42 ms·

Mandatory sexual harassment training sounds quite disturbing. Anybody can comment in detail how it is conducted? Is it really mandatory for everyone or only for

• bobbytherobot 8y ago
  Why does that sound disturbing?
  • shmel 8y ago
    Mainly because to me it sounds a lot like horror stories about those college classes to teach men how to not rape (I dunno, what happens there? instructor keeps telling "rape is bad"?)
• Osmose 8y ago
  What are you talking about? Mandatory sexual harassment training is standard for managers; California requires it for companies with 50 employees or more: https://www.dfeh.ca.gov/sexualharassmentpreventiontraining/ https://www.dfeh.ca.gov/sexualharassmentpreventiontraining/
  • XCabbage 8y ago
    I'm not sure whether your confusion is genuine or feigned. If it's the former, then allow me to blow your mind by informing you that non-Californians exist and use the internet.
    • Osmose 8y ago
      I live in Oregon. It's not confusion so much as incredulity that this would seem disturbing to someone, especially considering it is so common that a major state[1] mandates it for some employees. California is an example that mandatory sexual harassment training is common.
      • shmel 8y ago
        I form my opinion about common practices in the US mostly based on internet stories (and they are often pretty wild!). Among my IRL friends no one ever attended a training like this.
• arrakeen 8y ago
  i'm not sure what industry you work in, but i've had this at every single job i've held—even ones before the SJW bogeyman existed
  • deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
• jfrankamp 8y ago
  It is conducted like every other sort of corporate training around risk factors for the company, discussing principles and examples of violations and grey areas. Other examples are ethics e.g. "should I take a bribe?" and security e.g. "should i pick up a usb key in the parking lot and put it into a work computer?". Similarly the answer to "should I sexually harass my co-workers?" is also no.
  • lozaning 8y ago
    Yes, usually still delivered through some horrendous flash/quicktime mashup that requires you to stay on the page for x num of minutes before proceeding to the next page. I honestly dont mind the idea of taking any of this training, but I loathe the fact that I'm prevented from completing it at a pace I'm able.
• vkou 8y ago
  Mandatory sexual harassment training is performed by every employer in California who doesn't want to get sued for someone getting sexually harassed at work. The purpose of it is usually not educating people, but providing a liability shield. Juries don't look kindly when Billy was harassed by his manager, and Billy's employer couldn't even be arsed to put Billy through a two-hour course, that spells out why harassment is a bad idea. On the other hand, if Billy's manager did go through this training, and harassed Billy, then the company can blame everything on the manager.
  • woolvalley 8y ago
    Something I don't understand is why not for every other law then? Why does this segment of the law get a mandatory training session every year?
    • travellingbuyer 8y ago
      Widespread feminism amongst courts, HR, employees and consumers. HR matters are almost fully handled by feminists who believe in rape culture. The courts, specially in California, are ideologically biased to believe the accuser and punish everyone involved. Merely a sexual harassment accusation is sufficient to provide a catastrophic blown to the reputation of the accused and the company. In other words, Google has social pressure from consumers, judicial pressure from courts and internal pressure from employees, all derived from feminist beliefs, which ultimately result in a financial incentive to stand against the issue.
      • vkou 8y ago
        Apparently, the expectation that your boss shouldn't proposition you for sex = feminism. Also, recognizing that a quid pro quo relationship is inappropriate at work = also feminism. Have you considered that work is for people to go to, so that they can do their ing jobs?
    • vkou 8y ago
      Because in sexual harassment, a manager is responsible for the behaviour of their reports. Because it is the most common way for an idiot to open up the company to hundreds of thousands of dollars of liability. Because it is the only concern that is a constant, regardless of which industry you work with. When you're in the medical industry, managers have to take medical compliance training. When you're in the financial industry, managers have to take financial compliance training. When you're in the automotive industry, managers have to take OSHA compliance training. But in all of those industries, there is one common element. Managers have reports. Reports that can sue the company, if their manager engages in harassment, or allows another employee, customer, or contractor to harass them.
