[HN Gopher] Having friends in HR is fine, but HR is not your friend
___________________________________________________________________
Having friends in HR is fine, but HR is not your friend
Author : mooreds
Score : 254 points
Date : 2023-01-05 17:18 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (cdoyle.me)
(TXT) w3m dump (cdoyle.me)
| xg15 wrote:
| > _But don't forget what their job is, and it's not to protect
| your interests, so make sure you have someone at the table who
| is._
|
| Like a union.
| bwestergard wrote:
| The whole concept of a "human resources" department was developed
| as a response to workers organizing unions to bargain over terms
| and conditions of employment. Whatever the flaws of some unions,
| they are ultimately economically dependent on their members, and
| the officers are elected. HR is accountable only to executives.
|
| https://inthesetimes.com/article/human-resources-me-too-sexu...
| jacobr1 wrote:
| Wasn't the precursor "Personnel Departments" which were more
| administrative? Especially in a pre-computer era with more
| literal paperwork? It seems like HR evolved out of that to
| service more "strategic" business needs, which sure, probably
| included union busting, but also includes many other functions
| to serve companies in more competitive environments that are
| dominated by knowledge work.
| nyolfen wrote:
| HR departments grew out of fear of compliance with the
| amorphous legal incentive structures created by federal
| discrimination laws in the 1970s https://dash.harvard.edu/bit
| stream/handle/1/3322830/Dobbin_S...
|
| > The continuing ambiguity of compliance standards led
| management writers to advocate permanent antidiscrimination
| offices to track legal shifts. Because the courts were so
| fickle, Marino (1980, p. 25) advised executives to adopt the
| "Good-Faith-Effort Strategy," the heart of which was a
| special office designed to signal that the employer was
| making every effort to figure out how to comply. In a Harvard
| Business Review article, Antonia Chayes (1974, p. 81) noted
| that "vigorous enforcement" had brought "serious top
| management attention to antidiscrimination legislation....Now
| the penalties imposed under employment discrimination laws
| are seen as posing a severe financial threat." She advised
| executives to set up EEO and AA programs that could prevent
| lawsuits. Meanwhile, compensation of upper managers was being
| tied to affirmative action performance, and this led them to
| support dedicated antidiscrimination departments.
|
| this may sound familiar
| revskill wrote:
| Title is contraction.
|
| If HR is not your friend, then you don't "having friends in HR".
| hardware2win wrote:
| I dont understand those bad experiences with HR here
|
| All hr stuff that ive been involved in was getting hired,
| questions about taxes, days off calculations and health provider
| related stuff
|
| Like... what happened to you?
| vlod wrote:
| When you're reliant on them, every single HR dept I've hard to
| deal with (across many companies) has been incompetent. It's
| too the point I have systems in place to cover their inevitable
| screw up.
|
| e.g. I was living in the US and had to go for a business trip
| to the UK and my company put up in the Ritz Carlton in London
| (a very fancy and very expensive hotel, especially during new
| year).
|
| However the HR person thought that having a $50 max total spend
| for my corporate credit card (for an international trip) was
| fine. Note the hotel room was probably around $550 per night
| (times by a week).
|
| Luckily my personal credit card, which had an extremely low cap
| as I had just moved to the US and had really no credit score,
| managed to cover it.
|
| Of course no apologies and were blase about it when I spoke to
| them.
|
| If we behaved like this on our dev teams, we'd all get fired.
| rippercushions wrote:
| Unless your company is so tiny that the HR person is wearing
| many hats, the credit limit on your corp credit card is set
| by the finance team and likely has nothing at all to do with
| HR.
|
| Although a $50 (!?) limit on a credit card sounds more like
| somebody at the bank fucked up.
| vlod wrote:
| Doesn't really matter. If HR are the employee facing
| 'front' of the company and do all the work of booking
| flight, hotels, transport etc then the buck stops with
| them.
|
| i.e. If one is a tech/product team lead with an external
| client, you can't blame a developer (below you in the food
| chain) for screwing up. All screens/functionality has to be
| verified before the client sees it. If not, you'll more
| than likely look like an idiot.
| rippercushions wrote:
| I've never worked in a company where HR does flight and
| hotel bookings. Just how many people work in your
| company? Or are you using "HR" to refer broadly to
| everybody working in any type of administrative role?
|
| In my (typical) company, HR sets travel _policy_ but
| everything else about travel, down to approving expense
| reports, is outsourced to vendors or other departments.
| vlod wrote:
| This was for a v.large investment bank.
|
| There are most likely other departments, but HR generally
| manage all of the trip details and are the front for the
| employee. i.e. to save the employee wasting a bunch of
| time talking to X number of depts (that don't return
| calls etc) to try and get things setup.
|
| i.e. From a costing perspective, you don't want senior
| people or super busy (and expensive) engineers wasting a
| bunch of time.
| fknorangesite wrote:
| I still feel like you are using "HR" here to refer to a
| broader set of administrative roles that are not actually
| Human Resources.
| ejb999 wrote:
| The 'bad experiences' with HR are usually because of some
| employees not understanding who HR serves - I also have never
| had a problem with HR; you only deal with HR on your first day
| and last day for the most part.
|
| It's not much different than forgetting that the oh so helpful
| real estate agent is there to make a sale and a commission, not
| to make sure you find the perfect house at the best price.
| kayodelycaon wrote:
| I have a disability. A new HR person was hired and she started
| introducing policies as if we were a 100,000+ person company,
| when we had less than 400.
|
| Most of those policies ran head first into ADA. Hard. My
| manager and I had worked just fine with my limitations prior to
| these rules. The new HR person wanted to overrule everything
| and then got pissed when she had to start tracking my time off
| per hour in a spreadsheet and manually adjust payroll because
| she didn't know how to enter it in the system properly.
|
| She did some serious gymnastics to get me fired over the
| protests of several layers of management.
| jacobsenscott wrote:
| Sounds like all the HR stuff you've been involved with is not
| threatening to the company (lucky you), so of course they are
| sweet a pie. Go to them for help with a discrimination
| complaint or the like (or just google up the thousands of
| stories) and you'll see "what happened".
| watwut wrote:
| Our company created HR and the result was surprisingly
| positive. The hiring process started to be way more organized -
| they made no decisions, but planned interviews, made sure they
| are when everyone is available and knows about them.
|
| They were also available to explain labor laws, regulations and
| process whenever leader/manager needed it. That alone made a
| lot of stuff more predictable.
|
| I was skeptical at first, but it was definitely an improvement.
| nraynaud wrote:
| "HR aren't evil, they're just doing a job". HR people aren't
| evil, they are just people who have freely decided to apply evil
| and cynical policies 8h a day 5 days a week on a group of other
| people.
| darth_avocado wrote:
| > Your employer definitely got legal advice on anything they put
| in front of you, why shouldn't you do the same before signing?
|
| Because it costs $700/hour
| DwnVoteHoneyPot wrote:
| I tend to work for smaller companies so I've been laid off a
| few times. I've hired employment lawyers each time. I've paid
| them approx $2K-$3K each time and have receive much more back.
| CoastalCoder wrote:
| Can you say more about how they were helpful?
| DwnVoteHoneyPot wrote:
| First, I worked at Company A for 5 years, then was actively
| recruited to Company B. Company B laid me off after 11
| months. The typical severance payment is 1 month for each
| year of service, so you'd assume I'd only get ~1 month of
| pay. The lawyer was able to get me 1 month of salary for
| each of 5 years plus 11 months of service. There is
| something in the laws* about them actively recruiting,
| luring me away from Company A that makes Company B need to
| compensate me for the loss of leaving Company A.
|
| *I'm not a lawyer, but I think it's case law and not
| statutory laws.
|
| Second, employment lawyer told me when they announce a
| large layoff, they have everything planned. Including a
| budget for people who ask for more money. Since HR is
| dealing with hundreds or thousands of layoffs (eg. Amazon),
| they don't have time/resources to argue with you. If you
| ask for more severance, they'll just give it to you (budget
| already approved), especially if you are represented by a
| lawyer.
|
| EDIT: Third, I'm mid-career. Lawyer told me at my level, it
| takes longer to find a job. Why accept a generic package
| that juniors will get when law* already agrees that it
| takes me longer to find work. Point of the severance is to
| bridge me to my next job, I should get more.
| [deleted]
| elil17 wrote:
| If you're hiring a top law firm. Plenty of lawyers can be had
| for $100/hour and are well qualified to review employment
| terms.
| darth_avocado wrote:
| If you're in any big city, you're not going to get more than
| a "consultation" of half an hour for $100. Most of the
| answers you'll get in that meeting are the ones you can find
| by a quick Google search, anything more and it will cost you
| a lot more.
|
| The only cheap option, if you're lucky, is the local bar
| association usually does pro bono office hours that you could
| possibly sign up for and get in. Those don't work for time
| sensitive issues like when you have to sign a contract by X
| date.
