Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Biss and Wallace want legislators, staff and lobbyists to receive sexual harassment training

Posted in:

Illinois

* Press release…

Daniel Biss and Litesa Wallace will introduce legislation requiring all legislators, legislative staff, and lobbyists to receive sexual harassment training.

“We must acknowledge the toxic culture of sexual harassment in Springfield and end the silence that tacitly demands women accommodate decades of abuse,” said Daniel Biss. “Instead of waiting to hear more stories, instead of evading responsibility, we must use today’s spotlight as an opportunity to create changes that will endure beyond this news cycle. That’s why Litesa and I are introducing legislation that mandates every legislator, legislative staff, and lobbyist receive sexual harassment training.”

“Widespread sexual harassment is one of many reasons women, especially women of color, are underrepresented in Springfield,” said Litesa Wallace. “We have the power to change this culture, and to set up our systems to support women—and with that power comes a responsibility to act. That’s why raising awareness isn’t enough. We owe it to all the women who have shared their experiences, and to all those who haven’t come forward, to build systems set up to prevent sexual harassment.”

Sounds reasonable to me. Your thoughts?

posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 9:15 am

Comments

I see it as nothing but a headlining grabbing, feel-good proposal. Legislators, staff, and lobbyists don’t already know what sexual harassment is and how now to sexually harass? And this training is going to bring sexual harassers into line? Please. More government bureaucracy and spending with no results.

Comment by Just Observing Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 9:21 am
Great idea.

Too bad Biss had to ruin it by putting it in a partisan political news release.

Would have been better to have a bipartisan group of lawmakers from both chambers.

Comment by Thomas Paine Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 9:23 am
That would be wasted time and money.
If the GA wants to do something, fix the law that gives a person less than 6 months to file a charge of sex harassment. And make that illegal in more than just a place of employment. The current law has no application to a State Rep who sexually harasses a lobbyist or citizen advocating at the Statehouse. Create some meaningful penalties rather than just talk about it. Do something.

Comment by Politically Incorrect Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 9:25 am
Training is fine. But if this is so “toxic” and “widespread” why is it only now that the issue has been address so forcefully and publicly? If this is really as bad as they say, there’s a huge issue there. If, on the other hand, there are a few bad apples, theys houdl be rooted out. Getting to a situation where men and women cannot have an open dialogue for fear of a witch hunt will not be a desirable result. This is sounding more like the mob mentality that accompanied the child abuse cases from a few decades ago, which led to terrible miscarriages of justice.
And, finally, why does sexual harassment have an extra impact on “women of color” as claimed in this release? Proof, please.

Comment by phocion Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 9:26 am
Sounds reasonable to me too. Most people undergo sexual harassment awareness training on a yearly basis in other environments. Springfield should not be any different. And from recent accounts, it is sorely needed.

Comment by Big Joe Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 9:27 am
If it is anything like ethics training, it’s a waste of time and money.

Most people know right from wrong. They just make bad decisions.

Comment by Because I said so.... Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 9:27 am
For those who are in Springfield often, or have gone even once, they know that this has been a core problem of legislative nights for a long time, and something needs to get done.

For those who aren’t ever in Springfield, they should know that this is a major problem.

This is the least that can be done.

Comment by OkComputer Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 9:28 am
Oh, and to the spokespersons who say here isn’t much that can be done because they are elected officials…

Your bosses have the power of committee appointments. Use them.

Comment by OkComputer Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 9:28 am
If you have to take a training that tells you not to grab a women by her private parts or make lude and suggestive jokes in the office or at a bar, I’m not sure how effective that training will be for the intended targets.

Comment by Baloneymous Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 9:29 am
=== Most people undergo sexual harassment awareness training on a yearly basis in other environments. ===

I’ve worked for government and the private sector and I’ve never had sexual harassment training, especially not on an annual basis.

Comment by Just Observing Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 9:34 am
Dear lord … Biss is not an appropriate messenger on this issue, to say the least.

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 9:35 am
I think it’s reasonable as well. Sexual harassment is not something anyone should ever have to endure in silence and fear anymore. What makes it even worse is the harassers often have power over their victims, such as being bosses or wealthy, powerful people in an organization.