• svachalek 8y ago
  It's common in the U.S., and the second question is the sort of thing that would get you sent back to take the class again. Generally I've seen they use the "stoplight" model, in that some behaviors are "green", near universally accepted as non-harassing, some are "red", near universally rejected as harassing, and some are "yellow" meaning individuals vary. "Red" behaviors should get you fired immediately, while "yellow" often puts some burden on the offended party to speak up about it, and it only becomes harassment if it continues. Google's training when I took it a decade ago focused almost exclusively on the yellow/gray area and was pretty interesting because of it. Other trainings I've suffered through focused on the red zone which felt obvious, awkward, and dull.
  • dsfyu404ed 8y ago
    And someone invariably makes a wisecrack about how it's a bad model because everyone knows you speed up if the light is yellow and you think you can make it and rights on red are ok unless posted otherwise.
    • tk75x 8y ago
      That someone appears to be you.
  • shmel 8y ago
    >>It's common in the U.S., and the second question is the sort of thing that would get you sent back to take the class again. I have to admit I have never been in the US. So, what is the right answer for the second question? I suppose it should be mandatory for all, but in the same time I have read too many stories about "classes to teach men to not rape" that I am in doubts.
    • lawnchair_larry 8y ago
      It's intended for men, but actually saying this would be politically incorrect, so it's assigned to everyone. Nobody thinks there is some kind of epidemic of women abusing men in the workplace. It's usually just some slides or a video you click through, and most people try to fast forward or skip as much as the software allows. That's actually how all corporate training works.
• bauerd 8y ago
  I'm from Germany and I find it sounds disturbing as well, never heard of such thing before. However according to some this apparently is common industry practice. So I wonder, what exactly happens at a sexual harassment training?
  • jtbayly 8y ago
    You are taught what sexual harassment is and how to do it.
  • ocdtrekkie 8y ago
    svachalek's answer is pretty good: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18408466 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18408466 It's usually an incredibly boring hour-long-or-so presentation employers expect everyone to go through somewhere around annually. It discusses inappropriate behaviors like quid-pro-quo, retaliation, inappropriate comments towards other employees, etc. The general assumption behind it is that some people may not know their behavior is appropriate, and presumably, to remove the "I didn't know that wasn't okay" defense on any future violations. Of course, the issue is everyone knows that things like what Harvey Weinstein or Matt Lauer did aren't okay, but they still happen anyways. I don't feel I benefit from it in any way after the unteenth time I've been through them, but if an employer pays me to be there, it's on their dime. The college I go to also tries to require a sexual harassment training thing, and I have declined to participate since I pay them to be there, not the other way around, and the dean's office has admitted to me in an email that the "required" training is "not mandatory".
  • michaelt 8y ago
    I find it sounds disturbing as well, never heard of such thing before. Here in the UK, you go to an independent mechanic, maybe somewhere in the workshop they have a calendar with pictures of topless women. On the other hand, you go to a national chain, the calendar has a message about the importance of embracing teamwork. Sexual harassment training purports to transform organisations that behave like the first one into organisations that behave like the second one. How much of the difference in behaviour is a consequence of the training and how much from other factors is obviously difficult to measure.
• unethical_ban 8y ago
  My Fortune 100 company has us watch a video where a white IT guy stalks a minority female in the parking garage and leaves a CD on her car with a mixtape, or something, I forget. It is pretty bad. I follow a simple rule, and so far, I haven't done anything stupid: "If you think it would make someone personally uncomfortable when you say it, consider not saying it".
  • hkon 8y ago
    ok, is that scene your describing romantic or harassment, I can't really tell.
    • Pfhreak 8y ago
      Sounds like you'd be a good candidate for additional training.
      • hkon 8y ago
        Why?
        • unethical_ban 8y ago
          I didn't tell the whole video's story, but the use of the word "stalking" should be a tip.
