Madison reveals experiences working at LMG

[Isuck Assimov]

On 10/20/2023 at 2:10 PM, nether1234 said:

So if this even is true (over two months later and nothing) you think the whole company should not exists and the 100+ other employees should be out of a job? If that were the case there wouldn't be many companies around...

Would you rather these 100+ employees get abused and assaulted by morally bankrupt leadership and abusive coworkers ? A company that fails to protect their workforce ( in this case even AFTER they had been made aware of the ongoing harrassement time and time again) absolutely shouldnt exist.

We're only going to learn of the worst that's been going on after the company has died, so be ready for some even more appaling shit...

[Neroon]

9 hours ago, wasab said:

Except no one ever does the latter. It is really stupid for anyone doing anything so obvious. Most people buy favors in a manner that is well within loopholes of whatever laws are in the country. 

Those are as obvious as giving your 'lady friend' a 500 dollar watch incl receipt, during your 2 hour visit at their motel that they rented for the afternoon.

 

If you think there is only corruption if you can prove it, then you got a possible bright future ahead of you, you might even become a judge one day, with the right amount of elbow grease, and I mean of course money, others might be loopholed into making you one, at which point you can loophole others being freed of those nasty accusations of bribery, when in reality they were just loopholed into voting the opposit, who also just happened to get bags full of watches with receipts. But that's just coincidental.

 

Anyway to bring it back to this topic, who is being loopholed here? Is Madison loopholing LMG, or is LMG looping Madison? Or are you loopholing us all?

[wasab]

18 hours ago, Neroon said:

Those are as obvious as giving your 'lady friend' a 500 dollar watch incl receipt, during your 2 hour visit at their motel that they rented for the afternoon.

Not really obvious when it is a common thing in many context. You can hardly hardly called gifting a luxury vehicle on an xyz's daughter's 18th birthday to be bribery for example.  

 

18 hours ago, Neroon said:

 

If you think there is only corruption if you can prove it, then you got a possible bright future ahead of you, you might even become a judge one day, with the right amount of elbow grease, and I mean of course money, others might be loopholed into making you one

Isn't that what lawyers or public defenders do? Help the accused walk away free or get a slap on the wrist in exchange for money? Besides judge isn't the one deciding guilty or innocent if one chooses jury trial. 

 

18 hours ago, Neroon said:

Anyway to bring it back to this topic, who is being loopholed here? Is Madison loopholing LMG, or is LMG looping Madison? Or are you loopholing us all?

None of her accusations are substantiated at this point and even if it is, so what? Unless she wishes to file suit, there is no legal consequences and even if she did, It would be a civil suit rather than criminal prosecution. LMG violated no laws here. The only thing you get is bad pr and drama. 

[wanderingfool2]

36 minutes ago, wasab said:

None of her accusations are substantiated at this point and even if it is, so what? Unless she wishes to file suit, there is no legal consequences and even if she did, It would be a civil suit rather than criminal prosecution. LMG violated no laws here. The only thing you get is bad pr and drama. 

Well some of her accusations would actually amount to violations of laws.  (Labor laws and some of the accusations criminal)  With that said, it hasn't been substantiated.

 

As an example, if her request for having a 3rd party to document a given disciplinary meeting was denied and that it was only done in person without any other witnesses it would be an issue.

[wasab]

56 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Well some of her accusations would actually amount to violations of laws.  (Labor laws and some of the accusations criminal)  With that said, it hasn't been substantiated.

I doubt it. Many things people thought to be illegal turns out to be completely legal and vice versa. This is why you should always consult with an attorney before asserting some wild legal claims or threats. 

[Uttamattamakin]

10 hours ago, wasab said:

I doubt it. Many things people thought to be illegal turns out to be completely legal and vice versa. This is why you should always consult with an attorney before asserting some wild legal claims or threats. 

This depends.  IN the United States of America at least the 1 A right to free speech protects us for any speech that is not maliciously false IF it is about a public figure.  Plus the standard for libel and slander is very high here.  Furthermore, I don't think one can be sued for stating an opinion on a public controversy. 