Comment by Grandson of Man Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 9:36 am
Some staffs already have sexual harassment training. I think both House caucuses do annual ethics programs including harassment.

Comment by HOD Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 9:36 am
= I’ve worked for government and the private sector and I’ve never had sexual harassment training, especially not on an annual basis. =

Doesn’t CMS or EEC include it in the annual ethics certification?

Comment by Dirty Red Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 9:38 am
Sure, why not. If the training changes the behavior of 1 in 100 it would be worth it, though I think I’m being generous with those odds. I think most harassers know their behavior is at least questionable, certainly the worst harassers, so I have doubts as to how effective training would be.

Comment by Perrid Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 9:41 am
I do not have anything more to add to the discussion.

Comment by "White Male" Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 9:41 am
Training is a good step. A very good one. Beyond that, legislate a position that has authority to investigate and discipline offenders. The buck has to stop somewhere if this is a serious effort. No maze of actions or multiple channels; a Behavioral Officer. That will stop it.

Comment by A guy Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 9:42 am
I don’t believe that legislators go through sexual harassment training at all.

I know for sure that lobbyists are not currently required to do sexual harassment training.

No, this is not THE solution. But it is an important step to start with dealing with this.

Comment by SaulGoodman Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 9:44 am
Welcome to the 21st century, Springfield.

Comment by City Zen Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 9:44 am
–If it is anything like ethics training, it’s a waste of time and money–

Exactly.

Comment by King Louis XVI Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 9:46 am
Politically Incorrect, I believe you are incorrect.

If you are an exclusive lobbyist, and you are sexually harassed by a lawmaker in the course of your work, then you have a right to file a sexual harassment complaint, and your employer has a responsibility to investigate it.

“Workplace” includes The Globe.

Comment by Thomas Paine Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 9:47 am
Ill. Comp. Stat., Chap. 775, § 2-105(B)(5)(c) provides that:
Every state executive department, State agency, board, commission, and instrumentality must develop a written sexual harassment policy and post it in a prominent and accessible location and distribute to employees in a manner to assure that all employees see it. They must all provide sexual harassment training as part of all ongoing or new employee training programs.

I think most of not all Illinois state universities already require such annual training of all of their employees.

Comment by Joe M Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 9:47 am
Is there any data to show the effectiveness of these seminars?

Comment by Anon E. Moose Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 9:47 am
I took a refresher training at work recently, and I do think it has value, maybe not so much for offenders but for people who perhaps, in the current climate, have renewed their commitment to refusing to enable bad behavior. Whether more meaningful penalties are the answer, as Politically Incorrect indicates above, is probably true. However, I have seen two sexual harassment cases play out at NIU over the past two years that resulted in the offenders’ resignations, and I attribute the results both to NIU’s seriousness in investigating, along with local media’s willingness to report the findings. Our task is essentially to change our culture, which is much like the turning about of the proverbial aircraft carrier, and that ultimately takes the support of many members of the mainstream community.

Comment by yinn Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 9:48 am
Sexual harassment training is fine — but I’m reminded that it was Blago who mandated that all state employees and members of all boards and commissions take ethics training annually. Hmmm. What’s wrong with this picture?

Comment by Depressed in DuPage Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 9:48 am
==If this is really as bad as they say==

Oh, go soak your head.

For the peanut gallery, training is not always about teaching people Kindergarten rules. It helps people think through where and how to report and educate them on that process. It can serve to put people on official notice. It can help buried problems to surface so they can be managed.

Also, in addition to committee appointments, I have a nifty idea: what if some of the legislative leaders were also put in charge of some of the party’s campaign funds? That way they could just stop bankrolling serial offenders, freeing seats up for others. Like women, or people who respect women as people.

Everything I’ve seen in Springfield indicates that reelection money might influence behavior.

And yes, the idea that leadership “start” controlling these funds is tongue in cheek.

But, if funds haven’t been withheld as problems have surfaced (and come on, we all know they have) the message is clear enough: “we’ll protect your foul behavior as we do your seat.”

