And as others have pointed out… what she said falls perfectly in line with what someone afraid of recriminations would say, when trying to quietly exit a toxic workplace.
Seriously… are you Linus? I am failing to see why you have so much skin in this.
Thats the same reason I gave a really crappy company for leaving too. Not saying it’s the exact same situation, but just wanted to point out that people sometimes lie to protect their place in their profession.
I’d like to think that it’s generally safe to assume that a company doesn’t conduct itself in this manner, but employers will always be incentivized to exploit it’s workers so we must be ever vigilant.
It's hard not to empathize and immediately jump for pitchforks but... does she have any proof of this, or other people that can confirm any of these? From what I've seen all we have is her word.
I mean, remember few years ago when the internet collectively descended on Mick Gordon or Chris Avellone? And then only after years it came to light that they didn't actually do anything wrong and were falsely thrown under the bus by other people or companies? Or that thing with Bayonetta's VA and everyone coming to her aid even though in the end she was the one outright lying about the whole situation? Or the Disco Elysium situation, or probably dozens of other internet dramas fueled by emotion? I think we should collectively wait for something more than one person badmouthing on the internet before we jump to conclusions.
Listen, I’m not at all saying she’s lying, but I do not know her and people do shit for inexplicable reasons all the time.
She is getting a lot of attention, something I’m sure many people would not enjoy, but some of that is definitely being driven to her YT channel, so the whole “nothing to gain” position isn’t really true.
This is an important point. We're all pissed at LTT right now so are eager to jump on any story that supports that narrative. I'm not saying I don't believe Madison (what she says pretty much lines up with what I would expect). But before we convict Linus in the court of public opinion, we should allow him to argue in his defense.
Only made it through reading half of her writeup, I figured Linus was a douchecanoe a long time ago when he cameo'ed on some guys video from schengen, and never watched anything with him in it again. JP Satre was right, hell is other people.
Wow. LTT, LMG, and Linus are just plain shit (given this, other reports, GN’s latest videos, and how Linus has responded). I’m still quite glad I never bought into their hype. Now I know to actively avoid the idiots.
“They’re super-terrible to work for and I’ve just coincidentally chose this period of the company’s social implosion to quit and speak up. This is definitely not a bandwagon move. #metooLMG”
I don’t know if you’re allowed to assume sex anymore so I’m not sure this statement holds any water. This person simply might be awaiting bottom surgery.
The other issue with this statement is that I don’t game.
Nobody asked for your blatant transphobia here. The fact that that's the first place your head went shows you have some deep-seated issues you need to work out.
Not offended at all. This behavior is completely expected. Don’t share your terrible experience until someone else is talking about how your post-employer misled their viewers, then pile on when it will get clicks.
Do you realize that this is simply how human interaction works? Of fucking course she felt safer telling her story when other people were already telling theirs.
I don’t know anything about any of these people one way or the other, but if you believe her account and just think the timing is opportunistic, then do you not also believe the part of her account that’s in, you know, the bigger more noticeable font at the top that says, “To stop the speculation and DMs I’m receiving…”.
As in, “I quit two years ago and didn’t say anything about it, but now this is all over the news and a million people keep asking and/or assuming things, so I guess I should address it”.
If you are in a similar situation… remember that you don’t have to say “yes” to everything at work! It’s the professional thing to say “no” when it’s appropriate instead of overworking yourself and lowering the quality of your work.
If my workload means I consistently have to put in more than 8 hours a day, it’s my responsibility to report that. I have a contract for 40 hours a week, I’m not a slave.
You can report whatever you want. There’s no assurance your employer will give a shit. The subject of this conversation was likely not on a 40 hour contract.
Then I’ll start looking for another job… What kind of absolute dead end jobs are you guys working, that you have to be completely spineless? No wonder that conditions are getting worse and worse.
Lots of people have shitty jobs with shitty employers. That’s just the way the world is. Not everyone gets to pick from their lot of potential employers.
Employment contracts in the US are quite rare. 49 out of 50 state are at-will employment (Montana being the exception), so they can fire you for any or no reason, excluding a small list of illegal reasons.
No, I believe 99% of Americans don’t HAVE employment contracts, and further that this kind of clause would be impossible to enforce because you’d have to somehow prove that 40 hours was not enough time to do your work, which is impossible.
Maybe this is the socialist European in me, but I can’t believe that. Without a contract, the employer isn’t obligated to pay you at all and you’re not obligated to work. Even if it’s just sealed with a handshake, there is a legal framework for both parties. If you just treat it all like an EULA and say whatever, just let me work for you and it’ll work out, then that’s your problem.
