Flop for me. Just not my cup of tea.
Posts by Chemotter
-
-
Display More
If this discussion is so triggering and making you feel gaslit, maybe it's not fruitful one for you to be having
Like I've already said, you're the one engaged in this, not me and I'm not wasting my time listening to bitching and moaning about how I'm some manipulator for not agreeing with you people, especially now when you lot are crying to me about bias and lack of objectivity as if anyone believes you're unbiased or objective.
Nor am I going to waste my time looking for quotes just to be misquoted and have to explain what words mean while playing "you're the real problem" with you
As far as I'm concerned, this conversation is over
This will be my last time addressing this. You were pedaling misinformation. I corrected it. I brought screenshots from articles and an e-mail that clearly goes against your narrative.
The e-mail sent by Hybe HR shows the investigation into the sexual harrassment itself was concluded by the 14th. I brought screenshot of the employee's insta post that said she received the result of the investigation on the 16th. So the results of the investigation was already in from 14-16th. That is why the employee is asking MHJ to reveal the KKT leading up to the 15th starting from the 6th on one of her insta post.
I also brought an article saying that the cc of the email happened after the 14th which you claimed started on the 6th.
You keep shifting the blame onto me and the others. I never said I'm unbiased. However, I read up on various sources to get an objective take on the subject. I can source my claims, and if you have a source that contradicts mine, I'm willing to read it and assess my position.
I don't think MHJ was in the right to cc the emails. The employee and the executive should have received the judgement at the same time. However, I can put the information in context and say that her reaction was understandable if she initially thought the executive was being falsely accused.
Have a nice day.
-
Look here Einstein ,
Nobody's gaslighting you when you're the one that started this convo, you're the one that won't stop tagging me and you're the one that keeps trying to belittle me while also getting facts wrong, dates wrong, misquoting me and picking and choosing.
If you can't handle a basic conversation that you're the main one keeping alive, simply shut the fuck up and move on.
It's not rocket science
What? You were the one that called me names first and tried to derail the conversation.
I can keep a conversation. You just deflect and obfuscate.
Please tell me where my facts are wrong? I sourced all my claims while you haven't sourced most of your claims.
-
The Naver article said March 21st but maybe they were confusing the resignation date? Honestly, if it's as mild as MHJ makes it seem, it doesn't even seem like it'd be worth meddling or interfering with the investigation; HR would've come to their own conclusions. But everything being accused on both sides should have official documentation (whether B filed report due to poor performance, if MHJ actually interfered with the investigation, etc).
She didn't cc the vp starting from the 6th. It clearly happened after the 14th.
She shouldn"t have done that and she should get in trouble. However, it was after the verdict to the sexual harrassment was concluded.
I'm being gaslit into thinking I have my facts wrong when it is daisy that is letting her bias pick and choose which 'facts' she wants to believe.
-
Display More
Where dos it say Employee B was given the report on the 16th?
My understanding of what Daisy provided:
Hybe HR emailed MHJ the results of the investigation on March 14. She immediately CC'd Executive A and protests the conclusion with HR. Hybe and MHJ (unknown if also Executive A) exchange further emails/conversations from March 14-16 - I'm assuming March 16 is when Hybe says they will not re-investigate (thus formally concluded). March 15 is supposedly when MHJ coaches Executive A, maybe to petition Hybe to reinvestigate to remove even the warning recommendation.
Employee B receives the report on the 21st, which is also when Executive A should've also received it, but he was given advanced notice 5 days earlier by MHJ (showing favoritism).
But like I said earlier, a lot of she said/he said, a lot of conflicting claims, and a lot of assumptions for both statements.
Employee B gave the date herself. Why am I being gaslit like this? Lol. She received the result on the 16th.15th.jfif.jpg
-
Display More
Where dos it say Employee B was given the report on the 16th?
My understanding of what Daisy provided:
Hybe HR emailed MHJ the results of the investigation on March 14. She immediately CC'd Executive A and protests the conclusion with HR. Hybe and MHJ (unknown if also Executive A) exchange further emails/conversations from March 14-16 - I'm assuming March 16 is when Hybe says they will not re-investigate (thus formally concluded). March 15 is supposedly when MHJ coaches Executive A, maybe to petition Hybe to reinvestigate to remove even the warning recommendation.
Employee B receives the report on the 21st, which is also when Executive A should've also received it, but he was given advanced notice 5 days earlier by MHJ (showing favoritism).