Comment by crazybleedingheart Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 9:49 am
=== Dear lord … Biss is not an appropriate messenger on this issue, to say the least. ===

Rut-roh.

Comment by Thomas Paine Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 9:49 am
- Depressed in DuPage -
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Comment by We'll See Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 9:51 am
Utterly reasonable. When I was just a lowly extern with the state I had to do sexual harassment and ethics training. I assume regular state employees do too.

Comment by hisgirlfriday Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 9:51 am
==More government bureaucracy and spending with no results.==

That is perhaps one of the dumbest comments I have ever seen made.

Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 9:51 am
I don’t think it can hurt. The legislature shouldn’t be exempt from this sort of training.

Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 9:55 am
rauner saying ” you got that good red dress going. It’s a good…very…” off camera makes himself a creep

Comment by Rabid Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 9:55 am
Training is all well and good. Actually making examples of some offenders is better.

Comment by Ron Burgundy Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 9:56 am
==More government bureaucracy and spending with no results.==

=== === That is perhaps one of the dumbest comments I have ever seen made. === ===

You must not get on the internet too often.

Comment by Just Observing Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 9:56 am
I am truly surprised that this training is not already a requirement.

Comment by Gruntled University Employee Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 9:56 am
I thought government employees already had this training and assumed that legislators and statehouse staff did as well. Should be part of new employee training and, again, I’m surprised if it isn’t. But if not, good time to correct. And perhaps the current training, if it exists,needs to be reviewed and enhanced.

Comment by Cassandra Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 9:57 am
Phocion, why did it take so long for any other long-standing pattern of harassment or abuse involving individuals or institutions to rise to the surface? Decades in many cases.

Take your pick of the many examples that should immediately spring to mind. Were those “mob mentality” as well?

Close to home, Scott Cross has been a brave and invaluable teacher on the difficulties victims have in coming forward. Look him up, maybe he can help with your questions.

The good thing about training is that you can never say you didn’t know the rules. That’s usually the first refugee of scoundrels.

Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 9:57 am
I’m all for mandatory training, but unless there are penalties assessed for behaving like a jerk/creep/perv/deleted, then no amount of training is going to change the culture.

Harvey Weinstein was fired. So was Roger Ailes. Bill O’Reilly wasn’t, neither was Donald Trump.

Bill Cosby was finally penalized, but not until he ruined so many lives.

Men need to shun other men who behave like (deleteds). Sexual misconduct is a sign of poor character. If a man will behave this way with women, he will also lie, cheat and steal from others.

Yeah, go I’m all for training, but we all need to flag and penalize this behavior when we see it. If you want to be treated like a man, act like a man. If you want to be treated like a piece of scum, keep acting like a piece of scum.

Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 9:58 am
This is a both/and situation. Yes. Create a required training. Mandate it is in person - no online training like the ethics one. Lobbyists need to go through it to get their credentials. Legislators to get their committee assignments.

And there needs to be systemic change. Extend the amount of time someone has to file a complaint. Create a mechanism for an investigation within the statehouse so it isn’t just on the employer to try to figure out what went on in Springfield. Etc.

Leaders can make it very clear what they do and do not tolerate. They do it for other issues. Let’s see them do it for this one.

Comment by Montrose Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 10:06 am
Guess it wouldn’t hurt, but heck I have heard stories about the problems…

But Senator Bliss, why did it take some sunshine coming to the issue for you to act?

Comment by OneMan Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 10:10 am
It’s not the quantity of the training, but the quality and, as many others have already stated here and yesterday, how that training is integrated into an overall culture change. Trainings well done do much to improve the recognition of harassment, as much as to begin the prevention of it occurring in the first place. Like I posted last week, if Rauner had made a comment about how a male staffer was making a brown suit look good, as opposed to a female staffer in a red dress, don’t you think there would have been a deluge of media coverage???

Comment by Anon221 Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 10:17 am
All staff receives sexual harassment training…you see how effective it is…lobbyists, as far as I know do not…

Comment by Loop Lady Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 10:18 am
Great first step in my opinion. Will it stop folks from harassing? Probably not. But it might help victims and witnesses feel more comfortable to come forward if they feel like there’s a system in place that will support them.