 

Hopefully we all find out the results of the announced investigations in due time. 

[wasab]

7 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

This depends.  IN the United States of America at least the 1 A right to free speech protects us for any speech that is not maliciously false IF it is about a public figure. 

it only protects your speech from the government. Anyone who disagrees with your speech or opinion can easily ban you from speaking on property or platforms that they have control over. They can also outright harass you, such as shouting you down in a group and drowning out your voice or otherwise verbally disrupting or retaliating against you, many of which are completely legal.

[wanderingfool2]

10 hours ago, wasab said:

I doubt it. Many things people thought to be illegal turns out to be completely legal and vice versa. This is why you should always consult with an attorney before asserting some wild legal claims or threats. 

You say you doubt it, then  act like one should consult an attorney...there were plenty of accusations that you don't need to consult with a lawyer to know it violates some form of law.

 

A prime example, if the claim in regards to the only fans is correct; it's exposing her to sexual images in a workplace and being forced to view the sexual images.  If made to do so under threat of losing her job like claimed, then it could actually be full on in violation of sexual harassment.  (Not just labor laws).

 

There as unsafe workplace laws as well, and that includes unsafe in the sense of mental issues as well.  So the claims of things said to her, and the effective claim of almost a grow a pair reaction would put them in violations of that as well.

[wasab]

7 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

A prime example, if the claim in regards to the only fans is correct; it's exposing her to sexual images in a workplace and being forced to view the sexual images.  If made to do so under threat of losing her job like claimed, then it could actually be full on in violation of sexual harassment.  (Not just labor laws)

all very debatable. If your job requires you to view sexual images to perform a task, then it is a legitimate part of a job. yes, that includes maintaining your boss's only fans account. I mean just imagine a bartender in Stripe Club complaining about lap dance or nudity lmao. you should also listen to some horror stories of Google content moderators who had to sit and filter through all manners of graphic materials on the internet every day, from child pornography to terrorist torture videos. 

[Isuck Assimov]

1 hour ago, wasab said:

yes, that includes maintaining your boss's only fans account.

i mean obviously if it's part of the written contract. Otherwise it's sexual harrassement in the workplace. it's not that deep mate.

[wasab]

36 minutes ago, Isuck Assimov said:

i mean obviously if it's part of the written contract. Otherwise it's sexual harrassement in the workplace. it's not that deep mate.

Her job is managing the company's social media and onlyfan is social media. If the company wants to add more social media presence, she will be managing them too regardless what her job description initially days.  It is not that deep mate. I find it funny how you guys also have a work contract in the first place, over here in America, most workers are at will and an offer letter you sign is just that. A letter. It defines no responsibilities or obligations. In fact, your roles and responsibilities can be changed at will. In the post covid world, this has been called quiet hiring. All legal. 

 

Her other complaints seem just like an issue that she does not fit into the company cultures. She joined the wrong company and LMG also made the wrong hire. Mismatch on both sides. That is water down version of that. No foul play as far as I see it. 

[Isuck Assimov]

42 minutes ago, wasab said:

Her job is managing the company's social media and onlyfan is social media.

porn sites aren't really social media in my book but go off i guess

[Neroon]

15 hours ago, wasab said:

Not really obvious when it is a common thing in many context. You can hardly hardly called gifting a luxury vehicle on an xyz's daughter's 18th birthday to be bribery for example.  

 

Isn't that what lawyers or public defenders do? Help the accused walk away free or get a slap on the wrist in exchange for money? Besides judge isn't the one deciding guilty or innocent if one chooses jury trial. 

Are you saying that paying a lawyer is basically the same as bribing donating to a judge? Lawyers are paid to get you a fair trial, now a good lawyer will get you off even when things look really bad, however this does not change the facts. If you murdered someone, but you don't get convicted, you are still a murderer, just not under the law. But guess what, laws don't decide what you are.

 

Just because corruption cannot be proven, does not mean it's not corruption. It's that simple.

