to bring up controls to "protect" her? I'm just wondering who in the company would do this? The employee protection officer?

At that point in time, she was hired as social media manager; she complained about some of the social media and obviously had no clue how to protect herself on that platform or deal with the situation. Does that mean she was not up for the task?

-------------------------------------------------------------------

If you cannot do the job you are hired to do then the only option is to fire you or to move you out to other position.

Although LMG is big but they are not big enough to have multiple people to handle the same jobs. So you are basically will dump the work you are paid to do to other people.

The onlyfans account is a temporary thing as well not a permanent position. They are abandoning the space and just stay there long enough to honor the paid subscriber and the other onlyfans creator

 

[leadeater]

7 minutes ago, Mertrodome said:

Sure, but if the employer some day decided they want to run a different type of bus that is similar, but different in a few key ways, and just expects them to do it, even without any training and when they've expressed that they're not comfortable driving it, it kinda moves past the accepted, understood risk and becomes its own thing.

No again that actually isn't the point about what was being said, if you drive a bus then you have as part of your job a risk of a vehicular accident. Can you tell me is there any way that this is not a possible outcome? As long as everyone involved knows it's a possibility and everyone is equally informed about it then signing the employment contract is accepting that possibility.

 

This is a different issue to Health and Safety policies and procedures.

 

It is also different but also very related to changes in job activities and being asked to do something that isn't in the employment agreement. This is a common issue and a common cause of work place dispute and accidents. Complaints about having to do something that you did not receive the training for is not that uncommon, that training may exist but was not given since it wasn't part of the role employed for etc.

[leadeater]

7 minutes ago, HenrySalayne said:

that being involved in an accident is part of the job and there is nothing anybody could do about that

That is absolutely the situation, whether you want to accept that or not. Being involved in one is part of the job, if it happens. Any bus driver would/should know that going in, they expect proper work place safety etc etc but if an accident happens there is no argument to be had that this isn't unfortunately part of the job, it was an understood risk and potentiality when accepting employment.

 

It's often why in such work sectors accident pay and time off is part of it, because it is an unavoidable part of the job.

[Majestic12]

15 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

She wrote of being physically and inappropriately touched.  That's not ghost. 

I implore you to read what I wrote properly:

 

"Some of the "nastier" stuff will likely have happened for real"

 

Because she's so vague we have no idea what actually happened though and these are some serious accusations. If someone really groped her ass it would be different than someone putting an arm around her but we're left to guesswork so it's best we just leave that one be unless more is revealed.

[castlev]

Context is everything. Show me 2 different people at work. Both tell me to "calm my dick."

The one I know and who I am jovial with, I would think it was funny.

The one I don't like, I would think was a douche.

Context is so important.

Context can also be twisted after the fact. If I was fired from that job, what's to stop me from launching allegations against either employee for harassment, even if my encounters with the likeable employee were acceptable FOR ME AT THAT TIME?

Nothing. It's why you have to be careful.

It's also why I don't joke around with female employees like that, and as a result, why females talk about the boys club in news articles and such.

You cant treat everybody equally, you just can't, that's a fact. Personal trust, friendships, and relationships, are how you decide who to treat and how.

[Cosmic Emotion]

Does anyone else wonder if and when GN's video on this is gonna drop?

[dave6018]

7 minutes ago, Middcore said:

 

As I discussed in multiple other posts, you cannot make the assumption that a person who abused or harassed Madison would necessarily have done the same to all the other women working there. The psychology of it doesn't work like that. Some malefactors target individuals for a variety of reasons. 

I

7 minutes ago, Middcore said:

 

As I discussed in multiple other posts, you cannot make the assumption that a person who abused or harassed Madison would necessarily have done the same to all the other women working there. The psychology of it doesn't work like that. Some malefactors target individuals for a variety of reasons. 

You also cant make assumptions they didn't, people are habitual creatures!! But  after it all came out I did my own research and came across a few interesting things oh and go and read Madison's tweets for the last few years!!(never believe what your told always double check)Then make your own mind up and oh and my job that I have done for 20 years is around HR and investigations which includes EU and UK employment law. 

[Mertrodome]

8 minutes ago, leadeater said:

No again that actually isn't the point about what was being said, if you drive a bus then you have as part of your job a risk of a vehicular accident. Can you tell me is there any way that this is not a possible outcome? As long as everyone involved knows it's a possibility and everyone is equally informed about it then signing the employment contract is accepting that possibility.

 

This is a different issue to Health and Safety policies and procedures.

 

It is also different but also very related to changes in job activities and being asked to do something that isn't in the employment agreement. This is a common issue and a common cause of work place dispute and accidents. Complaints about having to do something that you did not receive the training for is not that uncommon, that training may exist but was not given since it wasn't part of the role employed for etc.

Yeah of course, that's fair. I didn't realise the person you'd responded to was saying there should be some way to remove risk entirely. Of course that's just not possible, and there are unavoidable risks that are built into just about every job.

 

I see where you're coming from now. My point throughout has always been about the latter part, with the addition of duties that weren't part of the original job. Sorry for the confusion, I certainly hadn't intended to misrepresent what you were saying.

[Mertrodome]

2 minutes ago, Cosmic Emotion said:

Does anyone else wonder if and when GN's video on this is gonna drop?

I highly doubt GN will comment on it. If they do at all it'll be in a Hardware News segment type thing just mentioning that it's happening, but I wouldn't expect them to give any kind of opinion on it while it's still being investigated.

[Majestic12]

Just now, Cosmic Emotion said:

Does anyone else wonder if and when GN's video on this is gonna drop?

If you ask me: never unless it's all done & dusted.

 

Steve may be eager to twist a knife in a wound he created which he did with the cooling block but I doubt he's going to want to touch this because it's pure allegations and if it turns out Madison wasn't quite as truthful he's set to lose a lot of credibility. He already overstepped his mark with his original video where he made unfounded allegations by wilfully refusing to hear the other sound of the coin. In this story this would be impossible because LMG will NEVER talk about this publicly in case it ever comes to a lawsuit so at most GN would be able to say "there are allegations".

[Middcore]

Just now, Cosmic Emotion said:

Does anyone else wonder if and when GN's video on this is gonna drop?

 

I don't think GN would touch this. This is not in their wheelhouse and they have no more way of getting to the truth of the matter than any other outside observer does. You seem to be implying that GN is just waiting for another opportunity to kick LMG while it's down.