@phocion

If you are actually interested in proof, then there are plenty of papers, studies, examples, etc. of how women of color have to deal with an added level of fun with the double-dose of sexual harassment and racial harassment that tend to compound both issues. It’s a rather well known phenomenon, so you could google it and find plenty of reputable sources. But here’s one that was done by a U of I professor: https://vaw.msu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Buchanan-Fitzgerald-2008-Racial_Sexual-Harassment-on-work-and-psych-of-Af-Amer-women.pdf

Comment by Chicago_Downstater Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 10:23 am
I’m assuming that most know that “grabbing” and other forms of physical contact are prohibited but less clear may be the extent to which speech can constitute harassment, and not just, say, propositioning a subordinate. Comments about appearance, “dirty jokes,” questionable e-mails and so on can also constitute harassment. So a refresher might be good for all.

Comment by Cassandra Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 10:30 am
Agree with 47th ward, you cannot train people not to be creeps. The individuals who harass haven’t been living under rocks. They know what they are doing is wrong. But they also know the culture will allow them to get away with it for the most part. No amount of training will change anything unless the culture changes. And that will not happen until people start losing their jobs because they harassed. And BTW, harassers include men who harass women, women who harass men and men who harass men. Anytime there is an imbalance of power, someone will take advantage.

Comment by anon Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 10:33 am
===They know what they are doing is wrong===

I wouldn’t be so sure. Denial can run very deep.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 10:33 am
Sadly, this happens to women and men every day in the world of business and politics…

This is a magnified reflection of what happens in society in general…

Comment by Loop Lady Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 10:39 am
“Dear lord … Biss is not an appropriate messenger on this issue, to say the least.”

What does that mean?

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 10:42 am
Training might deter people in positions of power from making explicit remarks or advances toward their employees in the office. But much of the work of politics, especially in Springfield, takes places after business hours in the downtown bars. And the type of sexual harassment that follows is difficult to prevent, police, and identify because it occurs in an alcohol-laden, partying atmosphere where lines between superiors and subordinates, and playful versus predatory behavior, are blurred.

The culture of lawmakers and lobbyists behaving like they are on Spring Break when they are working in Springfield contributes to this. I don’t know how to change this, because being sober in downtown Springfield is incredibly dull, and adults are ultimately responsible for their decisions, drunk or sober. The result is unfortunately a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation for the 99% of men who aren’t serial predators, and for the women staffers, lobbyists, and lawmakers who have the walk the line between being perceived as uptight because they aren’t seen frequenting the bars, or perceived as loose because they are.

Comment by Dr. M Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 10:49 am
Maybe as a first step but this is pretty week action. I wouldn’t take this effort seriously until they come up with a process that will censure guilty parties and create consequences.

Comment by Ahoy! Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 10:55 am
==harassment, and not just, say, propositioning a subordinate==

What makes you think it’s OK to do this with someone you supervise?

Fun fact: the CEO of Boeing was forced to resign due to a consensual affair with a subordinate about 10 years ago.

Comment by crazybleedingheart Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 10:58 am
When the very first round of Sexual Harassment took place years ago, there were moans, groans, guffaws, sex jokes…..but I believe it woke many people up to the problem, and were more aware of it when they witnessed it, whereas they passed it off before. A good refresher course would be timely and smart.

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 10:58 am
As a state employee, I have to take sexual and other harassment and ethics training every year. It covers the obvious and the not so obvious. I think making every legislator, staff, and registered lobbyist take a similar class is a good thing. Since ( as has been pointed out), a lot of their ‘work’ time is spent outside of the Capitol building and in non 8-5 situations, they possibly need more training than the rest of us.
Pages should be especially protected as they are usually less able to respond with enough of a glare to get their point across.

Comment by Thoughts Matter Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 10:59 am
Shouldn’t need a law, the Chiefs of Staff can demand it on their own. They should also include some diversity training while their at it.

Comment by Not It Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 10:59 am
Bad idea–anyone who has ever been subjected to such training will be mightily repelled. Such “training” is deeply offensive and worse, there is no evidence it works. It is just a racket for contracts to connected “training” consultants that can be tied to a feel-good headline. And the victims forced to take it hate it.