[Blue4130]

14 minutes ago, Isuck Assimov said:

porn sites aren't really social media in my book but go off i guess

How do you define one? It's a blurry line these days.

When you compare common sites like FB, twitter/X, porn hub, onlyfans

 

Both offer user generated content

Both offer publically viewable profiles

Both have messaging servivces (private and public)

Both have commenting functions on posts

 

The only real difference is that one doesn't allow full nudity (but pretty damn close) and one does.

[Isuck Assimov]

look i know america/Canada is very fucked up in their lack of workforce protection laws, but are you really telling me that employers in the US/Canada are not prohibited by law to request sexual services from their employees ? are sexual harrassement lawsuits not a thing where you live ?

LTT isn't a damn brothel it's a youtuber shack...

[great_scotttt]

On 8/16/2023 at 2:35 PM, RasmusDC said:

This is an old thing. i think this has been debated to the end, like also the sexual harrasment case (with that 3d print youtuber, i think she is called YU) there is no evidence in anything. there is indications, so this is completely different thing that what is being discussed here.

 

there is also always two sides, are the load too high, or are the work ethics too low. i think it can be hard to get to the bottom of this.

lol, love that the first post just immediately dismisses the issue as "old" news.  
Reminds of this orange guy that used to say similar things

 

but once again, the hilarity remains, everyone upset about how an advertising company is treating their staff.  Insurance companies, Advertising companies, other companies that provide almost no value to human civilization, all behave this way, it's pretty standard

[wanderingfool2]

9 hours ago, wasab said:

all very debatable. If your job requires you to view sexual images to perform a task, then it is a legitimate part of a job. yes, that includes maintaining your boss's only fans account. I mean just imagine a bartender in Stripe Club complaining about lap dance or nudity lmao.

You have a twisted sense of logic.

 

Being hired BEFORE the account was made; and just because it calls itself as social media doesn't mean it's her job title responsibility by default.

 

With your comparison it's like advertising for a bartender at a well known restaurant and getting hired; only to be told that it's in the process of being switched into a strip club.

 

A job that exposes someone to potentially sexualized material has to pretty much be written into the contract and you need to put in some form of safeguards/compenstation.  Facebook for example paid the content moderation a $85 million settlement in court over failure to protect.  Google also settled, $4.3 million, with the stipulation that they provide onsite counseling to them.

 

i.e. If a reasonable person in a similar position wouldn't expect to be exposed to something like that, then yes it is sexual harassment.  It's not debatable, it's sexual harassment.  To suggest otherwise is the same mentality that suggests girls wearing provocative clothing were "asking for it" when abused.  The only thing up for debate is whether the claim is true, and whether it was specifically written in the contract.

 

7 hours ago, wasab said:

Her other complaints seem just like an issue that she does not fit into the company cultures. She joined the wrong company and LMG also made the wrong hire. Mismatch on both sides. That is water down version of that. No foul play as far as I see it. 

Good to know your type of character then, someone who trivializes valid complaints.

 

Let me say this, IF her complaints are real; and you somehow think it is okay because it fits in with there workplace culture then you do not ever deserve to be put in place of power.

 

It's NEVER acceptable to threaten someone's job when they make valid complaints; implying they will find it hard to find jobs elsewhere

It's NEVER acceptable to make a sexualized joke DURING the meeting regarding HR (doesn't matter if your workplace is the fungoing type)

It's NEVER acceptable to give a verbal agreement

It's NEVER acceptable to offer a job, and switch the terms AFTER they have moved here.

It's NEVER acceptable to announce the hiring of a person PRIOR to actually signing them (since you probably won't understand why, it's because it puts undue pressure for them to now accept or face community backlash).

It's NEVER acceptable to tell staff not to take sick days

It's NEVER acceptable to ask people about their sex life, and do so even after they refuse.

[wasab]

7 hours ago, Isuck Assimov said:

porn sites aren't really social media in my book but go off i guess

It is a social media buddy, as much as a content creation platform as youtube is. Linus isn't posting porn on it and even if he is, if he wants to hire someone to manage his porn account, that is still a legitimate job. Calling it sexual harrassment is far fetch unless you wanna called the entire porn industry as sexual harrassement.

