3 ms·

> Not everyone is cut out for every job. Not every job should hire people. From the thread, it seems that she was belittled and harassed, and when she tried to

> Not everyone is cut out for every job. Not every job should hire people. From the thread, it seems that she was belittled and harassed, and when she tried to address the issues she was dismissed and even reprimanded. This isn't an issue of her being a bad fit for the job, this is an issue of the workplace being so toxic that she was backed into a corner. > Good on her for ducking out if it wasn't manageable for her. They have a whole team doing the work that she was doing. She wasn't given the resources she needed to do her job (computer was underpowered for the editing they assigned her, they wouldn't buy her a $15 notebook, etc) and yet she was constantly told that her job was an easy one. The only way she was able to use sick time was by self-harming so badly that she needed to be hospitalized. It sounds like the position wasn't manageable for any sane human who wants a work-life balance at all. Maybe that isn't the tone that you meant by your comment, but both sentences seem to place the blame for the misfit on her and not on any of the legitimate issues she brought up. Could this be a case of her being opportunistic with the recent news? Possibly. We haven't heard from Linus's side of things, but honestly her account and the handling of the recent events make it seem unlikely that we'll hear anything trustworthy from LMG regarding this.

psychphysic 3y ago
[flagged]
- tadfisher 3y ago
  It's fascinating that you came away with that conclusion, considering that a) she waited two years before making her complaints public and b) she brought her complaints to HR to begin with, which is what one is expected to do in response to harassment and is generally not considered drama-seeking behavior. What specifically informed this take?
  - lopkeny12ko 3y ago
    First off, HR exists to protect the company, not the employee. This should be rule #1 taught to young people entering the workforce: if you have a workplace concern, you cannot expect HR to bend over backwards to make you happy. Your statements are emotional, and based on incomplete information. We have heard one side of the story and not the other. It is also important to consider personal motives and incentives. Madison has much to gain by starting all this drama--in particular, a lot of visibility and a nice payout if she chooses to file suit against the company. I'm not saying her statements are false, but her statements are likely colored by this personal motive, and it's impossible to decipher the truth without hearing the other perspective.
    - tadfisher 3y ago
      First point: understood, but this has nothing to do with the discussion. Second point: what did you find emotional in the text of my post? Third: point taken, but this is an impossible goalpost for anyone accusing their employers to be taken seriously. Moreover, there's nothing Madison could have written to avoid this suspicion, so I'm curious why you brought it up in response to my post. Did you mean to respond to someone else?
      - psychphysic 3y ago
        Are you hoping the outcome of this discussion is that I think she should have continued working there?
        tadfisher 3y ago
        No, only that you would place a bit less blame on workers for terrible workplace conditions. But why are you responding here? Is lopkeny12ko your alt account?
        psychphysic 3y ago
        Nah just didn't figure there was any point re-treading the same territory. She is at least at fault for letting it to get the point of self harm, can we agree there?

psychphysic 3y ago

[flagged]

tadfisher 3y ago
It's fascinating that you came away with that conclusion, considering that a) she waited two years before making her complaints public and b) she brought her complaints to HR to begin with, which is what one is expected to do in response to harassment and is generally not considered drama-seeking behavior. What specifically informed this take?
- lopkeny12ko 3y ago
  First off, HR exists to protect the company, not the employee. This should be rule #1 taught to young people entering the workforce: if you have a workplace concern, you cannot expect HR to bend over backwards to make you happy. Your statements are emotional, and based on incomplete information. We have heard one side of the story and not the other. It is also important to consider personal motives and incentives. Madison has much to gain by starting all this drama--in particular, a lot of visibility and a nice payout if she chooses to file suit against the company. I'm not saying her statements are false, but her statements are likely colored by this personal motive, and it's impossible to decipher the truth without hearing the other perspective.
  - tadfisher 3y ago
    First point: understood, but this has nothing to do with the discussion. Second point: what did you find emotional in the text of my post? Third: point taken, but this is an impossible goalpost for anyone accusing their employers to be taken seriously. Moreover, there's nothing Madison could have written to avoid this suspicion, so I'm curious why you brought it up in response to my post. Did you mean to respond to someone else?
    - psychphysic 3y ago
      Are you hoping the outcome of this discussion is that I think she should have continued working there?
      - tadfisher 3y ago
        No, only that you would place a bit less blame on workers for terrible workplace conditions. But why are you responding here? Is lopkeny12ko your alt account?
        psychphysic 3y ago
        Nah just didn't figure there was any point re-treading the same territory. She is at least at fault for letting it to get the point of self harm, can we agree there?