House votes to make sexual harassment training mandatory

[TexasTowelie]

The New Hampshire House voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to require its members to attend sexual harassment education training, a year after the #MeToo movement cast a spotlight on State House policies.

In a 284-92 vote, members opted to introduce a new rule – House Rule 67 – which would require all legislators and State House staff to “attend in-person education and training regarding sexual and other unlawful harassment and discrimination.”

The training sessions, held at the beginnings of each two-year legislative term, have previously been voluntary and sparsely attended.

But the rule change appeared to have an immediate effect; on Wednesday afternoon, hundreds of representatives showed up to a scheduled harassment hearing. At an earlier harassment training in February, fewer than 40 representatives and staff members appeared.

Read more: https://www.concordmonitor.com/New-Hampshire-House-makes-sexual-harassment-policies-mandatory-22506756

[RandySF]

1. We have to take online training every year at work.

[TexasTowelie]

3. I didn't have to take it at the last company where I worked because it

was fairly small. My own supervisor made sexist comments to me such as men aren't good communicators that should have at least got her reprimanded if someone pushed hard enough.

I had to have sexual harassment training every other year when I worked for the state.

Surprisingly, I've found that hospitals are some of the worst as far as providing training. The stories that my brother has told me would cause a plaintiff attorney to contact their travel agents as soon as they got off the phone.

[Freelancer]

2. Aren't there enough sexual harassers? Why train more?

That's almost as bad as girl scout cookies. That's just cannibalism! <–Kidding