Better to have announced a code of conduct and enforcement mechanisms for the Governor’s Office and executive branch, to be implemented by executive order on his first day in office, and legislation to be introduced for the rest of State govt.

Comment by Harry Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 11:02 am
*they’re (damn autocorrect)

Comment by Not It Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 11:09 am
Harry- This is not a case of “I’ll know if when I see it”. If you have the research that supports your contention of ,” ‘Such “training’ is deeply offensive and worse, there is no evidence it works,” please share it with the rest of us. Maybe you had a bad experience with a bad training, but quality trainings, especially those that show typical scenarios and emphasize bystander training, can actually reduce costs to an organization.

https://hbr.org/2016/10/why-we-fail-to-report-sexual-harassment

“Researchers estimate that sexual harassment costs organizations $22,500 a year in lost productivity for each employee affected, while harassment leads employees to often experience symptoms of post-traumatic stress. Given its negative effects on productivity, employee job satisfaction, commitment, and physical and psychological health, managers and organizations need to do more to root out and prevent sexual harassment”

Comment by Anon221 Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 11:19 am
==harassment, and not just, say, propositioning a subordinate==

What makes you think it’s OK to do this with someone you supervise? ==

I don’t think Cassandra was saying at all that it was okay to do this with someone you supervise; quite the opposite, in fact. I believe she was saying that harassment isn’t limited to cases where a manager propositions an employee, but rather that there are other less “obvious” forms of speech that people may not be as clear on and that was the point of training.

Comment by Katiedid Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 11:21 am
I guess I wasn’t clear. Propositioning a subordinate is, I believe, well understood as harassment. Other forms of speech, as enumerated, are less well understood, but nevertheless supposedly very prevalent. Denial,as Rich says, or even ignorance may play a part here. Hence, the need for refresher training for all.

Comment by Cassandra Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 11:23 am
In light of the petition by women involved in politics, perhaps this can be viewed as hanging on to their larger effort. They deserve the attention.

Comment by Amalia Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 11:24 am
Aint no argument here.

Comment by JohnDeereMade Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 11:30 am
===I thought government employees already had this training===

Not everyone gets it, it’s not great, it’s also a one and done, and there’s a significant lack of confidence in management.

The State of Illinois is the only employer I’ve had where screaming at employees is an acceptable management style and HR doesn’t independently act when they spot a problem.

Comment by Anon Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 11:36 am
I hate to say it but this would be a waste of time especially if its like the so-called ethics training. Lawmakers, staff and lobbyists do the 10-minute ethics training online and then ignore it.

Why don’t Biss and Wallace call out their colleagues who they know are cheating and harassing individuals?

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 11:42 am
Sorry for the misread, Cassandra…I got your comment exactly backward.

Harassing or defamatory language wouldn’t be tolerated in my world, but unfortunately subordinate affairs are not always understood as harassment, if they’re said to be consensual.

Comment by crazybleedingheart Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 11:47 am
===Why don’t Biss and Wallace call out their colleagues who they know are cheating and harassing individuals?===

This isn’t going away without someone — or many someones being put in the pillory.

Comment by Anon Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 11:52 am
Great. These legislators will adhere to this like they do ethics.

Comment by Generic Drone Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 12:02 pm
=== Propositioning a subordinate is, I believe, well understood as harassment. ===

I don’t know if there is universal agreement that mere propositioning a subordinate is understood as harassment. I certainly can see how it could be coercive or perceived to be a coercive by a subordinate, but at the same time there are countless instances in which a supervisor and subordinate have mutual feelings and the end result is a respectful relationship, and sometimes marriage. In a black-and-white world, this can be frowned upon, but we don’t live in a black-and-white world and sometimes, for some people, love can be hard to find… so I don’t know if it’s always the policy to absolutely prohibit love by policy. Not all companies prohibit it, and enforcement is difficult.

https://www.inc.com/chas-rampenthal/dating-in-the-office-is-it-legal.html

http://hrdailyadvisor.blr.com/2015/01/07/can-an-employer-prohibit-employees-from-dating-one-another/

Comment by Just Observing Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 12:07 pm
==I don’t know if there is universal agreement that mere propositioning a subordinate is understood as harassment. ==

Fortunately, universal agreement isn’t required for a determination of harassment.