[wasab]

14 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

A job that exposes someone to potentially sexualized material has to pretty much be written into the contract and you need to put in some form of safeguards/compenstation. 

No you don't, not where I live at. 

 

14 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Facebook for example paid the content moderation a $85 million settlement in court over failure to protect.  Google also settled, $4.3 million, with the stipulation that they provide onsite counseling to them.

It is called a civil sue buddy. Anyone can sue anyone for emotional damage or whatever. They aren't committing a crime here. 

 

14 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

It's NEVER acceptable to threaten someone's job when they make valid complaints; implying they will find it hard to find jobs elsewhere

It's NEVER acceptable to make a sexualized joke DURING the meeting regarding HR (doesn't matter if your workplace is the fungoing type)

I really don't know what workers paradise you live in. Over here employers can fire you for any reason, including looking at them the wrong way or disliking the clothes you wear. As long as they aren't doing it because of any of the protected classes, it is all legal. They can also make it clear that your position is in danger however and whenever they want. 

 

14 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

With your comparison it's like advertising for a bartender at a well known restaurant and getting hired; only to be told that it's in the process of being switched into a strip club.

That is still legal here. As long as no contract, very much legal. An employee can quit and walk away anytime where I am

 

14 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

 To suggest otherwise is the same mentality that suggests girls wearing provocative clothing were "asking for it" when abused.  

How does this even make sense?

[Helpful Tech Witch]

12 minutes ago, wasab said:

Calling it sexual harrassment is far fetch unless you wanna called the entire porn industry as sexual harrassement.

I mean.. tbf... theres a lot of history of sex crimes in the porn industry

[wasab]

1 minute ago, Helpful Tech Witch said:

I mean.. tbf... theres a lot of history of sex crimes in the porn industry

There is a lot of sex crimes in universities and post achohol drinking. Not a legally valid reason to prosecute any of the above. 

[wasab]

6 hours ago, Isuck Assimov said:

look i know america/Canada is very fucked up in their lack of workforce protection laws, but are you really telling me that employers in the US/Canada are not prohibited by law to request sexual services from their employees ? are sexual harrassement lawsuits not a thing where you live ?

Managing onlyfan is sexual service? Look here. Her boss is not paying for any sexual gratification from her managing his onlyfan here. This is one primary reason porn is not prostitution by legal definition. 

[Helpful Tech Witch]

42 minutes ago, wasab said:

I really don't know what workers paradise you live in. Over here employers can fire you for any reason, including looking at them the wrong way or disliking the clothes you wear. As long as they aren't doing it because of any of the protected classes, it is all legal. They can also make it clear that your position is in danger however and whenever they want. 

Thats not true. Wrongful termination is 100% a thing and you can sue your ex emplyer for it if you were fired for something like that.

 

39 minutes ago, wasab said:

There is a lot of sex crimes in universities and post achohol drinking. Not a legally valid reason to prosecute any of the above. 

did.. did you just say to not prosecute sex crimes? surely you arent being serious, right?

[wasab]

1 hour ago, Helpful Tech Witch said:

Thats not true. Wrongful termination is 100% a thing and you can sue your ex emplyer for it if you were fired for something like that.

Firing you for refusing to manage social media ain't wrongful termination by any means. It can be unfair, your boss can be an asshole or jerk to you but why do you think not being nice to you is a crime? Should people get arrested for being mean to you?

 

1 hour ago, Helpful Tech Witch said:

did.. did you just say to not prosecute sex crimes? surely you arent being serious, right?

Going to school and drinking alcohol is sex crimes now?

[IkeaGnome]

15 minutes ago, wasab said:

Going to school and drinking alcohol is sex crimes now?

That's not what you said in the first place. Why change what you're saying that quickly and hope no one notices?

 

2 hours ago, wasab said:

There is a lot of sex crimes in universities and post achohol drinking. Not a legally valid reason to prosecute any of the above.