It is your duty to at least state how much work you already have and let the boss decide what to do.
I had a boss who acknowledged it and told me that it’s fine if i’m not too accurate for couple of things.
Not saying anything, burning out and just delivering shit work non-stop isn’t going to help either you or the employee, your job is to do your best and your boss has to figure out the rest.
Although i have to say i quit that job, because doing half-assed work is nothing which fulfills me.
I didn’t say she didn’t do any of that, considering her story, it wasn’t just the workload, nothing to gain from an environment this toxic. If you have any legal grounds to stand on, use it.
I think it’s kinda weird there is not one proof of it happening yet, not a recording or anyone talking for or against it, we’ll see how things turn out.
Idk, that’s a very core part of our company’s culture.
I’m a SWE at a manufacturing company, so I’m certainly in a privileged group. However, the whole company has been pushing the narrative of empowering individuals to say no (i.e. the andon cord at Toyota). And given how frequently it’s brought up in company emails (esp. in incident analysis communications), I have reason to believe it’s actually being done at the plants. Our company’s #1 stated priority is safety (due to the nature of the products we produce), and saying “no” is a huge part of that. We as SWEs have complete power to say “no” (we make our own estimations for work), and I believe our manufacturing workers have a similar ability to manage their workload.
If I’m understanding the concern (and this is me doing my own interpretation, so please tell me if I’m wrong here) is that she did not have the support needed to do so. At a normal company, a social media manager would be backed by a team that prepares professional videos / images / maybe even copy for use in marketing. Stuff like press releases and whatnot would be orchestrated and well planned to ensure the message comes across as needed.
From what I read, her language implies to me that she was expected to be a one-woman production line with all of the added responsibilities of a team. At least if you want to have the production quality that I think LMG would expect for their socials.
And this is why Lienus hates unions so much, cause it would have held him and his company accountable for the nasty, abusive shit they do behind the scenes.
Am I missing something? When had he expressed his hatred for unions? As a union man, if he had said something like that it would’ve pricked my ears. As far as I know, he’s said that he doesn’t want his employees to feel like they need a union, but wouldn’t stand in their way if they wanted one, which is about as good as it gets for a North American business owner.
If this stuff is true then they should unionize immediately. Solidarity Forever
Edit: I’m not going to double down. This was a blind spot for me, maybe because my union is already established and fairly strong, but I’ll hold this L and learn from it
in one of the WAN shows he went on a big handwringing tirade about how “unions means I’m a failure as an employer” with undertones of “You wouldnt want to make me a failure by unionizing, right?”
Yep, he got caught with his manipulative word play this time by GN, but it also gives context for everything he’s said in the past and puts new light on them, because this isnt something people just wake up and decide to do one day. Its something they do their entire life.
Okay. So I’m not missing something. I guess I heard him say that it “would be a personal failure for him as an employer” as him taking personal responsibility for his employees’ treatment. A charitable interpretation, but just a difference of opinion.
I can see how people can interpret what he says as soft anti-union, it’s just weird to see you and others say things like this as if he’s sober sort of Robber Baron.
Edit: I’m not going to double down. This was a blind spot for me, maybe because my union is already established and fairly strong, but I’ll hold this L and learn from it
Definitely charitable. My interpretation of his statement is that his idea of failure is unions because his idea of success is screwing over his employees.
Yeah, for me, a company having a union shouldn’t really have much of an effect if they are actually treating their employees well.
What wage discrepancies would there be to negotiate? Why would there be any arguing over allotted sick time? Why would an employee have a grievance against a company that they would need legal support for?
A company that truly wants to treat it’s employees well should already be on board with all of that stuff. In fact, I’d almost even argue that they should want a union.
Yeah, in the unlikely event I was ever in such a position, advocating my hypothetical employees to unionize for their own interests against mine (no matter how much I may try to cede or be considerate) seems like the bare minimum. Other options would maybe include making it a workers co-op or something.
You are a union man? Go speak with your fellow union people who work with negotiations and forming chapters and ask them what it means when a company says “we are pro unions but we feel it isn’t a good fit for us and we would have failed as a company if our employees would feel like they would need one”.
