It’s called “sexual harassment,” but if the #MeToo movement has taught any lessons, it’s that the phenomenon is more about power than sex.
Women — and men, in a minority of cases — find themselves in a subordinate rung on the workplace power ladder when a higher-up feels free to send unwelcome sexual signals.
The issue, which has bubbled up in the news periodically but largely has festered beneath the surface for many years, burst anew into the public consciousness two years ago with the expose of now-disgraced movie mogul Harvey Weinstein.
That criminal case is still alive but last week he reached a $25 million civil settlement with more than 30 women who have accused him of sexual harassment. And in its wake, many harassment victims have stepped forward to say, “me, too,” illuminating the extent of the problem.
In far less celebrated circles across the country — and the Hawaii State Legislature fits that description — there have been efforts, long overdue, by leaders to assess where their own workplaces fall on this spectrum. Hawaii’s elected officials in fact have been lagging behind some private employers.
The Legislature has made a start, prompted by its own set of complaints, but has more work to do, creating a more equitable public space for those who have official business in crafting the laws of the land.
The state House of Representatives has adopted a broad policy that is more comprehensive than that of the upper chamber — and it’s puzzling why the Senate hasn’t brought its rules up to the same standard.
Perhaps members of the House felt particularly chastened by the harassment complaint posted against then-Speaker Joseph Souki by Rachael Wong, the former state director of human services. The state Ethics Commission followed with an inquiry into this case and others that came to light.
Essentially, the House policy encompasses all the people working in the Capitol in an official capacity, whether on the state payroll (legislative employees and elected officials) or not. With an update made earlier this year, the House now covers “third parties,” such as lobbyists and members of the public, along with state employees.
Anyone who feels they have been subjected to sexual harassment by a representative or House staffer can report it to a supervisor, or the House speaker or chief clerk.
The Senate policy, by contrast, mentions such third parties but does not apparently include them in any redress provisions. It asserts that harassment “can occur between Senate members and staff members, as well as between supervisors and subordinates of the Senate, or vendors or lobbyists.”
As redress, however, the policy outlines only what steps “an employee who feels victimized by any form of harassment” may take, such as complaining to immediate or higher supervisors, the Senate president or the affirmative action officer the president designates. The option to complain to the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission or file a lawsuit also is listed.
State Sen. Laura Thielen observed, correctly, that this gap should be closed and that the policy could be further improved by posting it more publicly so that the protocols are clear to more people.
And these rules should be reviewed periodically for possible further updates. For example, general guidelines for private workplaces often include language to prohibit retaliation against complainants; that would be another good idea worth considering.
The #MeToo movement has sparked welcome changes that will take time to filter throughout society. At the very least, though, those who oversee its lawmaking bear some responsibility to lead by example.
