(OP’s comment)
I’ve been in contact with quite a few LMG employees. Many have given me statements about the abuse and sexual harassment Madison endured while working there.
One of them also gave me a recording of this meeting that was never supposed to be released. This is my proof that I have talked to LMG employees and have sources inside. I post this as verification of that fact.
I cannot out these people or give direct quotes out of fear they will suffer consequences, but I hope they come forward publicly even if it means risking their careers.
I can tell you their accounts match hers. And even go into further detail. One person constantly was mentioned more than others, but she’s not naming names so I won’t either.
She is telling the truth.
This meeting kinda goes along with how she mentioned her being sexually harassed was regarded as he causing drama.
Sounds like a pretty standard meeting imo. Doesn’t that mean they haven’t committed transgressions or don’t need to change. But for a company of their size at the time there is nothing particularly wrong with what was said here.
There was a comment a bit similar to yours on the original reddit thread and I think it got a good reply by the OP. The main criticism was that their structure for escalating such problems is flawed. Talking to your manager about his/her misbehaviour isn’t exactly the solution here.
Yup. It seems to me that Madison’s case is one which anyone at LMG who cares, would not have been ok with, but that their policies have big enough cracks that it was still allowed to happen, and she didn’t have an effective way to get herself heard.
Wanting to do the right thing, doesn’t mean you automatically succeed in doing so.
Sure it’s not necessarily a good structure but it is super common in tons of corporations and they also have alternatives. They are giving themselves as an option if you do not have a particular problem with said manager you can talk to them about problems in the office. it is not necessarily ideal for handling everything and can have its issues But it is often a first line of defense for interpersonal employee conflicts. The company I work for and trust me its very large has a similar structure. People can talk to managers or they can call the 1-800 HR line. If they do talk to a manager there is a specific guidelines for how it’s escalated and reported within the company but trust me my company is much larger than LTT and they may not have those same policies in place yet.
I am not commenting on the allegations or who perpetrated them or what happened I want to make that clear. I am merely commenting on the fact that this meeting recording is nothing out of the ordinary. And is typically a structure you would see for a company this size and up. There were clearly problems in the system. And I am not going to discount anything anyone went through. And I sure hope these external investigations shed light on what exactly happened and the people responsible are held accountable. That said still don’t see much wrong here.
If you’re ever in a situation, even at a corporate situation, where you don’t feel you can escalate an issue through the proper channels. You can always write a letter, certify it, send it to the company’s headquarters legal counsel and HR. You can do it anonymously, because it’s the mail which the company doesn’t have any control over, and you know they will get it. And because it’s documented and copied to three different departments they will act on it. You always have the method of anonymously contacting a company. If it’s an interpersonal issue, where you will be identified no matter what, you at least guarantee that there’s a paper trail.
If that’s insufficient to notify people then you should be consulting with a labor attorney.
That’s not the only option though. They could talk to her or the heads of the company. Yes they can’t work to manager too, but they have options.
I don’t like that comment by op. This structure is pretty standard and I think it’s clear that if the manager was the problem that the options to discuss with higher ups or 3rd party HR are also there. Their comment that 3rd party HR is there to protect the company is also only a half-truth as letting these issues run rampant is a huge liability to the company itself (as we’re seeing right now). HR would not doing its job properly by pushing issues like these under the rug.
Even worse, saying that HR always takes the side of the employer is a meme that discourages employees in bad situations from pursuing their very real options. This perception could have continued to her situation. If HR doesn’t do their job, you can always escalate further.
Nahh, I don’t know about you but I’ve never been in a corporate meeting where an employee publicly makes a stripper joke at the owner, during a meeting about sexual harassment. On top of that no one in the room reacts to it, including the head of HR present. Their work environment is beyond fucked.
There was nothing to suggest that meeting was about sexual harassment.
How do you think the issue of handling HR related feedback and rumours was initiated?
Really, of all the elements in my comment, that is what you’re going to argue with?
Uhh really? Points number two and three could easily be interpreted as: “Don’t be oversensitive” and “Don’t believe the allegations of overly sensitive people”. Added to that, the statement that they do not “solve” interpersonal relationships rather than leave your interpersonal relationships outside of the workplace followed by the “anonymous” report forum that apparently existed without anyone’s knowledge? How would you feel if you heard “we don’t solve interpersonal problems but feel free to come to us with feedback.”? Followed by James’ inappropriate joke with zero response from the top management that were both present…
I’ve done so many years worth of manager training in California. One of the big things they drill into your head is you should always tell anybody to report things to HR or their manager, never “well did you first try to hash it out with the person harassing you?”
They said they don’t solve interpersonal problems with water cooler gossiping. It’s a long confusing sentence so I don’t blame you for missing that.
It sounds like you don’t have much experience in a white collar workplace.
2 and 3 are pretty standard rumor control parameters. And it is true, no workplace is in the business of solving interpersonal conflict, but what he’s speaking to is just lower-level things amounting to just not liking someone, not real problems like abuse or harassment.
Well, now that you mention it, the only place where I have had white collar HR meetings like this one was when I worked in the midwest for half a decade. The upper management team there were, coincidentally, the worst rumor mongers and also choose to run all of these in person verbal HR meetings acting in the place of HR. That was also the only environment I’ve been in where the best place to get a promotion or new job opportunities was on the golf course or at the Hooters where the upper management team frequented. Matches up pretty closely with Madison’s experience huh?
All of my other experiences have been east coast based companies where HR just sends out long statements in legalese and had you sign to acknowledge receipt. There were certainly no ambiguous statements like in those.
Huge, huge difference between “ we understand that it can feel intimidating, but please speak to your manager, HR, or our third party service if you have a problem, as speaking with anyone else about the issue is actually counterproductive.” And “what does it say about the kind of person someone is, that they’d gossip about a coworker?” (Especially with the context that the “gossip” is a report of mistreatment)
One thing I noticed from a brief glance is that they mentioned that they have anonymous report form to the verge, while hiding the fact a lot of people are not aware such form existed at the time Madison worked there.
Just bad training and communication within the company. Things that need to be fixed
If you’re at the point where you’re hiring an outsider to investigate, you effectively have an obligation to let them do their job. That means staying out of the way, because anything you do poisons their inquiry.
If you weren’t hiring an outsider and were investigating internally, you still wouldn’t talk about it in a fucking meeting until you know what happened. You talk to each person individually to get their account. “Interrogating” witnesses in a group both violates the privacy of the (alleged) victim and lowers the quality of their recollection of events because they get shaded by everyone else.
The fact that people weren’t aware of the appropriate method of elevating complaints is bad (though not as unusual as it should be). The rest is pretty standard.