Posted on February 10, 2006 4:14 AM by
Shanti Atkins
Much of the same story today as we saw in San Francisco on the 1st. (See my previous post from 2/1/06.) Shockingly, the anti e-learning crusaders are continuing with their “live classroom training only” platform. More wasted time. E-learning is clearly allowed under AB 1825. The law’s author, as well as the Commission, can only repeat this fact so many times.
There was then the suggestion that if e-learning must be allowed, the regs should state that classroom training is “preferred.” Hoo boy. I will refrain from caustic candor at this portion of the post … These live trainers are better off investing their time in good sales and marketing efforts for their classroom training programs.
Onto more important issues.
Two topics got additional weight during the hearing:
(1) The expertise threshold for classroom trainers and developers of e-learning needs to be intensified and more clear; and
(2) Employers can, within their two hours of training, cover other forms of harassment beyond sex.
The second issue is actually clear from the text of the law, as AB 1825 requires that training include “practical examples aimed at instructing supervisors in the prevention of harassment, discrimination and retaliation.” (Note the lack of the “sex” modifier.) AB 1825 clearly, however, stresses sexual harassment – which has some folks confused. So the new draft regs will probably include some clarification on the ability to address issues such as race, disability and age-based harassment within the two hours of training.
Here’s the bottom line --training only on sexual harassment is a really bad idea. While sexual harassment claims do form the bulk of FEHC complaints, there is an enormous volume of complaints related to other protected categories. Liability in those areas can be significantly reduced with good training.
More on this issue to come.
Tags:
AB 1825,
AB 1825 & California Sexual Harassment Training,
AB1825,
harassment training,
sexual harassment training,