3 ms·
I think you may be missing the point. This is training as “plausible proof that we have compliance in place.” So if the company gets in trouble they can say,
by mathattack 3y ago
I think you may be missing the point. This is training as “plausible proof that we have compliance in place.”
So if the company gets in trouble they can say, “100% of the employees will get harassment training” or “100% of the employees will get training on insider trading”
Then the second time they get in trouble they say “This was a rogue employee. 100% of our employees are trained. It’s not our fault.”
That people actually change behavior requires a lot more than a training class.
- prepend 3y agoI don’t think me taking the same training 5 years in a row shows any more compliance than me taking it once. It’s extra effort to figure out who has taken it or not so they just have everyone take it. I expect that in time, BS courses that show nominal compliance will be shown to be part of a workplace culture of not caring. But I shudder to think what the next form of compliance will be and will likely be much worse than watching a video once a year.
- mathattack 3y agoIt doesn’t get you compliant. It’s just a matter of the company saying, “Joe who made the mistake took a class in this subject in the past year so it’s his fault, not ours.” And they lose that “he had to know” if it’s been a while since you took the class. And if they have to give up a half percent of your time for these videos, it’s worth it for them. And usually you parallel process through them anyways.