| elil17 wrote:
| Well don't go to a lawyer in a big city? You can easily
| interact with a lawyer virtually.
|
| Even if all they do is tell you what you could find out in
| a Google search if you knew what to search, it's going to
| be more useful for the average person because lawyers have
| the confidence to interpret legal terminology,
| contextualize what they are telling you, and recognize what
| is and is not normal (e.g. notice predatory terms in a
| contract).
| bushbaba wrote:
| I wonder if basic legal issues will one day be handled by
| something like chatGPT.
| nullsense wrote:
| It would have to stop confidently making bullshit first I
| would imagine.
| jacobr1 wrote:
| Also commonly-held positions that are false, or not
| applicable in a certain jurisdiction. Google can be
| misleading.
|
| This is one of the big advantages of having a good
| network of friends and family with a wide variety of
| expertise. I wouldn't necessarily ask my lawyer friends
| to review a contract for me ... but I won't hesitate to
| ask if I should ask a lawyer, or about a general
| principle or clause that seems weird and help inform if I
| need more specific paid advice.
| Alupis wrote:
| You do not need to go sit in some fancy law firm's office
| to get good legal advice.
|
| Just because you live in a Big City doesn't mean you need
| to pay Big City "Power Firm" rates for basic contract
| advice and consultations.
|
| In those situations you're not meeting with partners anyway
| - you're getting assigned to a junior associate at best.
| Often, the paralegals end up doing all the grunt work
| anyway... and if you're not careful you'll pay them as-if a
| senior partner dedicated their entire day to your basic
| mundane situation.
| D13Fd wrote:
| I agree $700/hr is higher than necessary. But I'm not sure
| what kind of lawyer you are going to get for $100/hr if
| you're talking about within the U.S.
| elil17 wrote:
| Small town, private practice (not a big law firm)
| digitalsushi wrote:
| I dont know anything about lawyers. Are there cheap city
| lawyers? Are there expensive small town private practice
| lawyers? What makes a lawyer's value go up? I'm asking a
| non rhetorical question, I really dont know
| nibbleshifter wrote:
| Yes to both.
|
| Funnily enough, lawyers can be cheaper in large cities
| where there's more of em.
|
| If you run into bother in some one lawyer town, they
| sometimes might think of taking the proverbial piss.
| thekiptxt wrote:
| Thank you!
|
| Honestly this is one of my biggest pet peeves with any "consult
| a $SPECIALIST" advice. Yes, if my money and time were endless,
| this is sound advice.
|
| Tangentially, when I express frustration at police incompetence
| in knowing the law (I live in the US, and many law enforcement
| officers are under-trained), a common response is "this
| shouldn't be an issue as you can follow up in court and get the
| charges dismissed, or even sue the city". Again, fair
| suggestion if I have dozens of hours of time on my hand and
| thousands in lawyer fees to burn.
| throwaway98797 wrote:
| plus, you have to trust you judgement that said expert is a
| good expert and at that point might as well just risk it and
| go without
|
| all experts are mostly useful after 10k-100k and even then
| they suck.
| [deleted]
| andix wrote:
| HR is your business partner. You can be friends, as long as you
| are able to keep business separate from friendship. And stopping
| yourself, when the friendship exposes too much that influences
| the business.
|
| I think business follows some very clear rules, compared to
| friendship. It's always about money. The decision is always in
| the direction that is the cheapest and brings the most profit.
| Friendship can help there, if some options are equally priced,
| then the friend may be chosen, because of the friendship.
|
| I think employees have a very powerful position, once they
| realize that. Replacing someone can cost up to 6 monthly salaries
| (fees for headhunters, trainings, ...). If you find out where the
| tipping point is, you can negotiate better. It's also important
| to highlight your employers benefits if you want something.
|
| In corporations then currency is quite often not just money, but
| influence and power. A lot of managers decide based on what will
| give them more power. If you play along, they may give you much
| more money/benefits.
| t43562 wrote:
| Cheapest/most profit as the ultimate goal is potentially a
| cultural thing - long term versus short term benefit might be
| valued more e.g. in Japan. and less in e.g. the US or the UK.
|
| What you say about the cost of replacing people IS the argument
| I used for getting one of my team a raise. There's no doubt
| it's very time consuning and difficult to get suitable new
| people and well worth the small amount this one wanted.
|
| Now that I'm on the other side of the line I can see that one
| doesn't want to hire people who are going to fight you all the
| time or (even worse) fight everyone else and cause trouble.
| Bad/good as that may be .....
| andix wrote:
| Short or long term profit is a cultural thing, even some
| companies value the one over the other. There are also
| companies, that will never pay any employee more then the
| industry average. Those are factors that need to be
| considered.
|
| About people who fight, that's often really hard to judge. In
| some companies this is how change happens, and it's
| appreciated in the end (or not).
| paxys wrote:
| People think the "resource" in human resources means that the
| team is available as a resource for employees should they need
| anything. In reality _you_ are the resource they are referring
| to.
| nullsense wrote:
| I never got the impression anyone thought that? I always
| thought it was widely understood that we were the resources.
| tonis2 wrote:
| [flagged]
| zelon88 wrote:
| Anecdotal HR story: I got hurt at work once and required surgery.
| I came into work with this information and told my friendly,
| cheerful HR person the news. They closed the door to their office
| and began visibly stressing out about the workers comp claim. I
| wasn't being berated, but I was being questioned on my motive
| behind going to a hospital instead of the assigned "occupational
| health specialist" that the company employed.
|
| The HR person literally said, verbatim, "Awww why didn't you go
| to OUR doctors? You went to a hospital? This is going to cost us
| a fortune!"
|
| That really put HR into perspective for me.
| that_guy_iain wrote:
| There is the thing most people don't really think of. They all
| know HR represents the company and are to look after it's
| interest. But one major thing, HR needs to keep their job too. I
| had a really good relationship with HR at one company we were
| _really_ close. But when the company wanted to get rid of me, she
| did what anyone else would do that needs their job did the super
| shady stuff they told her to do and got a new job asap. Most
| people need their jobs. They need to feed their family.
| abalashov wrote:
| Prior to going out on my own at a precociously young age, my time
| in corporate America (~3.5 years) was fairly brief, and less than
| half of it spent at companies large enough to have an HR
| apparatus in any meaningful sense.
|
| I always found their seeming double-agent role confusing and
| ambiguous in a slightly sinister way, even as they preached that
| they were there for us workforce people if we needed anything.
| civilized wrote:
| The dehumanizing name "Human Resources" says it all, doesn't
| it?
|
| We're not people. We're not even workers. We're just
| _resources_ that happen to be members of the human species.
| Similar to other resources like staplers.
|
| There's no perfect euphemism for what HR does, but something
| like... I don't know... Workforce Management? Would be a little
| less awful, I think?
| benburleson wrote:
| I've noticed this as well. Especially going through layoffs.
| It's not "people" getting "fired," it's "resources impacted."
| Oh, it's also not a "layoff," it's a "reduction in force."
|
| Maybe I'm old-school, but give it to me straight.
| barbazoo wrote:
| Many companies are moving away from calling it that. Let's
| not pretend it's like that everywhere. I can't recall the
| last place I worked that actually called it "Human
| Resources".
| abalashov wrote:
| It's still common among recruiters and staffing companies.
| Back in the mid-2000s when I was last looking for jobs, it
| was the bane of my existence to be summoned as a "Linux
| resource" or something...
| abeppu wrote:
| I think it's a mistake to put much weight on the name. In
| companies where that department is called "People Ops" or
| "The People Team", the fundamental responsibilities to the
| company are unchanged.
| giraffe_lady wrote:
| people operators
| throwawaysleep wrote:
| Honestly, it is one of the few honestly named things in the
| corporate world. You are a corporate resource. Nothing more.
| civilized wrote:
| There is something to be said for honesty.
| 7952 wrote:
| I guess part of the raison d'etre in larger companies is
| precisely to make humans measurable. And that is necessary to
| make a company manageable by executives. Although I think in
| some businesses that kind of work is largely performative.
| throwaway98797 wrote:
| anything in a large enough company is a cog and should be
| treated as such
|
| legal, accounting, finance, the lower people in those orgs are
| best helpful drones, at worst agents of petty chaos
| toughsuck wrote:
| HR as a function will always represent and serve the company.
| Thinking anything else is foolish.
|
| _But_ building a strong and friendly relationship with your HR
| partners is universally a good thing and something one should
| strive for (be at as as people leader or individual contributor).
| xen2xen1 wrote:
| Keep your friends close?
| jh00ker wrote:
| So, what are some things I should be doing (documenting?) now, as
| a happy and well-performing at-will US-based employee, so that I
| can have legal standing for a better "redundancy package" than
| what is offered, if I'm terminated, later?
|
| This article kind of stops short and seems to just be saying,
| "get a lawyer before you sign anything," which I've heard before.
| How would I know if a lawyer would be able to help improve the
| offer?