But like I said earlier, a lot of she said/he said, a lot of conflicting claims, and a lot of assumptions for both statements.
[단독] 어도어 前직원 "민희진 사과 기다렸다…법적 대응 고려 중" (인터뷰③)m.entertain.naver.comB씨는 어도어 A 임원의 직속 부하로 근무하던 기간 동안 성희롱성 발언뿐만 아니라 각종 직장 내 괴롭힘과 부당한 대우를 받아 3월 2일 퇴사 의사를 공식적으로 알리고 6일 회사에 성희롱, 직장 내 괴롭힘에 대한 신고, 16일 신고 처분 결과를 공유 받고 21일 퇴사했다고 주장했다.
-
-
Display More
MHJ
Hybe gave their findings and recommended discipline, MHJ immediately protested against the bare minimum warning, had the investigation reopened and coached the vp on how to blame the employee, the actual investigation ended 2 days later on the 16th when she agreed to resign and the results finalized on the 21st.
She was never impartial, immediately interfered and coaching him on how to get out of any disciplinary action is still coaching.
Ok. I see where the misunderstanding is coming from. You do realize that the investigation was concluded on the 14th, MHJ was given the finalized report on the 14th. Employee B was given the report on the 16th. You cannot conclude the case until Employee B is given the report.
This doesn't mean the investigation was ongoing from 15-16th. The determination of whether it was a sexual harrassment/bullying was already made on the 14th.
-
I literally just said—
Yknow what I'm not wasting my time on MHJs no-avi simpbots
Nah. You can't weasel out of this by calling names.
"Investigation went from the 7th until the 16th"
This is what you claimed. Where is the source?
I gave my source.
The e-mail has a time stamp of 3/14/24 6 PM. It is from Hybe HR giving the conclusion of the investigation.
Where did you get the 16th from?
-
Clearly, the report came out on the 14th. On the 15th, she's venting.
Dispatch made it look like she was coaching Executive A by piecing together her KKT.
On the 15th, she's venting under the assumption that the employee made a false accusation. This is right after Hybe HR cleared executive A.
If you read her later KKT, she becomes more sympathetic to employee B and tries to reconcile the two. All the receipts were posted by MHJ with the timeline.
-
Telling someone to get the facts straight and then getting the facts wrong is hilarious.
Investigation went from the 7th until the 16th, the texts of her disparaging and coaching VP happened on the 15th
Both MHJ and the employee had the same time initially. It's weird how MHJ suddenly changed the judgement date in her newest defense
What does the date say on the report? Can you read? If the coaching happened on the 15th than the report is already out. Get your facts straight.
-
Please let's get some facts straight.
- Executive B made a comment that having a woman('young woman' is disputed) at the meeting would create a better atmosphere than having two men eating a meal. Executive B claims he did say her presence would create a better atmosphere, but he never referred to her as 'young woman'.
- It was concluded that this does not rise to the standard of sexual harassment, and Hybe HR recommended a verbal warning.
- MHJ received the sexual harrassment & bullying report on 3/14.
- The alleged dispatch KKT showing MHJ 'coaching' Executive B is dated 3/23.
- How can MHJ coach Executive B to dodge the investigation if the investigation was already concluded by 3/14?
- Unless there is proof that there was talk between MHJ and Executive B before 3/14, it can't be seen as an attempt at a cover up.
- Executive B made a comment that having a woman('young woman' is disputed) at the meeting would create a better atmosphere than having two men eating a meal. Executive B claims he did say her presence would create a better atmosphere, but he never referred to her as 'young woman'.
-
[단독] 어도어 前직원 "민희진 기만에 치가 떨린다" (인터뷰②)m.entertain.naver.comI looked it up. The 'stern warning that Hybe recommended' is something that the Employee B is claiming in her interview.
According to the receipt posted by MHJ, there was no workplace bullying or sexual harrassment. Executive A said something unbefitting a VP of a record label. Hybe merely recommended a verbal warning.
It was a very mild recommendation.
I think Employee B is twisting what was said or maybe there is a separate report that says it?
At this point, I'm skeptical as to what employee B is saying. Too many inconsistencies.
-
Hybe never dismissed her claims. They recommended a strong warning that she felt was insufficient. It was MHJ's responsibility to carry that out and it seems like she didn't even want to do that.
When did she ever say this? Link?