Hint: it’s something like “get the fuck out with the union shit, I’ll fire y’all”
Fair enough. I’m not going to double down. This was a blind spot for me, maybe because my union is already established and fairly strong, but I’ll hold this L and learn from it
I would just like to give props to you for owning up and listening to the information. I do not in any way think that you were wrong in your reasoning, just that there was more context that is likely relevant which you hadn’t been privy to, and once you were informed of it you reevaluated. Not everyone does that and I think a very valuable part of this community is when people do that (I know I’m not always particularly good at it myself).
Nah, don’t take an L. Some people who say that genuinely mean it, and I think an owner-operator business like LTT might fit the bill for someone who does actually mean it.
That said, it’s the same weasel-language that many corporations use that are actually anti-union and would be willing to squash a union if people started to unionize. I see some of that at my place of work (I’m not in a union, no talk of a union), but again, I know my immediate leadership to know that their heart is in the right place, but that they could be forced to do something they don’t like from higher-ups (e.g. we are going from 2-days in-office to 3-days in-office due to higher-ups, we’ll see if my boss actually campaigns for going back to 2-days in-office once the initial fervor dies down).
Why would “you wouldn’t want to make me a failure by unionizing” convince anyone not to unionize? You think poorly treated employees give a shit about their boss’ feelings? Put down the armchair psychology textbook and listen to the guy, he flat out says he supports unions and workers’ right to organize against antagonistic leadership.
Just imagine how bad it is, behind closed doors and with the Cameras off, considering what the employees said in that LTT employee opinion video on camera, that GN repeatedly referenced, that they were over worked and didnt have time to make anything right.
That and the “We don’t discuss wages.” remark. Screw that mentality. And from what Madison wrote, If promissory estoppel is a thing in Canada, then it sounds like she had a strong case. Especially if there was any paperwork.
There’s tons of shit they could get LMG for. But it seems that they intentionally hired people that don’t know any better, and it’s no real fault of their own since they just are appearing to use predatory hiring processes. It’s ridiculous to think everyone young should know employment law.
It was a wan show a while back if I remember right (not op), but basically trashed unions and said businesses should do better and vaguely acted like all the employees of the world could just quit and find something better on a whim if things were actually bad where they worked.
Which is all fine. His position was literally "I can't and won't do anything to stop it except for treating everyone to enough money that they won't bother to do it"
That's about as inoffensive as you can get. You're twisting it into being some anti union thing.
Unions are not just for getting higher wages. They’re not even just for when conditions start to get worse. Unions should be there for the best as well as the worst working conditions. Unions serve to maintain good and improve bad conditions, it’s not about going against the “boss”, it’s about actively or passively defending the workers’ conditions.
Would you trust your boss’ lawyer saying “the trial will be fair, you won’t need a lawyer”?
Linus “spoke out” against unionizing by saying that he couldn’t legally do anything to stand in the way of his employees unionizing and wouldn’t want to stand in their way if they ever decided to. But he wants to make a workplace where people don’t feel the need to and if they did then he would see it as a personal failure.
There’s plenty to criticize Linus for right now, but I don’t think that his “anti-union” stance is one of them
Edit: in the context of these allegations, then yes, his employees certainly should unionize if the actual criminal crimes in this thread are even partially true. And if that happens then I will be singing Solidarity Forever for the LMG employees, but until that happens and we see how Linus responds to that this is just not a good read on Linus’ stance towards unions.
Edit2: it feels weird to have posted what could be seen as a defense of Linus under this particular post. I’m not a Linus Stan, Just a union advocate that wants criticism to be levied where it’s actually called for and this doesn’t seem like it is
True. If he said that line in response to a statement about wages. I can’t say that I exactly remember the context in which he made that statement, but I believe that it (ironically, given this post) had more to do with workplace culture than wages.
Yeah the whole “I love unions, but we at this company are a family so we don’t need that”, is peak anti-union talk. Throughout history it’s been used by people who are horrible to their employees.
Exactly. If I was really concerned about my employees etc. I would want them to have a union with power that could match mine to argue their needs and concerns. If he had a union a lot of these problems and mistakes that he’s having likely wouldn’t have occurred.
If I ever start a corporation and if for some reason it isn’t a workers co-op, I will make the employees unionize. I see little reason other than absolute profit maximization to not treat your employees as a great asset, assuming they’re doing reasonably well. But I’m a dirty socialist so…
Dirty? Nah, you’re fresh as hell, comrade. Workers co-ops are great
I guess I have my own special version of pessimism where if I see an employer not actively hiring Pinkertons I think if it add a little w for workers these days
I have two uncles who worked for the same company, in different departments but in similar roles. Both were engineers, one was a CAE, and the other an ME. The CAE was not part of a union, and the ME was. They had a comparable lifestyle, so I assume they made a comparable salary (they live about a mile from each other, in a similarly sized house, drive similar cars, take similar amounts of vacations, etc).