| jh00ker wrote:
| Alternatively: What case could I make in the "exit interview"
| or whenever the package is being offered to make a counter-
| offer and have it considered, without necessarily having to
| secure legal representation?
| yodsanklai wrote:
| I read that many times on HN, like a revelation "HR is not your
| side". This sounds pretty obvious to me. My interaction with HR
| has never been more than updating some administrative information
| or sending them documents they need. And the day they'll fire me,
| why should I expect any special favour from them? I don't see
| them more on "my side" than the IRS or my landlord.
| t43562 wrote:
| You Americans brought us the term "Human Resources" which used to
| be "Personnel" after all. :-) OK I'm joking!!! I don't really
| know whose fault it is that we are considered "human things" now
| instead of "people" but it does beautifully demonstrate the
| attitude that we are like the office printer or the factory
| machinery but more finickety.
|
| I think it's being public that screws things up the most - there
| is no loyalty but to the share price and there's nothing legal
| that management wouldn't do to make it go up apart from arranging
| their own golden parachutes. So all your efforts to work extra
| hard or go to the mattresses or whatever are totally pointless
| until they result in a raise or a promotion.
|
| A private company might be able to weather some storms and take a
| longer term view. Loyalty might exist there up to a point.
|
| Anyhow it is just silly to flay yourself, which I did in my
| youth, for some company which can never be grateful or loyal. If
| you're going to burn the candle at both ends you need to do it in
| a place where it's going to count. That might be better to do in
| a startup or smaller company or private company than in some
| corporation with a stock price.
|
| ......in my humble temporary opinion which I will probably change
| in the next 20 minutes....
| marcosdumay wrote:
| > OK I'm joking!!! I don't really know whose fault it is that
| we are considered "human things" now instead of "people"
|
| Just looked at the Wikipedia, and turns out Taylor was born on
| the US. I always assumed he was British. Almost all the fault
| for creating the idea falls between him and Ford. The fault for
| spreading it falls on management schools.
| TurkishPoptart wrote:
| I don't think they're evil either, but the recent pivot to the
| insane pursuit of "diversity" and "inclusion" seems to threaten a
| good working environment.
|
| Required trainings on "pronoun politics" displace what could be
| trainings in communication, customer service, and
| professionalism, or even "email etiquette", all of which our
| mostly foreign engineering team could really benefit from.
| ranting-moth wrote:
| This generally applies to the whole company. You can have friends
| in fellow staff but they're not your friends.
|
| (Terms and conditions apply, your mileage may vary. A friend
| doesn't throw a friend under the bus if times get though).
| seneca wrote:
| I disagree with the "mostly harmless" take in the article.
|
| HR is the group everyone, regardless of where they stand in a
| company, must be the most careful in dealing with. They are
| beurocrats and, in modern western companies, are becoming
| ideological commissars.
|
| One of the strongest suggestions I would make to anyone going
| into white collar work is to avoid HR as much as possible, and be
| extremely careful of everything you say to them when you do
| interact with them. For leaders, be very careful about how you
| let HR grow. Keep it as small as possible and do not let it get
| into the business of controlling your culture.
| elil17 wrote:
| If someone's going to drive company culture, why shouldn't it
| be HR? They seem well qualified to do so. For example, someone
| in HR would be in a good position to do the research to figure
| out if work-from-home improves productivity or employee
| happiness, and they would also understand the tax and legal
| implications of a possible work-from-home policy.
| 7952 wrote:
| Surely the correct qualification for that kind of research
| would be some kind of science background.
| dogman144 wrote:
| What? How are they well qualified to do so.
|
| Culture comes from leadership and leaders. When this doesn't
| happen, you get all sorts of organizational issues. HR are
| not leaders. Culture isn't productive and clicks per hour
| research or something you can suss out from forced company
| fun sessions.
|
| This is a root of an issue in corporate America where
| management (and it's offshoots like HR) is considered the
| mindset, and really it's about leadership.
|
| Leaders set culture, build companies, grow visions. Managers
| execute that. Some managers can actually lead. HR supports
| it. When people hate working at places, it's always back to a
| lack of leadership in some way.
| garmain wrote:
| Exactly
| csa wrote:
| > If someone's going to drive company culture, why shouldn't
| it be HR?
|
| Because HR people are natives of HR culture and only have
| second hand knowledge of what "engineering culture" or
| "finance culture" or $WHATEVER culture is, much less what
| makes a good/healthy/productive engineering or finance or
| $WHATEVER culture.
|
| I will also add that, while there are a few very talented HR
| people (and the good ones are freakishly good), most folks in
| the HR field ended up there rather than sought it out. They
| are not collectively the most talented or ambitious group of
| people, and the field often attracts ideologues who sometimes
| have dysfunctional perceptions of the world we live in.
| CoastalCoder wrote:
| Scariest moment at the growing startup I work for was HR
| approving an engineering requisition.
|
| It may have been just a case of everyone doing whatever tasks
| are needed, but I gave the engineering director an earful
| afterward.
| jacobr1 wrote:
| What made it scary? The recruiting and onboarding teams in HR
| have been some of the most helpful folks I've worked with a
| manager.
| none_to_remain wrote:
| Yep. This article says HR works for the company's interests,
| not yours. I think instead maybe HR works for HR's interests.
| throwaway98797 wrote:
| HR loves hiring more HR
|
| the growth rate from 1 HR to 10 HR is slower than 10 to 50.
| SCLeo wrote:
| > HR aren't evil, they're just doing a job
|
| I am not trying to say HR is evil but this line of reasoning
| makes literally no sense.
|
| Whether someone is just doing the job has absolutely nothing to
| do with if the job they are doing is evil. "They are just doing
| their jobs" should never be used to justify anyone's actions. For
| brevity, I will skip all the war crime analogies that everyone
| can think of.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| _> HR exist to represent the interests of the company_
|
| In the company I worked for, HR was there to _protect the
| C-Suite_. There were two sets of rules: The ones for the
| executives, and the ones for everyone else.
|
| It was pretty routine for us to get training ( _lots_ of
| training), telling us to avoid specific activities (like, say...f
| 'rinstance, dating subordinates), yet we'd see the executives,
| doing _exactly that_ , without a peep from HR.
| aeschinder wrote:
| I was a manager at a well known .com for several years. HR exists
| to protect the company from its own employees. That's why you
| have to sit through mandatory DEI training, sexual harassment
| training and other indignities. Studies have shown that mandatory
| training does very, very little to change anyone's mind. It is
| simply to protect the company in case there is an incident.
|
| As for layoffs, it is always Finance and HR that know about all
| of the plans before anyone else. HR will try its best to perform
| layoffs under the guise of "reorganization" of departments or the
| whole company. This gives them cover to get rid of undesirables,
| older (read "expensive") employees and other people problems.
|
| Firing people is the hardest thing. It is simplicity itself if
| you are an executive VP or higher, but below that it takes a ream
| of paperwork, a performance plan and months-long periods where
| the employee sabotages work, "quiet quits" and makes things
| miserable for everyone around them. HR doesn't want to create a
| scene that might reflect poorly on the company.
|
| I'm super jaded after 30 years in IT so I apologize if this is
| too negative a response.
| [deleted]
| Cupertino95014 wrote:
| Someone once said to me, "HR is there to protect the company from
| the employees." Always keep that in mind. That's what they're
| paid for.
|
| For some reason, I also think of the quote [1] from _Bleak House_
| ,
|
| "Suffer any wrong that can be done you rather than come here!"
|
| In the old days, they were called "Personnel." Now that's too
| old-fashioned, and pretty soon the name "HR" will be, too, so
| they'll call it something else.
|
| [1] https://quotepark.com/quotes/1726203-charles-dickens-this-
| is...
| beckingz wrote:
| "People & Culture" is the new hot term.
| Cupertino95014 wrote:
| Very Orwellian. I like it.
| nullsense wrote:
| Or "people experience"
| stevenkovar wrote:
| In essence, HR is the buffer between humans and systems. They
| create the systems that allow humans to do things like work and
| be compensated for their work, or to work in an environment where
| they can expect not to be harassed--at baseline. They clean up
| everyone's mess when the interface between human and system is
| compromised.
|
| If a system breaks down, it's HR's job to figure out how to
| handle the errors. Every company's HR will encounter unwinnable
| situations where all HR can do is remember the "error code" for
| next time and, if they're lucky, create systems or policies that
| prevent it from happening again.
|
| Some (very few) companies have more thoughtfully designed systems
| that enable the HR team to act proactively on behalf of the
| employees.
|
| And some (most) companies are poorly structured such that the
| system is constantly breaking and it's HR's job to keep the
| company's cadence going as best they can.
|
| I'm guessing most people in this thread have experienced more of
| the latter.
| nullsense wrote:
| >In essence, HR is the buffer between humans and systems
|
| Hmm I very much see the people (including HR) and all the
| dynamics they entail as part of the overall system.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| > They clean up everyone's mess when the interface between
| human and system is compromised.
|
| Yeah, that reminds me of the Pulp Fiction movie.
| msla wrote:
| Companies in general aren't anyone's friend, in that, ideally, a
| company is a machine designed to make money within the
| constraints of law and the ethical rules the leadership decides
| to follow.
|
| Companies, like nations, have no friends, only interests.
| mikojan wrote:
| More precisely: They are totalitarian dictatorships. You
| receive orders from above and maybe hand them down further.
| Simplicitas wrote:
| Some have even compared them to psychopaths ..
