Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A note to our employees

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 421 posts

Re: A note to our employees

#61

Post by grandmczeb »

snowwrestler wrote: post #55
HarryHirsch wrote: post #30

Look at the overspecific promises going forward! - We will make arbitration optional for individual sexual harassment and sexual assault claims Ordinary harassment and assault is still covered by forced arbitration, as is systemic sexual harassment. Good to know. - We will update and expand our mandatory sexual harassment training Everyone knows already that mandatory XY training serves to deflect liability from the…

Sexual harassment prevention training is an area where HR and employee incentives are well-aligned today, because the risk of a sexual harassment incident has a large reputational component. Gone are the days when a company just needed a box to tell a court that they checked. The public doesn't care about those boxes. The only way to manage the reputational risk of sexual harassment is to really try to prevent incide…

Is there any research on the effect of training on sexual assault in the workplace?

Re: A note to our employees

#62

Post by Osmose »

XCabbage wrote: post #43
Osmose wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/

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.

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.

Re: A note to our employees

#63

Post by knl »

I'm not a native speaker, but doesn't "We will update and expand our mandatory sexual harassment training" mean that trainings teach how to do sexual harassment, not prevent it? Shouldn't it be "prevention of sexual harassment"?

Re: A note to our employees

#64

Post by cultus »

shmel wrote: post #16

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 men?

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-livin...

Re: A note to our employees

#65

Post by GaryNumanVevo »

knl wrote: post #63

I'm not a native speaker, but doesn't "We will update and expand our mandatory sexual harassment training" mean that trainings teach how to do sexual harassment, not prevent it? Shouldn't it be "prevention of sexual harassment"?

I'm a native speaker and it probably should be "sexual harassment prevention training" but I know a lot of companies shorten it to "sexual harassment training" the "prevention" part is obviously implied

Re: A note to our employees

#66

Post by favorited »

jahlove wrote: post #32
craftyguy wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Care to explain why you think not?

Terminating an employee for cause is a big deal. Sexual harassment is worthy of termination. Failing to take sexual harassment training is not.

Consistently failing to take training required by your employer is absolutely grounds for termination.

Re: A note to our employees

#67

Post by [deleted] »

savanaly wrote: post #60
philip1209 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not just ban alcohol at work? Why can't work be work, and social stuff can happen outside of it? I know it sounds a bit extreme. But, after reading "It doesn't have to be crazy it work," I feel like companies use alcohol to bribe employees to stay at the office after-hours. A midground would be drinking only with sit-down food. Nobody is doing shots while having dinner. Another idea could be making company social…

>Why not just ban alcohol at work? Why can't work be work, and social stuff can happen outside of it? I see this sentiment a lot (especially on HN!) and I share it. I usually skip team dinners when I can. But there's no accounting for taste, and humans in general seem to have a taste for mixing work and "social stuff", so why shouldn't companies encourage it in that capacity?

[deleted]

Re: A note to our employees

#68

Post by LanceH »

jerf wrote: post #57
munificent wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> [0] Ideally a diversity officer would stand up for Damore. That claim depends entirely on how you interpret Damore's behavior. Tolerance does not and must not require tolerating intolerance [0]. I'm not stating a claim as to whether or not Damore's behavior should be considered intolerance. I don't have a take on that. But without having some opinion on that, you can't claim a priori that a diversity officer is obl…

"Tolerance does not and must not require tolerating intolerance" On the other hand, it's rather convenient how much intolerance can itself be justified by simply quoting that and just a bit of rules lawyering.

I feel a proof by induction coming.

Re: A note to our employees

#70

Post by rjknight »

knl wrote: post #63

I'm not a native speaker, but doesn't "We will update and expand our mandatory sexual harassment training" mean that trainings teach how to do sexual harassment, not prevent it? Shouldn't it be "prevention of sexual harassment"?

A few years ago I had to do "financial crime training", and although I had heard all kinds of rumours about what working in financial services is like, I was surprised that they were so up-front about it!

More seriously, I think this is what happens when certain words or phrases become jargon terms - they're used to invoke a concept, and lose their literal meaning. Something similar is happening with "mental health", as in "we should be concerned about mental health", where "mental illness" would seem to be a more accurate term.

The jarring effect comes when people who use these terms frequently and for whom they have become jargon have to talk to everyone else, for whom the term carries its literal meaning. "Sexual harassment" and "financial crime" stand out because their literal meaning also carries a strong emotional charge for most people, whereas their jargon invocation doesn't.

Post reply on HN