<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d11093232\x26blogName\x3dAB+1825+Sex+Harassment+Trainer\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dBLUE\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttp://ab1825.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://ab1825.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d-5676514328722923481', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

AB 1825 Sex Harassment Trainer

A free resource for California employers about the sexual harassment training law (AB 1825).

AB 1825 regulations issued

Friday, December 16, 2005
The proposed regulations for AB 1825 have been released by the Fair Employment and Housing Commission.

They've issued the:

And, there's nine business days left before the December 31, 2005 deadline for AB 1825 compliance.

Even newer USERRA poster

I posted in March 2005 about the new USERRA (military leave) poster issued by the Labor Department that all employers in the US are required to put up.

Today, the Labor Department issued an "updated" USERRA Poster.

Plus, they put up a 24 page explanation of the notification rule, and a 268 page explanation of the USERRA regulations.

Is it something we did?

Thursday, December 08, 2005
AB 1825 simply mandates "two hours" of training, so my company made sure our software requires attendees to spend at least two hours getting through it (no matter how fast they "clicked"). We do this by tracking their time in the course and, if necessary, submitting additional pages to ensure readers have sufficient material to fill the two hour requirement.

We aren't aware of other AB 1825 training providers that do this. We know some have clocks to show attendees their time, or some have video or audio tapes that run the time, but we hadn't heard of anyone actually inserting additional pages (we call them "interrupt pages") to provide fast readers with a full two hours of training.

Curiously, a preview of the official AB 1825 regulations to be issued by the state Fair Employment and Housing Commission (FEHC) says we didn't have to go to the trouble. According to the article:

"the draft regulations clarify that 'e-learning programs are not required to have a built-in timer that causes rapid learners to view additional content until the two hour standard is met.' "

We thought this extremely curious, since we don't know of any company (except us) that has "a built-in timer that causes rapid learners to view additional content" as mentioned in the (yet to be released) regulations. It's like they were saying our compliance feature — ensuring two hours of training no matter the attendee's reading speed — was unnecessary.

According to the article, two hours of online training is going to mean "the amount of time that the same content may be covered in an e-learning program for an average learner."

So, the proposal is to have a mythic "average learner" and use him/her/it to measure two hours. (That's like using smoots to measure distance.) Of course, not everyone is "average," which means that fast readers might only have to spend an hour on AB 1825 training, while slow readers might have to spend three or four hours to go through the "same content." That seems ridiculous.

It seems to me that giving fast readers more material to ensure two hours of training time is more in keeping with the law's requirement that employers provide two hours of training, than is letting attendees out early if they read (or click) quickly through a program.

Similarly, it seems that requiring everyone to go through the amount of material that an average person could complete in two hours means about 50% of the attendees (the "slower half") will be forced to spend more than the two hours mandated by the statute.

Why doesn't the FEHC simply say "two hours" means "two hours"? Why adopt some strange lawerly definition (i.e., "the amount of time...").

We figured out how to provide it. For any employer that wants to comply with the law's requirement to provide two hours of training, that should give us a competitive advantage. I'm curious why the FEHC's advisory committee is saying that's not right.

15 business days left...

...until the December 31, 2005, AB 1825 deadline.


Commercial: It's time to sign up for my live AB 1825-compliant presentation. The only class with seats open is on December 15 (Thursday) at 1:30. Send all your supervisors in the Bay Area; the classroom is near the Pleasant Hill BART (and we'll validate parking if you drive). map

19 business days left...

Friday, December 02, 2005
...until the December 31, 2005, AB 1825 deadline.

And now a message from our sponsor: If you're in Northern California and want to attend my live classroom presentation (and satisfy your AB 1825 training requirement with a fun and interactive program) sign up here.

The classes will be held twice (morning and afternoon) on December 13 (Tuesday) and 15 (Thursday). The classroom is near the Pleasant Hill Bart Station (or we'll validate parking if you drive). map