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Corporation_(2003_film) ..
| which seems fair.
| [deleted]
| elil17 wrote:
| I'm not sure what you mean by ideally there. Do you mean that
| the platonic company is a money making machine? If so, that's
| certainly the case.
|
| In practice, though, isn't it better if companies have non-
| monetary goals? Think Newman's Own, B-corps, etc.
| msla wrote:
| I mean a company is, inherently, a money-making concern, and
| the ideal company obeys both the law and a code of ethics
| more restrictive than the law. Even a company that devotes
| all profits to charity has to end up in the black or else it
| ceases to exist and can't be a charity anymore.
| monkeydust wrote:
| Yea 20 years of work and this holds very true. Some are
| obviously better than others about how the manage employee
| interests vs theirs, best align both tightly as possible,
| owning equity for me is key to this.
| elzbardico wrote:
| HR is not your union, HR is not a government labor board. It pays
| to keep that in mind.
| garmain wrote:
| It's utterly bizarre how people keep scape goating HR.
|
| It's the typical situation that whenever HR goes out of their way
| to make "everyone" happy, no one says acknowledges it. But
| Management can hide behind "HR" and employees love blaming HR,
| because that is the person they interact with the most.
| nibbleshifter wrote:
| If HR is the person you are interacting with the most,
| something is deeply fucked.
|
| I interact with HR only during the reviews, and periodically to
| ask for clarification about a benefit or to update my address
| or something.
| bawahahaha wrote:
| Bets definition of HR I heard is:
|
| Human Resources: Sure, they are human but really they are
| resources.
| frellus wrote:
| I get the whole "HR can be evil" point, but this article could
| have also been, "Having friends in management is fine, but
| management is not your friend".
|
| Personally, I'm so sick of the cynicism in general. Can we make
| points and articles about protecting yourself, as an employee,
| without resorting to such things?
|
| As a manager in a company, I've both had friends in HR and also
| had HR been my friend. Need to fire that horrible employee who is
| demoralizing the team and not being productive? HR is your
| friend. Need to hire the next best engineer? HR is my friend.
|
| Have I seen horrible, Catbert-like HR managers and people? Of
| course. In all levels of an organization, people can be horrible.
| Why round everything up to the cynical points just to get clicks?
| ravenstine wrote:
| > Why round everything up to the cynical points just to get
| clicks?
|
| Clicks translate to moolah and social capital.
| danwee wrote:
| Because employees are not at the same level as managers/HR. The
| latter have power over the formers. You like it or not, when
| horrible people happens to have power, well that's the worst
| combination possible.
|
| Employees cannot fire managers nor HR (it's in theory possible,
| but in practices it almost never happens). HR and managers can
| fire employees (this happens every week).
|
| Employees do not know how much money managers or HR make.
| Managers and HR know how much money employees make.
|
| Employees have to ask managers and HR for sick leave/vacation.
| Managers and HR do not have to ask employees for sick
| leave/vacation.
|
| And a long etc.
| foobiekr wrote:
| The basic problem with the "you guys are too negative" mindset
| is that abusers are very common. I'm sure { manager, HR }-you-
| can-be-friends-with exists. I've at least got very solid
| friendships with multiple management chains (note the plural,
| as i think it matters), so I know it is _possible_, the problem
| is it is _rare_.
|
| To quote one of the HR people I worked with, when I said I was
| having trouble putting someone just diagnosed with brain cancer
| on a PIP, "What's the big deal? I just fired someone who just
| had a heart attack."
|
| The people attracted to the HR career path are basically not
| good people, either because they aren't particularly bright or
| driven or because the ones that succeed are basically
| machiavellian.
| danielmarkbruce wrote:
| It's not cynicism. It's realism. The post acknowledges HR can
| be helpful.
| fundad wrote:
| If you believe you deserve constant adulation for earning the
| title of manager/POTUS/CEO, the reality seems like a cynical
| attack on your ego.
| duxup wrote:
| The cynicism does seem like a race to the bottom.
|
| It's to the point that discussions are derailed by it with
| folks who feign knowledge about a topic just offer cynicism.
| Anything that's doesn't work right the empty response is a
| conspiracy of "oh that's by design" as if people would
| otherwise always have things working...
|
| It's endless online.
| nullsense wrote:
| >It's to the point that discussions are derailed by it with
| folks who feign knowledge about a topic just offer cynicism.
| Anything that's doesn't work right the empty response is a
| conspiracy of "oh that's by design" as if people would
| otherwise always have things working...
|
| It's a safeguard against trying to fight against things that
| "shouldn't be like this" and burning yourself out. It's
| endless in the real world too. The reason cynicism runs so
| deep is that it's warranted. After a period of time you turn
| around and ask yourself "if everywhere I go and everything I
| take a close enough look at makes me think 'this shouldn't be
| like this!' then what is it that I'm missing???". Eventually
| when the human operating system that underpins it all comes
| into view, the cynicism sets in. Sure, it's a lazy-ish
| answer, but in my experience it's a pretty darn good
| heuristic as far as heuristics go.
| nerdponx wrote:
| It's always been possible to feign knowledge and wisdom with
| cynicism, even before public discourse was carried out
| "online".
|
| It's also always been possible to feign knowledge and wisdom
| with breathless enthusiasm or optimism. Fakery is fakery.
|
| In general, we are not cynical enough. Humans have been out
| to take advantage of each other for as long as we have
| recorded history, and probably for much longer than that.
| Civilization is maintained in equilibrium between forces that
| seek to destroy each other, so you can and should assume that
| those forces exist and are currently and actively attempting
| to pursue their own gain at your expense. The heart of
| propaganda is convincing people to act against their own best
| interests. This is built into the essence of humanity.
| duxup wrote:
| > we are not cynical enough
|
| What supports that conclusion?
|
| Fear of being deceived?
| ravenstine wrote:
| > Need to hire the next best engineer? HR is my friend.
|
| So long as HR is actually equipped to do that. Such does not
| seem to be the case the vast majority of the time.
| starlust2 wrote:
| > As a manager in a company, I've both had friends in HR and
| also had HR been my friend. Need to fire that horrible employee
| who is demoralizing the team and not being productive? HR is
| your friend. Need to hire the next best engineer? HR is my
| friend.
|
| That's not a friend, that's a co-worker doing their job.
| There's a big difference between a friend and someone you get a
| long with well in a professional setting.
| andrewmutz wrote:
| > Personally, I'm so sick of the cynicism in general. Can we
| make points and articles about protecting yourself, as an
| employee, without resorting to such things?
|
| I don't think this will happen anytime soon for two reasons.
|
| The first is that cynicism always _sounds_ smart. "Don't take
| the vaccine, big pharma doesn't care at all about your health
| and just wants to make money." If you assume bad intentions,
| regardless of if you have any evidence of bad intentions, you
| sound smart and people will listen to you.
|
| The second is that cynicism is generally negative in tone, and
| as a result is much more likely to go viral on the internet. No
| one clicks on or shares articles that say "HR people are paid
| to protect the company, but they are good people like the rest
| of us".
| dogleash wrote:
| > I'm so sick of the cynicism in general.
|
| Cynicism is just self preservation on topics like this. Most
| people can't afford the risk of behaving otherwise.
| crmd wrote:
| I get what you're saying but don't think the Catbert analogy is
| apropos here.
|
| What I have seen as a senior tech executive and old person is
| that young people entering the workforce after around 2015-6
| often rely on HR to be a neutral arbiter in workplace
| conflicts, analogous to parental chaperones or university
| administrators.
|
| What I believe the author is trying to convey is that this
| misunderstanding can have disastrous consequences on a young
| person's career. HR is not a neutral arbiter between you and
| the business. They are the business.
| ejb999 wrote:
| >>What I have seen as a senior tech executive and old person
| is that young people entering the workforce after around
| 2015-6 often rely on HR to be a neutral arbiter in workplace
| conflicts, analogous to parental chaperones or university
| administrators.
|
| Yep - seen it many times when employees (usually younger) say
| things like "I'm telling HR" or "I'm reporting you to HR", as
| if it's the same as "I'm telling Mom", and expecting HR to
| swoop in and rule in their favor on some workplace dispute -
| thats not there job, never was, never will be.
|
| While you (the complaining employee) are doing that, the
| back-channel communication to the manager is telling them how
| they should probably document 'whatever' in writing so that
| when you eventually get terminated they have a
| contemporaneous record of all your bad behavior to use
| against you.
|
| HR is not your friend, they are not supposed to be.