If it's about justice, it should be about exposing how she was wronged. If she gets information that is relevant to that, she should mention. This is exactly what MHJ did in her own internal complaint to hybe. You are fighting against the concept of a whistleblower here and it's a bit funny
지난주 공유드렸던 RW 접수건에 대하여 조사를 실시하였고, 해당 건은 ”직장내 성희롱, 직장내 괴롭힘으로 인정된다고 판단하기는 어렵다“는 의견을 드립니다. 다만 레이블 VP로서 적절하지 못한 언행은 있었다고 보이므로 대표이사인 희진님께서 구두 경고를 해 주시는 것으로 제안드립니다.
Here is the exact words.
Last week, we started an investigation of the RW case that we shared with you. This is our opinion of this case. "It is difficult to accept this as a case of work place bullying or sexual harassment." However, we do believe that he said something unbefitting as a VP of a label. We recommend MHJ-nim to give him a verbal warning as the CEO.
"구두 경고" just means verbal warning.
No where does it say strong warning, and it was just a recommendation. I'm guessing someone mistranslated it and is running with it.
-
I'll wait for MHJ's rebuttal.
From a cynical point of view, it does seem like Hybe is trying to win the perception battle. Up to this point, MHJ has been portrayed as the underdog, and this bickering is putting a dent in that image.
Also, this case ultimately doesn't matter. There is a very limited number of ways to remove MHJ before her Put options can be exercised. The only thing that matters is the main lawsuit and the Belift/Source defamation cases.
-
I can see why MHJ is a bit thrown off/angry by the accusation that she's trying to squash a fellow woman in the work place.
If I'm reading this right, Employee A was the highest paid Ador employee or at the very least, one of the highest salaries.
So MHJ gave someone very young and a woman an extraordinary opportunity, but there was a catch.
The employee had to produce, and production/result seems to be the only thing that matters in the eyes of MHJ. She treats both gender poorly if they don't perform well.
-
Min HeeJin's first statement and the one she made now has been framing this whole situation as if the employee was weaponizing sexual harassment to get out of doing her job and people are shocked the employee is angriest with her?????
Hybe said MHJ didn't take it seriously and shielded that creep, and attacked the victim and her own statements are proving that true
The same people going on about how rough it must be for a woman in corporate spaces is shaming a victim who actually suffered being a woman working in a hostile corporate environment. Give me a break
Why is he a creep?
From the receipt that MHJ released, they were supposed to go to a Sichuan restaurant where there would probably be no drinking. However, they had to change plans when they found the restaurant was fully booked for the night. The other restaurant was a meat grilling pub type place.
Executive B notified her beforehand that he would have to leave one hour into the meeting. This happened an hour before the meeting took place. Since Employee A was brought in for a leadership role, Executive B assumed Employee A would be able to handle a meeting with an advertiser that she was in charge of. Yes, she was the one that would have to work with this advertiser since this brand was under her jurasdiction.
Neither Executive B or Advertiser C asked her to drink or pour drinks for them.
Executive B denies calling her a 'young woman'. He said he saw her as an equal. I'm a little bit skeptical about this, but it isn't something that can be proved.
-
-
It seems they actually have the recipes from the restaurants. The meeting finished at 9:30. It didn't go late into the night as the accusation seems to imply and after the director B left, each person paid for the drink they ordered themselves. The advertiser c was interviewed and he said they talked about non work related stuff. He never insisted they drink or the employee pour alcohol.
Also, director B never said 'young woman', so it is a he said/she said situation. He viewed her as an equal irregardless of age since she makes so much money.
People should really stop using the sexual harassment/sexual assault to describe this situation just to dunk on MHJ. It does disservice to the actual victims.
-
https://theqoo.net/square/3361497548?filter_mode=hot
Looks like MHJ gave a response to employee B.
Employee B was recommended by the same person as the one that recommended executive A.
Employee B has 7 years of work experience and despite her age, she was given the highest salary amongst ador workers. The expectation was that she would become a leader.
However, she turned out to be incompetent. So much so that other employees who didn't know her salary had to help her and they thought she was an intern.
MHJ tried to give employee B more chances by putting her under a different executive but incompetence continued.
Then she goes into the sexual harassment case and the discrepancy in the info given. She also pointed out some falsehood in the employee's insta post.
MHJ puting up a strong defense and it may be she is in the right. She put out some recipes too.
. 
.