If they’re smart, they’ll realize they need to address these issues in order to exist as a company people want to work at going forward. It’s in their best interest to not appear as a toxic work environment.
To be honest, I can’t remember the last time I have read a statement that talked about bringing in third party investigators. Is that common for corporations?
It’s usually something agreed to in a settlement or in a power dynamic situation like Apple telling a supplier they want a third party audit. It also happens when you have no intention of ever publishing the findings. That they’re proactively doing it with the obvious obligation to publish what is found and the consequence of it is most def a show of positive character. I think ya boy Hanlon is right when it comes to leadership at LMG - never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.
Yes. This. Because something else will rise in LMG’s place. Because other companies will see what happened and say we cannot let that happen here, because we don’t want a salted desert where our offices are. Because we don’t want our company to be a synonym for a fallen tower.
If abuse of employees led to business collapses, then we wouldn’t have edifices like Ubisoft who swim in their lucre while still perpetuating sex abuse rings among the upper management who take their choice of hot office clerks.
A company of a hundred employees getting razed over a scandal would indeed serve to spare tens of thousands of jobs more and allow developers to develop in peace without getting harassed by their management.
They recently got a new CEO a month ago because Linus the owner realized he was unfit for that purpose. It should have been dealt with years ago but I wonder if some benefit of the doubt can be given here seeing as the company was in a state of transition and probably would of cleaned up the work culture in private.
Or not because Linus still owns the company and the buck stops at the absolute top. He put his friend in high positions so it would cause a uncomfortable position when someone who wasn’t his friend lower down the ladder were to speak out. He has also consistently showed toxic masculinity in the way he acts and has spread it within the fabric in the company,
I have no strong opinion one way or another, but please tell me if I’m being unfair here on either side here. I think the company can still clean itself up and has shown actions before it was publicly known to address it, and I also think the company has misogyny in it’s corporate structure and DNA which will constantly be problematic.
What a corporate answer that says, now that the public knows we suck I guess we need to address it.
If they’re smart, they’ll realize they need to address these issues in order to exist as a company people want to work at going forward. It’s in their best interest to not appear as a toxic work environment.
What kind of answer would you rather have. I’m seriously asking what should the comment have been in order for you to be happy?
There is no way. Too many corp answers that were nothing but words have been published before for anyone to not be cynic about it.
To be honest, I can’t remember the last time I have read a statement that talked about bringing in third party investigators. Is that common for corporations?
It’s usually something agreed to in a settlement or in a power dynamic situation like Apple telling a supplier they want a third party audit. It also happens when you have no intention of ever publishing the findings. That they’re proactively doing it with the obvious obligation to publish what is found and the consequence of it is most def a show of positive character. I think ya boy Hanlon is right when it comes to leadership at LMG - never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.
But how to make it better? Do you just want LMG to disappear and leave 100 employers jobless, because that’s not nice either.
Well, start acting on what you say and trust will come in time.
Based on the response above they’re trying to do exactly that now. So maybe wait and see?
Yes. This. Because something else will rise in LMG’s place. Because other companies will see what happened and say we cannot let that happen here, because we don’t want a salted desert where our offices are. Because we don’t want our company to be a synonym for a fallen tower.
If abuse of employees led to business collapses, then we wouldn’t have edifices like Ubisoft who swim in their lucre while still perpetuating sex abuse rings among the upper management who take their choice of hot office clerks.
A company of a hundred employees getting razed over a scandal would indeed serve to spare tens of thousands of jobs more and allow developers to develop in peace without getting harassed by their management.
They recently got a new CEO a month ago because Linus the owner realized he was unfit for that purpose. It should have been dealt with years ago but I wonder if some benefit of the doubt can be given here seeing as the company was in a state of transition and probably would of cleaned up the work culture in private.
Or not because Linus still owns the company and the buck stops at the absolute top. He put his friend in high positions so it would cause a uncomfortable position when someone who wasn’t his friend lower down the ladder were to speak out. He has also consistently showed toxic masculinity in the way he acts and has spread it within the fabric in the company,
I have no strong opinion one way or another, but please tell me if I’m being unfair here on either side here. I think the company can still clean itself up and has shown actions before it was publicly known to address it, and I also think the company has misogyny in it’s corporate structure and DNA which will constantly be problematic.