          • hkon 8y ago
            Stalking has become a very vague term. Checking a profile on facebook is referred to as stalking these days.
    • travellingbuyer 8y ago
      Depends on your desirability.
  • lawnchair_larry 8y ago
    That's roughly what Bill Gates did, except he actually confronted her in the parking garage. And when Melinda said no, he looked up her number in the HR database and called her at home. Oh, and he was a little more than just an IT guy. That poor woman, still being victimized by that creepy sexual predator to this day. We should try to save her.
• commandlinefan 8y ago
  > or only for men If it's anything like everywhere I've ever worked, it's mandatory for everybody, and they go out of their way to pretend their not just talking to the men about the women, but it's actually twice as uncomfortable because all of the women - for whom this training is actually for - are sitting next to the men, for whom the training is actually targeted. So you sit through an hour of uncomfortable filterspeak that would make the 80's Soviet Kremlin cringe.
  • Taylor_OD 8y ago
    There may be more men harassing women but you are writing off every male who has been sexually harassed at their workplace with your comment. Additionally you are spreading the idea that sexual harassment is only done by males to females which is incredibly harmful and short sighted.
    • deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
• cultus 8y ago
  Mandatory sexual harassment training is usually ineffective [0]. The real purpose is to limit a company's legal exposure. Actually reducing sexual harassment or other negative behavior takes a deep change in a company's attitude and culture. You can't get it from a 1 hour seminar conducted by some HR drone. [0] https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/evidence-based-living/201712/sexual-harassment-training-is-largely-ineffective https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/evidence-based-livin...
• kaitai 8y ago
  I've been through a number of mandatory sexual harassment trainings in higher ed. Some of them were beautifully done legal CYA and poorly done in every other way: "if you do this and we didn't tell you it's bad, we're liable. Please check the box acknowledging we told you it's bad so we're not liable." Totally useless except as a means to design your harassment to fit legal parameters. The most recent one I did was actually useful (!!!!), probably because it was geared toward helping us employees/professors/etc actually know what to do when a student comes to you with a concern and how to intervene in bystander situations. It did explain the law. Far more useful were the scenarios: "Famous Prof is creeping on your grad student at a conference. Here are three options." "A student comes to talk about their poor performance on homework and ends up telling you they were assaulted at a party two weeks prior. Who do you talk to and who do you not talk to? What are the student's options?" "You fall madly in love with a student in your calculus class and the flame of your passion cannot be extinguished. While you are their TA/prof, what do you do?" The bystander training and training on which resources to direct students or colleagues to, with instructions on how best to contact the offices, was good. The suggested wordings for responses were good. Often "good people" don't intervene because they don't know what to say or don't want to be awkward. Imagine you're a 22-year-old math grad student TAing for the first time -- maybe you've only been in the state or country 2 weeks -- and a student tells you about a rape during the parties first week of the semester. How're you supposed to deal with that with no training? It's the only good training I've ever experienced, actually.
• ummonk 8y ago
  Corporate sexual harassment training is usually quite reasonable (unlike college training which can veer into the absurd). I'm not sure how much it actually helps prevent sexual harassment though - most sexual harassers are just jerks (i.e. not people who don't know better and would stop if only they had been through sexual harassment training).
• dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Mandatory sexual harassment training sounds quite disturbing. It can be, if it is done poorly. In fact, if it's done really poorly, it can look like it was carefully designed to cause a differentially hostile workplace environment based on sex, such as when every single example or reference to a victim or potential victim specifies a female worker or uses feminine pronouns, and every perpetrator or potential perpetrator in an example or description is male. (Which happened in the first such training I attended, in 1999.) > Anybody can comment in detail how it is conducted? It varies. A lot. Even as to whether it is mandatory sexual harassment training or mandatory harassment training that includes sexual harassment as a component. > Is it really mandatory for everyone or only for men? Where it is mandatory, it is usuually mandatory for everyonein the workplace, though there is often additional training for supervisory personnel over and above what everyone else is required to take.