PIERRE, S.D. – As reports of sexual harassment come to light at South Dakota's State Capitol and other workplaces around the country, many people wonder what can be done to stop it.

In an Argus Leader newspaper article, Samantha Spawn, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice South Dakota, spoke about a sexual assault against her while she was lobbying in Pierre. Her account follows dozens of women accusing film producer Harvey Weinstein of sexual harassment.

Spawn is not alone at the State Capitol. Other women have spoken out too, including state lawmakers.

Spawn says women stepping forward to detail painful experiences is just the first step. She says it's now time for men to take responsibility.

"Men need to speak up when they hear it happening, tell other men that that's not OK, be willing to listen and learn from women when they say that they have been harassed or assaulted, and take action if they see something inappropriate happening," she states.

Spawn notes that sexual harassment is an issue in almost every workplace. She says education is a huge component of changing the way people act.

Spawn hopes the overwhelming number of women who have experienced harassment will shift the way men think about it. And she says men should be concerned no matter who is reporting the harassment.

"I hate it when I hear men say, like, 'Oh, well I have a daughter, or I have a wife or mother or sister that I love, so therefore I think this is wrong and women should be treated equally,'” she relates. “Women are people too, regardless of our relationship to any men."

Spawn says a better mechanism for reporting harassment at the State Capitol needs to be put in place.

As it stands now, lawmakers must go to their chamber's leadership, made up solely of men who can be dismissive of women's claims.

She says the dynamics of power play a role as well, such as in cases when a bill is being pushed. Leadership might see action against a party member as damaging to their legislative efforts.




get more stories like this via email

Ohio voters are facing significant challenges at the ballot box, with some groups expressing concerns over voter roll purges and gerrymandering affecting representation, particularly in Black and other communities of color.

The issues draw attention to Ohio's "use it or lose it" policy.

Molly Shack, executive director of the Ohio Organizing Collaborative, said the policy affects marginalized groups more than others. She explained some voters, especially in underserved communities, may feel disappointed by a system when it does not meet their needs, resulting in fewer people voting and a higher chance of them being removed from the voter rolls.

"Ohio has purged literally millions of voters over the last decade and most recently, close to 160,000," Shack pointed out. "Those are policies that allow voters to be removed from the rolls not because they are ineligible citizens who can't constitutionally cast a ballot but because they haven't voted in a while."

Critics like Shack argued Ohio's current electoral practices contribute to voter suppression, disproportionately affecting low-income individuals, working-class citizens, voters of color and young voters, especially in districts already burdened by participation barriers.

Advocates also expressed concern about Ohio's persistent gerrymandering issues.

Bria Bennett, communications director for the Ohio Organizing Collaborative, asserted such practices dilute Black voter influence by packing and splitting urban areas, a tactic known as "cracking and packing."

"When we're thinking about gerrymandering, many times, that dilutes the Black vote," Bennett observed. "So think of your urban centers, you're packing all your votes into one area so that, yes, that voting block is together. However, it is diluting it everywhere else."

As Ohio voters prepare to decide on Issue One, supporters see the measure as a crucial step toward a fairer, more representative democracy.

Advocates for a voter bill of rights, currently stalled in the Supreme Court, continue to raise awareness about the barriers faced by some communities, emphasizing the need for comprehensive voting reforms to ensure access across the state.


get more stories like this via email

Through this Saturday, Minnesota is recognizing Workplace Rights Week.

From COVID precautions to emerging technology, labor voices said there is key information some workers might not be aware of. Over the past year, Minnesota has phased in new laws such as earned sick-time requirements, which mandate one hour of fully paid sick time for every 30 hours worked.

Jeff Ambroz, director of development and communications for the Minnesota Training Partnership, said as COVID activity continues to circulate and with the cold and flu season almost here, workers should know the requirement is expansive.

"This isn't only sick time for yourself," Ambroz pointed out. "It's time that you can use to care for a sick family member, to get help if you are a victim of domestic abuse or stalking."

Workers are also encouraged to see if they can use their earned time for things such as vaccination appointments. Ambroz noted workplace environments are constantly changing with new equipment and technology. He recommended staff should maintain conversations among each other, elected officials and, if applicable, union representatives in the event such changes harm a workplace setting.

Over the summer, Minnesota also implemented a change to expand penalties and legal options in cases where a company misclassifies an employee as an independent contractor.

John Swanson, political coordinator for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 343, said these have long been pervasive issues, especially in the construction trades.

"(These are) some things that should be common sense," Swanson contended. "But we have to have laws now to protect people from being taken advantage of."

Labor leaders said a misclassified worker can miss out on things such as health coverage and overtime pay. Other misclassification provisions specifically dealing with the construction sector go into effect next March.


get more stories like this via email

A legal expert has issued a warning that artificial intelligence tools could lead to discriminatory practices in hiring and firing.

Algorithms and AI are increasingly used by businesses through Automated Employment Decision Tools.

But Hardeep Rekhi, partner at the Seattle law firm Rekhi & Wolk, said these tools can be programmed with data that can train them to be inherently biased.

He noted that Amazon, for example, developed one of these tools to review resumes - but had to abandon it in 2018 because it was eliminating female candidates.

"This tool is only as good as the data that it's being trained on," said Rekhi, "and if that data is tainted by individuals that have bias, I worry that the tool itself will be mis-trained."

Rekhi said it's also hard to know how AI is using data to make its decisions - and claimed these tools are essentially "black boxes" that could be discriminating against certain classes of people, without the user knowing.

Rekhi said there are ways to protect people against this. During this year's legislative session in Olympia, House Bill 1951 was introduced to prohibit "algorithmic discrimination" by automated tools.

The bill didn't pass, but Rekhi said it was on the right path.

"You have to put the onus on developers of the tool and users of the tool," said Rekhi, "to make sure that whatever tool they're using isn't discriminating, and that's what the Legislature has proposed."

Rekhi said automated tools for business decisions like hiring and firing threaten the many gains made in employment practices in recent decades.

"We've worked so hard, and we've made significant progress in the field of trying to eliminate discrimination in the workplace," said Rekhi, "and I don't want this to, kind of, undo that or to hide that."




get more stories like this via email