| dotgov wrote:
| This hit the nail on the head for me.
|
| I entered the workforce a bit earlier than 2015 and I would
| have expected HR to be a neutral arbiter as well. My
| experience at different employers has proven my expectations
| to be wrong or at least naive. On every occasion I needed to
| interact with HR, information (eg. applicable laws) was
| selectively filtered to make it look like my only option was
| the one that was beneficial to the business.
|
| YMMV, but for me this is good advice and a welcome reminder.
| sumtechguy wrote:
| I think every gen gets to learn this lesson. Not just
| 2015-16. I have seen it many times in my 30yrs. Newbie gets
| in a twist over something (usually very justified). HR is
| then a role of the dice if they will help or just come down
| on everyone or just the two involved, etc... They usually are
| the arbiters of policy, that they made, rightly or wrongly.
| teawrecks wrote:
| > HR aren't evil, they're just doing a job
|
| Managers on the other hand may or may not work in your best
| interests, just like any friend. Meanwhile, HR is literally
| tasked with protecting the company from me. So I would not lump
| the two into the same basket.
|
| I've been lucky enough to have experienced managers who see my
| current position as inherently temporary, and would consider it
| a personal failure to not help me develop my overall career as
| best I can. I know not all managers think like this, probably
| not even most managers, but the point is they are allowed to.
| HR is not.
| ravenstine wrote:
| Not only is HR incentivized to defend the company over its
| employees whenever possible, but I think it's a position that
| attracts psychopaths. Being in HR takes no extraordinary
| talent whatsoever, yet HR has massive power over the destiny
| of individuals. They get to decide whether you have a
| _chance_ at landing a job you want, make your rent next
| month, whether a coworker who bullies you gets to keep their
| job, and so forth. There 's good HR people out there, but
| I've seen a substantial number of dumb, ego-tripping,
| completely unhelpful HR people as well. If you've got nothing
| going for you and you have an inferiority complex then HR is
| for you because you can take out your frustration by deleting
| resumes that use present participle instead of past
| participle.
| teawrecks wrote:
| Actually, in all those ways, middle management and HR are
| actually very similar lol.
| fundad wrote:
| I wouldn't go around admitting that some horrible people are
| allowed to maintain power as HR managers and then ask where the
| cynicism is coming from.
| SkipperCat wrote:
| You can sum it up by saying "work is not your family".
| dogman144 wrote:
| I have work friends, colleagues, but usually I only ever make
| 1x friend who I actually trust to speak plainly with and will
| stay in touch with after work.
|
| For sure, these actual friends at work are great. A mental
| health buffer, a comrade in arms, a network of two
| professionals working through companies and careers together.
|
| However, the plainspeak never occurs on company comms
| platforms. I don't make that friend until I'm 9 months in and
| can suss out who's worth trusting. I always keep some things to
| myself if that friend is a current coworker vs an ex coworker.
| That friend is never someone up or down the org chart from me.
|
| It's not cynical, it's 10 years of experience surviving and
| seeing other people blow themselves up because they mistake a
| workplace for anything but. The more of this you do, the more
| openings you make to be on the receiving end of workplace
| politics, and that's incredibly hard to (a) win at and (b) get
| out of when it turns south, and it frequently will. And either
| way, if workplace politics is a concern, you don't get through
| it by making friends-friends, you do it by making work friends,
| building leverage, and aggressively staying out of the way of
| people who want to pull the social element into work.
| droopyEyelids wrote:
| I think the concept you're missing is called "structural
| incentives"
| throwawaysleep wrote:
| HR and management are effectively the same from an employee
| perspective (with slightly different motives), so the cynicism
| is equally applicable to you.
|
| Managers aren't your friend either.
| dghughes wrote:
| Well then HR should stop pretending to be everyone's friend.
| mythhouse wrote:
| > Need to fire that horrible employee who is demoralizing the
| team and not being productive? HR is your friend.
|
| Maybe if you are ending up with so many of these 'horrible
| employees' that you need to make friends with HR then maybe
| problem is somewhere else.
| watwut wrote:
| One is enough to make it sux for everybody. And fairly often,
| the team is assigned people without leader having the say in
| advance - especially when it comes to people from other
| teams.
| OnlineGladiator wrote:
| > Personally, I'm so sick of the cynicism in general.
|
| Personally, I'm so sick of there not being nearly enough
| cynicism in general.
|
| I've met cops that aren't total pieces of shit (who all ended
| up quitting in less than 5 years), but that doesn't mean cops
| aren't total pieces of shit. If the nature of the job is
| unethical, you should rightly call it out as such. HR's job is
| to pretend to be your friend while doing whatever the CEO and
| the lawyers tell them to do. They're the kind of people who are
| your friends until suddenly they aren't, and then you realize
| it was all bullshit to begin with.
|
| You're welcome to disagree. But from my perspective you're
| naive, and from your perspective I'm cynical.
| mikrl wrote:
| >They're the kind of people who are your friends until
| suddenly they aren't
|
| Happened to me once, I got on the wrong side of some politics
| and had the awkward termination meeting.
|
| I was civil and cheerful throughout except where I had to be
| firm and fight my corner: "Pleasure to meet you! Sorry it was
| under these circumstances, I wish you the best time here!"
| and I could feel the barely concealed rage emanating from
| them.
|
| Being in a single party recording jurisdiction was the card
| up my sleeve, and when I let that slip (after the
| termination) they looked ready to blow a gasket.
|
| I learned valuable lessons that day about HR, mental health,
| and how webs can get spun that tangle up idealistic
| engineers... needless to say, I keep my head down and try to
| stay out of / avoid starting fights that I don't stand a
| chance of winning.
| acover wrote:
| Why is the nature of being a cop unethical? I agree there are
| abuses of the power but from what I've seen in real life it's
| important work.
| OnlineGladiator wrote:
| I should mention I am referring specifically to police in
| the United States. The short answer is because cops defend
| cops, including bad cops. People like to say it's just a
| few bad apples, but it's far more prevalent than that. And
| even if it were just 1 in 100, the fact that the cops band
| together to protect a rapist/murderer/whatever shows that
| they care more about unity than morals.
|
| I realize this answer is lacking, but I've had this
| argument so many times and it drains hours out of my day to
| pursue it - because the supporting data is complicated and
| people are correct to provide counter arguments (and then I
| have to respond and it goes back and forth for a while). I
| encourage you to do your own research on statistics
| regarding police officers in the US. The one everybody
| likes to cite is how many police officer's beat their wives
| - 40%. And even this data point is very complicated and
| requires a lot of nuance and so on.
|
| But since people enjoy stories, here's one egregious
| example of a sheriff's department abusing their power. Even
| I think this is exceptionally awful and most police
| departments aren't this bad, but it's well researched and
| makes for a good read.
|
| https://knock-la.com/tradition-of-violence-lasd-gang-
| history...
| mhink wrote:
| > People like to say it's just a few bad apples, but it's
| far more prevalent than that.
|
| Not discounting your point at all, but the best response
| when someone says this is to point out that the saying is
| "a few bad apples _spoil the bunch_ ". It's very literal-
| an apple that's going bad releases fumes that cause other
| apples nearby to spoil. So it's very important to find
| them and get rid of them before that happens.
|
| Completing the analogy is an exercise left to the reader.
| acover wrote:
| Thanks for explaining. My experience is mostly with
| Canadian cops, which have some significant differences
| from American cops[0]. Though, consequences for cops are
| still rare[1]. However poorly executed, to me the service
| they provide is valuable and the cops I've seen at
| homeless shelters displayed patience.
|
| [0] -
| https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/douglas-todd-
| can...
|
| [1] - https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/deadly-
| force-police-...
| horns4lyfe wrote:
| None of that means the nature of the work is unethical,
| it just means it's done poorly. I think the majority of
| hacker news users world do very poorly in an unpoliced
| country, even without the police we have now.
| kenjackson wrote:
| I tend to think there is a huge selection bias problem.
| The people that I knew in HS who wanted to be cops (and
| two did), were exactly the people you did NOT want to
| meet in a dark alleyway. They abused the power their
| physical strength gave them in HS... what makes you think
| they'd act differently with legal strength?
|
| And the people that I think are those who most want to
| help those in need and are compassionate, careful, and
| would take accountability seriously are those who don't
| want to do the job.
|
| There is also a kinship/bond that grows, which is hard to
| break. It's natural. You see it among sports fans, school
| alumni, console fan boys, company workers, etc... You see
| things through exceptionally biased glasses. Try to find
| a sports fan who feels like their team tends to be
| FAVORED by refs? You won't find them -- they all seem to
| think the refs are against their team -- every team's
| fans feel this way. Every team's fans feel like the fight
| on the field was instigated by the other team.
|
| Given these things, how do you mitigate against them, and
| construct a police force that is reasonable? I personally
| think it has to be external oversight, but this hasn't
| been easy to implement historically.