Comment by crazybleedingheart Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 12:20 pm
Throw in an impeachment-style permanent ban on holding office/lobbying for harassment or abuse related infractions and you’ve got a deal.

Comment by Will Caskey Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 12:22 pm
=== Fortunately, universal agreement isn’t required for a determination of harassment. ===

Nor does your sole opinion define harassment. If you are contending that supervisor/subordinate relationships always constitutes harassment, your opinion is contrary to the law, many company policies, and the reasonable, rational opinion of many people.

Comment by Just Observing Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 12:29 pm
==sometimes, for some people, love can be hard to find… so I don’t know if it’s always the policy to absolutely prohibit love by policy. ==

I disagree that this is a rational approach to the issue.

Comment by crazybleedingheart Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 12:36 pm
Seems like many of them already know how to sexually harass people they don’t need trained.

Perhaps sexual harrassment prevention and awareness training would be better.

Comment by Ghost Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 12:36 pm
Seminars, whether ethics, any type of awareness or general training on a topic that can blow back on the employer is geared to protect the employer from liability by documenting the employee was “trained” on the behavior or task.

Comment by tier1gal Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 12:53 pm
While this seems like such a clear-cut issue, it really isn’t. I think most people know what is appropriate and what isn’t in the workplace. Those who don’t know won’t learn it from mandated training. Sometimes, I think the better way to handle it is to have a better method of reporting such behavior so that the victim isn’t punished and the perpetrator is punished. I’m also reminded of the old SNL sketch on sexual harassment with Tom Brady. I’m not trying to make light of it, but harassment can be interpreted differently depending on who is doing the “harassing.” My point is that we don’t live a black and white world like Just Observing noted.

Comment by Steve Rogers Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 1:30 pm
Coincidentally, Vox had a piece on this today: https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/10/24/16498674/corporate-harassment-trainings-dont-work

Comment by LXB Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 1:42 pm
All employees where I was employed were sent in groups to training “class” where a couple of employees were actually harassed by person conducting class. I left with realization that males and females and some persons giving the training are completely clueless as to what actually is harassment.
And sometimes flirting is harassment and sometimes flirting is just flirting. My two year old son consistently got free refills of soft drinks at our local diner by flirting with the waitresses.

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 1:57 pm
“And sometimes flirting is harassment and sometimes flirting is just flirting. My two year old son consistently got free refills of soft drinks at our local diner by flirting with the waitresses.”

You have to factor in the power dynamic. A two year old can’t really ruin the career of the waitress. Maybe ruin her shirt when he throws up from all the pop, but not her career. The legislator “flirting” with the lobbyist/intern/staffer is a different story.

Comment by Montrose Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 2:56 pm
== My two year old son consistently got free refills of soft drinks at our local diner by flirting with the waitresses.==

Your two year old son manages a diner? Impressive!

I think the comments above serve as a case in point regarding the usefulness of training on what constitutes sexual harassment in the workplace, although I still maintain that those types of classes are largely ineffective.

Comment by Eye of the beholder Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 3:01 pm
You gave your two year old soda? What in the world is wrong with you? Apparently sexual harassment training is not the problem but parenting 101 is.

Comment by Not Toni Preckwinkle Tuesday, Oct 24, 17 @ 10:44 pm

Add a comment

Sorry, comments are closed at this time.

Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Supplement to today’s edition
Next Post: More instability coming for social service providers

Last 10 posts:

Reader comments closed for the weekend (11-22)
Isabel’s afternoon roundup (11-22)
The Waukegan City Clerk was railroaded (11-22)
Whatever happened, the city has a $40 million budget hole it didn't disclose until now (11-22)
Manar gives state agencies budget guidance: Cut, cut, cut (11-22)
Roundup: Ex-Chicago Ald. Danny Solis testifies in Madigan corruption trial (11-22)
Open thread (11-22)
Isabel’s morning briefing (11-22)
SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today's edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password) (11-22)
Live coverage (11-22)