Here’s the work history of my unionized uncle:
multiple unpaid strikes, where the main output was a marginal benefit to employees (from tertiary sources, it wasn’t worth the strike)
layoff (maybe 2? I don’t recall), and later rehire in a separate department (was laid off for months); this resulted in complications with the company pension (I think the pension got rolled into the 401k because the new group hadn’t negotiated a pension)
consistent work location - always worked at the same plant, except for a handful of visits to others
And here’s the work history of my non-unionized uncle:
no layoffs, and optional participation in strikes
inconsistent work location, but had some WFH flexibility in the last 15-ish years of employment (i.e. could work 9/80s, WFH one day/week, etc)
maintained control over retirement benefits, so retired with a pension and a 401k
This is obviously a very small sample, so it’s hardly enough evidence to say whether unions are a net positive or net negative. So whether a union is better for you depends on a lot of factors, such as:
role - white collar jobs benefit less from unions vs blue collar jobs
unions can suck, and non-unionized employers can rock; the latter can change overnight, whereas the former likely won’t
your best tool is your own personal skillset; regardless of whether you’re in a union, ensure your skills are up-to-date so you have a good chance of getting a new job should you lose yours
But one thing that should be universally true is that openly anti-union employers should be avoided.
unwanted strikes - if your union goes on strike, you are not allowed to work
special treatment - unions try to equalize, so higher performers may not be fairly compensated
An awesome employer shouldn’t discourage unionization, and ideally they’d encourage attempts to unionize, but they wouldn’t recommend unionization, assuming the employer intended to maintain control and monitor managers throughout the chain. If the employer can provide all of the benefits employees would get through unionization, unionizing merely adds extra BS that employees and employers need to deal with.
What does the employer have to go through the union for?
unwanted strikes - if your union goes on strike, you are not allowed to work
If the employer is rocking, why would union members vote to strike?
special treatment - unions try to equalize, so higher performers may not be fairly compensated
This doesn’t feel right but I can’t quite put my finger on why so I’ll reserve judgement for now. 😄
I can see the extra layer of overhead in the case when everything is perfect, but given the incentives in traditional for-profit corporations I can’t see that case ever being realistic. In addition, even if a company is perfect today, the way corporations are structured makes it incredibly easy for that to change especially if there’s no worker-controlled counterbalance to such change. So just on the basis of that, if I’m an awesome, perfect employer, and I presumably want this to go on, because that really is part of being awesome, I should want to create this counterbalance against change for the worse. Assuming a for-profit, not-a-co-op corporation that is. It looks to me like this overhead is the price of preserving this perfect environment over the long term. Doesn’t that make sense?
What does the employer have to go through the union for?
Benefits, and depending on the union’s rules, salary adjustments. Some unions also require informing them of schedule changes.
The reverse is also true, employees may need to go through the union depending on the union’s rules.
If the employer is rocking, why would union members vote to strike?
Idk, perhaps communication issues w/ management? Over-zealous union leadership?
The point is, the employee isn’t empowered here, they’re subject to whatever the union agrees to do.
My uncle went through multiple strikes, few (if any) he actually agreed with, but had to deal with being out of work. He wished he wasn’t union so he could just continue working.
the way corporations are structured makes it incredibly easy for that to change
Sure, which is why it absolutely depends on the type of organization. Something owner-operated has a much lower risk of unexpected awful changes than something publicly traded.
A lot of owner-operated businesses don’t intend to sell to someone else, the owner will just shut it down when they’re done operating it. So “long term” in this sense is until the owner retires. And if they do intend to sell, they could at that point encourage the employees to make any employment adjustments needed.
“Honestly, my stance on this isn’t gonna change. If people felt like we weren’t taking care of them, yeah, I would feel like we failed. If you wanna interpret that as a bad thing, you can, but you’re reaching pretty hard.”
Yeah, I’d say it’s about time for LTT staff to unionise.
I think that “taking care of people” smacks of the same rhetoric as “we’re like a family” and “I like to think that all staff are considered equals here” and just about any other lie I’ve heard from exploitative upper management types.
I’m disappointed. Jesus of all people should know how dangerous it is to ride without proper gear. Where’s the helmet? Where’s the armor? And, Christ… are those Sandals?? ATGATT!
threadreaderapp.com
Newest