| [deleted]
| haberman wrote:
| > The short answer is because cops defend cops, including
| bad cops.
|
| Show me a group that doesn't do this.
|
| In Seattle's 2020 cop-free zone CHOP/CHAZ, the self-
| appointed "security forces" killed an unarmed 16-year-
| old. It's all on video, and the statements made by the
| assailants in the aftermath are heinous. Plenty of people
| were there to see it, but nobody's talking, and at this
| point it looks like they'll probably never catch the
| killers.
|
| I don't excuse or accept bad behavior by cops. But I
| can't call policing unethical by nature unless you can
| show me an alternative that is more ethical. Seattle got
| an experiment in the alternative, and it was not good.
| javajosh wrote:
| Power is corrupting, and police have a _de facto_ shit-ton
| of real, immediate power over everyone in their vicinity.
| They have a "martial law bubble" around them that allows
| them to physically assault you, put you in jail, and upend
| your whole life with very little effort. You will have no
| recourse, and they will suffer no consequences. You may
| file a complaint with the department, and it will be
| followed up on, poorly, by a fellow officer who is highly
| motivated to see nothing but another disgruntled loser
| trying to get petty revenge. The judges don't care and work
| with the DA and the same officers all the time, and
| maintain cordial, cooperative relationships with them, all
| of which is damaged if there is any adversarial action.
|
| It is within this context an average intelligence, perhaps
| even above-average moral person enters after 6-weeks of
| training. This person likes watching football and drinking
| beer. They help their elderly neighbors with the trash.
| They are a "normal" man who will stand up for himself,
| physically, in extreme cases. Now give him a gun and a
| badge and a martial law bubble. How do you think this
| normal, average man will evolve when he realizes his power?
| When he sees his friends on the force us it, daily, to get
| what they want, to make their jobs a little easier? When
| does he learn to enjoy that feeling of power, for itself,
| the way it feels to beat someone and put his knee on
| someone's neck because they talked back to you, and know
| that no-one can do shit about it? And you can even
| rationalize it - they shouldn't have been rude, they should
| know how much power I have and that I'm only human, its
| really just punishment for being stupid. Plus, the public
| still loves me and is grateful to me, considering me in
| high esteem as a moral upstanding citizen - so we must be
| doing something right!
| d0gsg0w00f wrote:
| In my life experience an unsavory character turned law
| abiding citizen I found that I used to think ill of cops
| but after I changed, miraculously cops seemed to turn
| into amazing fantastic people.
|
| So I take all of these "cops are evil" claims with a
| grain of salt and seek out more context clues to what
| would initiate an interaction with LEO in the first
| place.
| velp wrote:
| This reads like "the problem disappears as soon as I'm no
| longer impacted". Just because cops see/treat you
| differently now doesn't mean they aren't still treating
| others poorly.
| pyth0 wrote:
| I have never had a bad encounter with a cop. Yet I still
| see countless examples of abuse and criminal behavior
| from police and the lengths that the police forces will
| go to shield their own.
|
| > So I take all of these "cops are evil" claims with a
| grain of salt
|
| No need to take any "claim" as fact when there is tons of
| actual evidence in the form of recordings, law suits and
| more. I simply do not understand how someone is able to
| have a positive view of police with the access we have to
| information. Police are not your friend, they do not
| serve you and they should not be trusted.
| javajosh wrote:
| Oh, I don't blame you. If I thought well of cops I'd feel
| the same way. That positive feeling is to be cherished
| and protected, because one day it may protect you. Or,
| you know, you might get unlucky and get swatted by
| accident, or an ex-wife claims you hit her, or you meet a
| cop just having a bad day, and you'll have a different
| experience. That you haven't won the shit lottery doesn't
| mean it doesn't exist, it just means you're lucky.
|
| And also, consider the impact of being wrong here. Like,
| if your opinion is taken seriously, then there's nothing
| wrong, then why? Is it that my basic assumption that
| power corrupts is wrong? Or do you disagree with the
| premise that cops aren't held accountable when they abuse
| their power? In either case, surely you see enough
| evidence that police, both here and abroad, are
| constantly struggling with issues of corruption and
| abuse, sometimes directed at one ethnicity, but always at
| non-officers.
| Parcle wrote:
| Consider all the people harassed and locked up for decades
| over posession of marijuana. Sure laws have change but
| ethics never did.
|
| The obvious problem I see seems to be that cops exist to
| lock people up. When locking people up is often an inhumane
| and ineffective solution to the problem at hand.
| warcher wrote:
| Police are tasked with maintaining law and _order_.
|
| Laws are equal for all people.
|
| Order is a set of subjective social rules that keeps
| everything in its "correct" place.
|
| Maintaining order often requires not enforcing the law
| equally. This is the essential moral difficulty of the
| police. If you have people who appear poor in a rich
| neighborhood, they are highly likely to attract law
| enforcement attention at a minimum. Not because they've
| broken the law, but because they are out of place and
| "disorderly".
|
| We really really like order, by the way. You can't just do
| away with the maintenance of order, although a strong
| argument could be made that we should not enforce it via
| state-licensed violence.
| fundad wrote:
| Because policing covers up violence and murder committed by
| their own.
| frellus wrote:
| Again, I understand why most people think this way, and I'm
| not going to call you naive - just cynical.
|
| From my experience (not all of it, but a bunch of it) -- HR
| has been the balancing force against bad management and even
| CEOs because, like the lawyers, there're there to protect the
| company. I've not been in a room where the CEO is sitting
| there telling the lawyers and HR how to abuse employees --
| sorry.
|
| Likewise, I agree there are plenty of cops who are POS, and
| there are plenty who are not. You're missing the part of the
| equation where people treat all cops like POS, and frankly --
| if you've watched shows like COPS and seen what some of them
| deal with -- it's not hard to see why some of them probably
| become worse over time.
|
| Both sides of the equation needs to change if you want a
| better world.
| OnlineGladiator wrote:
| > I've not been in a room where the CEO is sitting there
| telling the lawyers and HR how to abuse employees -- sorry.
|
| I have. Likewise, your view on policing is equally
| ignorant.
|
| Like I said, I think you're naive. We're not going to agree
| and that's fine.
| [deleted]
| serverholic wrote:
| The equation is far from balanced. What we need is far more
| cynicism in order to cause change. We've tried less
| cynicism and it hasn't worked. It just leads to maintaining
| the status quo.
| drewcoo wrote:
| > I'm not going to call you naive - just cynical
|
| OnlineGladiator said that you would call them cynical and
| they would call you naive, not the other way around.
| amalcon wrote:
| Cynicism tends to go hand in hand with defeatism. I have no
| problem with cynicism, _if_ you 're the rare person willing
| to take steps to fix or mitigate the problems you are cynical
| about.
|
| In the more common case, it just leads to giving up. Cynicism
| is a mistake when it leads to inaction, and inaction is
| responsible for a lot (arguably most) of the world's
| problems. I've known people who didn't recycle because they
| were (maybe still are, we've lost touch) cynical about
| whether enough other people would do it to matter. The
| cynicism is getting in the way of action.
|
| No, I don't have a suggestion for what to do about abuse of
| employees! I know this is not the most helpful, but I'm not
| the cynic about this. I'm a cynic about other things, but
| only when I _do_ have a course of action.
| drstewart wrote:
| From my perspective, it's very clear from your tone why you
| and HR don't get along. Professionalism is probably not your
| strong suit.
| maxbond wrote:
| There's no reason to believe they speak to their coworkers
| in this way. This is a different context.
|
| Edit out swipes please.
| kabdib wrote:
| HR is not there for you.
|
| HR is not there for you.
|
| HR is not there for you.
|
| Do not forget this. The nicest, most approachable and apparently
| friendly HR staffer will happily stuff you down the chute if they
| are so directed.
|
| Through bitter experience, I treat HR the way I treat the police;
| they can do good things and they can do bad things, but mostly
| it's best to avoid their attention altogether and assume that
| their actions will be for the authorities, always.
| knorker wrote:
| At an all hands I once saw an employee ask a question to
| leadership for legal advice in a class action against the company
| itself.
|
| :-)
| nullsense wrote:
| Nice. How'd that go down?
| knorker wrote:
| A slow and clear "I am the company lawyer. I am not your
| lawyer".
| KingOfCoders wrote:
| As CTO it always was mine and I invested lots of time for good
| relationships - E.g. visited them everyday for some minutes. But
| I might have experienced only good and helpful HR departments
| which were highly interested in people development. The only time
| I got real trouble was when the head of HR suggested I lay off
| half of the department (but even then I could change the number
| way down with cancelling all freelancer contracts and some
| investments).
| timr wrote:
| As a C-level executive, HR _does_ represent you. You are the
| company (in part). If you are on the board, even more so.
|
| For a rank-and-file employee, the interests are divergent. HR
| represents the company. Even for those who have the ability to
| hire and fire, HR is only aligned with your interests to the
| extent that your interests _are_ the interests of the company.
|
| (However, fun fact: at many companies, only the CEO has
| authority to hire and fire. All such personnel decisions go
| through an HR-mediated process, and the CEO makes the final
| call.)
| draw_down wrote:
| [dead]
| phantom784 wrote:
| This gets even trickier for HR employees themselves - their job
| is to look out for the company, while at the same time they're an
| employee of the company who needs to look out for their own
| personal interests.
| DwnVoteHoneyPot wrote:
| Reminds me of the scene in Social Network movie where Eduardo
| Saverin says "I thought you were my lawyers".
|
| HR is not on the employee's side and not even on the employer's
| side. They are on HR's side.
| commandlinefan wrote:
| > They are on HR's side
|
| Yeah... if they were always "representing the best interests of
| the company", at least they'd be predictable and for the most
| part I can deal with predictable. What they're usually
| representing is something else entirely.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| This comment always stuck with me - does anyone know more of the
| history ombudsmen, who must've existed prior to the rise of
| modern HR departments?
|
| > octokatt on Feb 19, 2020 | parent | context | un-favorite | on:
| Why Susan Fowler blew the whistle on sexism at Ube...
|
| > why must it be this way Companies used to have Ombudsman;
| literally a board member who did nothing but listen to employee
| complaints and help them e heard. This tended to lead to unions,
| which reduced company profitability, and was replaced with the
| current HR model, which is now giving way to out-sourced HR
| models.
| asdff wrote:
| Universities still have them at least.
| Spoom wrote:
| HR represents the company. Where your goals and the company's
| aligns, they can be helpful. Where they diverge, perhaps less so.
|
| I think a lot of these sorts of articles discount the idea that
| your goals and the company's will frequently align. For example,
| if you're being harassed, it's very often in the company's
| interest to stop that happening. It will cause you and perhaps
| more people to quit if they don't, and there might be legal risk.
| If you're productive and impactful, it's often in their interest
| to help you with career goals.
|
| Things get muddy when you e.g. have a problem with your manager,
| or folks above you. Then HR has to determine which side to back
| based on what they feel is most helpful to the company's goals,
| or what is less risky. But even then, consider that they might
| want to avoid bad press, lawsuits, etc. If the situation is bad
| for you, it could be bad for the company too, but it's worth
| thinking about deeply before going to HR.
| mc32 wrote:
| I don't disagree with anything here.
|
| Some people look at them as 'impartial judges'. They are not.
| They have to take the side of the company which will result in
| more success for the company (not necessarily the manager, or
| upper manager, but rather the company itself).
| tootie wrote:
| HR is human beings like everyone else in the company. Having
| friends in HR is definitely a benefit. Same as having friends
| anywhere else in the org. Ultimately they will tend to protect
| themselves as will everyone else. When the bottom line dictates
| something bad has to happen, they likely don't have the juice
| to stop it. Same goes for everyone outside HR.
| briffle wrote:
| > For example, if you're being harassed, it's very often in the
| company's interest to stop that happening.
|
| Unless of course, the harraser is a top performer, or VIP in
| their market. Remeber all that fun with Susan Fowler, an
| engineer at Uber that went public with her harrasment?
|
| Or the ever infamous https://archive.ph/dUJNs
|
| In those cases, like you said, HR protected the interests of
| the Company, which was in preserving these high performers. And
| the people who should have been protected, were screwed over.
| mpweiher wrote:
| > Susan Fowler, an engineer at Uber
|
| I always had a problem with that case: so you start to work
| for one of the most unethical companies out there, a company
| whose business model is to circumvent regulations, a company
| that built software whose sole purpose was to deceive
| auditors.
|
| And then you are _shocked_ , _shocked_ , that there is
| gambling^W unethical behavior going on?
| philwelch wrote:
| Circumventing corrupt and anti-competitive regulations is
| not in any way morally equivalent to sexual harassment.
| tanseydavid wrote:
| It is if the perpetrator can "circumvent" the
| consequences.
| endisneigh wrote:
| Though in retrospect given this conversation HR didn't
| realize it was more in their interest to help Susan than the
| top performer
| clownshoez wrote:
| You're making the assumption that although you're being
| harassed the best outcome for you and the company are aligned.
| This is definitely not always the case, if you are being
| harassed and it happens to be in the best interest for the
| company to get rid of you, for whatever reason, guess what
| happens next?
| BeetleB wrote:
| > guess what happens next?
|
| Lawsuits and bad press.
| clownshoez wrote:
| Are you making the claim that every wrongful termination
| ends in lawsuits and bad press?
|
| Dubious.
| Spoom wrote:
| HR will consider downside risk too. It's usually not the
| whole story to say that getting rid of you will be simple and
| easy. You might file a lawsuit. Your colleagues might be
| demoralized. Other teams might start hearing about the
| situation and protesting in various ways. The government
| might get involved. It might lead to bad PR.
| daniel-cussen wrote:
| [dead]
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| > I think a lot of these sorts of articles discount the idea
| that your goals and the company's will frequently align.
|
| I have to remind a lot of people that HR is not your friend,
| but that doesn't mean HR is your enemy.
|
| A lot of young people are reading "HR is not your friend"
| articles and assume that they need to go to war with HR. I've
| had to mentor some people out of weird situations where HR was
| trying to genuinely help them, but they refused to engage with
| HR at all due to some anecdote or article they read online.
|
| The common examples is being PIPed. A lot of people panic as
| soon as they see anything resembling a PIP because the internet
| tells them it's a formality before they're fired. In contrast,
| many HR departments have metrics and incentives that make them
| want to retain employees at any cost, because it looks bad on
| them if they can't retain people or they're hiring people who
| underperform and can't be brought up to expected levels of
| performance. Contrary to what the internet says, a lot of PIP
| programs can actually result in positive improvements and good
| long term outcomes, but a lot of people just shut down and
| resent the company too much to even engage once it happens.
| choppaface wrote:
| 'When HR thinks it's their job to administrate, you've already
| lost.'
|
| One way to more closely align HR with employees is to focus
| them on championing a certain set of empowerment values.
| C-Levels should thus use HR to listen and aggregate employee
| info, and (importantly) use complimentary soft skills in HR to
| provide coaching to both high and low performers. This is rare
| but a feasible vision for a nascent HR org.
|
| The same coaching and development goes for those _within_ HR.
| Being a BP is really not a long-term career for most. I've seen
| a lot of HR peeps do a rotation for a year or two and then go
| off to be a founder or transition into very different career
| tracks. If you treat the HR lower ranks well, that energy can
| help spread to the rest of the team.
|
| It's really easy to get this wrong, especially in tech where
| Founders are poor at soft skills and/or hyper product focused.
| The OP I feel is a very generous view of the norm. But if you
| want to form a world-class HR team, there are much higher marks
| to chase.
| mananaysiempre wrote:
| > [If] you're being harassed, it's very often in the company's
| interest to stop that happening.
|
| You'd think so, but (as you go on to mention) all too often
| that interest is mediated through some proxy metric such as
| legal or publicity risk, which can entail a reaction contrary
| to your interest: e.g. legal risk might reasonably be thought
| proportional to your legal budget, which is related to your
| position in the company, so low-level employees get ignored; or
| if it's easy for everybody to get publicity, maybe suspects get
| fired no matter how slim the evidence (the company is free not
| to do business, including employment, with whomever they
| want!), making real claims look less legitimate because a few
| fake ones are widely known; or legal and publicity risks get
| mitigated by paying everyone involved to shut up rather than
| solving the problem; etc.
|
| So far it doesn't look like proxy metrics imposed by government
| or popular opinion work all that well.
| eschneider wrote:
| Sometimes the easiest way to make that 'stop happening' is to
| force out the person reporting the problem. :/
| epicureanideal wrote:
| > HR represents the company. Where your goals and the company's
| aligns
|
| HR very often does not even work in the interests of the
| company. Instead, it works in the interest of the HR employees'
| own political beliefs, which they then cloak in the language of
| doing what's right for the company, and connect no matter how
| loosely to any laws, regulations, etc. that they can use to
| justify imposing the beliefs they wanted to impose anyway.
| criley2 wrote:
| HR going rogue with political nonsense (I can only imagine
| some libertarian HR telling everyone 'deal with it
| yourselves!' lol) is not the fault of that HR, it's the fault
| of incompetent executives. The issue is never one individual,
| it's a broken system letting a single individual negatively
| influence it.
| bushbaba wrote:
| How do you fire the HR exec when HR itself handles the
| firings.
| jon-wood wrote:
| The CEO does it. Or the board if they won't. There's also
| someone higher up the tree.
| lliamander wrote:
| It's not entirely the executives' fault. The ambiguities in
| civil rights law mean that often one has to employ a more
| politically radical HR department to shield against
| lawsuits.
| epicureanideal wrote:
| I was looking for a link I know exists about this. Do you
| happen to know the very long article, or maybe book that
| was written about this topic?
| lliamander wrote:
| https://richardhanania.substack.com/p/woke-institutions-
| is-j...
| epicureanideal wrote:
| That's the one! Thank you!
|
| And that article mentions this book:
|
| https://www.amazon.com/Inventing-Equal-Opportunity-Frank-
| Dob...
| Mountain_Skies wrote:
| A few years ago I read an article in a business magazine,
| Forbes or Inc., that surveyed CEOs and found over half of
| them fear their company's HR department. It seems HR has
| evolved to be independent of many company's management
| structure and answerable only to itself.
| epicureanideal wrote:
| HR has evolved into political commissars, of the 1918-1924,
| 1937-1942 variety:
|
| > The political commissar held military rank equaling the
| unit commander to whom he was attached; moreover, the
| commissar also had the military authority to countermand
| the unit-commander's orders at any time.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_commissar
| protastus wrote:
| Depends on the company. In large companies it's very
| common for the vast majority of HR matters to be
| delegated to contractors or fresh out of college hires,
| with no experience managing people, and little authority.
| renlo wrote:
| Anecdotally, it seems to me HR employees are akin to "Party
| Members" / "Card Carrying Members" of a communist country
| (forgive the analogy). Usually very zealous about the
| company, usually have drunk the kool-aid, usually believe
| all of the lore and the promulgated principles / company
| guidelines. I'd think the head of state for a communist
| country would fear most the zealous card-carrying member,
| vs the apathetic proletariat. The zealous card-carrying
| member is the most likely to become disaffected once the
| illusion fades.
|
| edit: seems I wasn't the first to make this connection
| (beaten by 4 minutes)
| robofanatic wrote:
| HR also plays little tricks during hiring to see if candidate
| accepts lowball offers. They put pressure for signing offer
| saying that there are couple other equally good candidates
| for the same position. PS - I had first hand experience.
| found out too late that there were no other candidates
| waiting for offer :|
| afarrell wrote:
| Yep. And Engineers often have pet projects. Marketing often
| has a slightly odd artistic vision for something.
|
| People are gonna be people.
| epicureanideal wrote:
| Pet projects by any department that aren't in the interests
| of the company should be discouraged.
|
| Especially by HR, because unlike an engineering pet project
| that may waste some time, pet projects by HR can
| significantly impact the quality of life of every employee
| at the company, cause people not to join the company or
| quit the company, and so on.
|
| Dysfunctional HR (which is almost all HR) is just about as
| bad as having a thieving dishonest CFO or a clueless
| visionless CEO, in terms of its impact on company
| prospects.
|
| In comparison, a designer who does their work ever so
| slightly better than is actually going to have business
| value, or an engineer who puts 10% of their time into some
| project that they incorrectly think will help the company,
| or who chooses the 2nd best tool instead of the 1st best
| tool because the 2nd best one will look better on their
| resume, these are all much less significant to the company
| or to their coworkers.
| nullsense wrote:
| >pet projects by HR can significantly impact the quality
| of life of every employee at the company, cause people
| not to join the company or quit the company, and so on
|
| Reminds me of the time I almost rage quit when HR's pet
| project was to implement a "baking roster" for the
| purposes of "team building".
|
| Like... No effing way am I spending time baking shit just
| because you want a supply of freshly baked goods to eat?
| I'm a software engineer damnit.
|
| Made my blood boil for sure.
| Macha wrote:
| Developer pet projects in the wrong places at tech
| companies can often negatively impact a very wide portion
| of the company too. See e.g. companies with internal
| tooling or security teams can very often force their
| projects onto others in the company. Needing executive
| support of course, but so too your your HR newspeak
| manual if it's actually going to have that kind of
| impact.
| poszlem wrote:
| Pretty true. But that kind of like saying "politicians are
| going to take bribes, they are just people".
|
| There is the reason why some jobs are treated uniquely, and
| HR should be one of those jobs, as they have a
| disproportional amount of power and influence over other
| people's ability to find employment.
|
| In some countries those special professions are even marked
| as such in law, for example in Poland there exist a notion
| of a "public trust profession": "a profession that is a
| profession of high social importance, requiring appropriate
| qualifications not only professional and health, but also
| characterological, i.e. moral and ethical"
|
| I am not particularly keen to enshrine that notion in law,
| but we should not treat HR so flippantly.
| incongruity wrote:
| A very astute and true point -- however, their unique
| position and role make HR employees fall into a category
| I'd argue should be held to a higher standard, precisely
| because of their outsized potential for impact on the
| organization.
| Existenceblinks wrote:
| Exactly my thought, if a company has lawyers legal-wise, they
| also has HR social-wise. Same kind of _justice_
| maximinus_thrax wrote:
| > For example, if you're being harassed, it's very often in the
| company's interest to stop that happening.
|
| I agree with this. However, the implementation might not be
| what the employee would expect. If the victim is moved to
| another team or fired and the aggressor doesn't face any
| consequences, the harassment was still stopped, so I guess
| mission accomplished?
|
| I guess the point I'm trying to make here is that if you're in
| such a position, reach out to HR only after you have secured
| your own legal protection and never expect nor trust the
| company to be on your side.
| rjtavares wrote:
| As someone working in HR for the last few years, this is the
| most correct take. I would add that people working in HR - like
| any other area - have their own goals, and you should also take
| that in consideration. Sometimes they don't align at all with
| the organization.
|
| BTW, it's really funny reading all these takes thinking HR
| people are evil. Almost as funny as talking to HR that are
| completely oblivious to the idea that people have about them.
| xcambar wrote:
| > HR that are completely oblivious to the idea that people
| have about them.
|
| I can't imagine that's the typical HR pattern. That's
| certainly not better but I tend to think that they appear
| oblivious by design, or rather, by education.
|
| Since HR must keep their smiling poker face and their never-
| promising aleays-optimistic discourse no matter what, they
| fake this seemingly oblivious character. I guess.
| rjtavares wrote:
| It's not the typical HR pattern, but there are some genuine
| oblivious people that amuse me greatly.
|
| Like you said, the best ones are masters of poker face:
| polite and toned-down.
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| HR mainly does admin (pay, leaves, etc) and advises management
| on how to avoid employment-related lawsuits, they also advise
| on employment market trends (e.g. 'this is what the industry
| pays for this sort of job so if we want to attract people we
| need to adjust accordingly').
| gitfan86 wrote:
| Also don't forget to take into account short term vs long term
| goals. Yes a sexual harassment lawsuit is very bad, but that
| isn't going to happen immediately. So they may chose the short
| term solution and try to sweep it under the rug.
| throwawaysleep wrote:
| > For example, if you're being harassed, it's very often in the
| company's interest to stop that happening. It will cause you
| and perhaps more people to quit if they don't, and there might
| be legal risk.
|
| Depends. You going to sacrifice a secretary or a engineering
| manager?
|
| You basically need to try and determine what your value is to
| the org before going to HR.
| epicureanideal wrote:
| Related to the other comment about HR having their own
| goals...
|
| HR may want to get rid of that engineering manager anyway, so
| they can be replaced with someone that improves their
| demographics quotas, I mean targets.
|
| I have actually seen such targets in some OKRs for one or
| more HR teams, somewhere.
| kenjackson wrote:
| I've never heard of a highly effective engineering manager
| being replaced to meet a demographic target. I'd be
| surprised if this has ever happened, much less being an
| actual industry problem. I could see them replacing an
| engineering manager, for reasons unrelated to the target,
| and replacing them with someone that helps move them toward
| their target -- but those are drastically different things.
| biztos wrote:
| That's been my experience too -- after all, HR people are also
| just trying to do their jobs as well as they can, and if you
| need something they perceive as their job to provide, they're
| usually helpful.
|
| But it's important to remember that "representing the company"
| absolutely can include unethical behavior like stonewalling
| employees, lying on management's behalf, and slow-walking your
| requests until they finally time out (by design).
|
| Having experienced that in a big-company context, I would
| suggest people be very careful and have a Plan B for any HR
| interaction, especially in time of layoffs. While you're
| getting hired and set up then HR is probably on your side, to a
| reasonable approximation, and when they're not your manager
| will help. After that, never assume they're on your side, or on
| your manager's side -- HR will absolutely go behind the back of
| a manager too on behalf of "the Company" (i.e. higher
| managers).
| tflinton wrote:
| HR can be a blessing to some employees; there have been one
| occasion at my previous job where an employee was given an
| increase simply because HR found they had dropped below the 10th
| percentile in their salary band.
|
| In another situation HR has forced an increase because of a
| personal rating even though the budget for increases in the
| department didn't have funding for it (effectively HR forced a
| budget increase due to the rating of the employee).
|
| Both of these times i've found them to be a welcome and helpful
| surprise.
|
| That said, it is very true if you're filing a discrimination
| complaint or otherwise putting the company at risk you're
| implicitly putting yourself and the person you're accusing into
| the looking glass, and that could bite you in the butt if HR
| decides the manager isn't at fault.
| 5cott0 wrote:
| >HR aren't evil, they're just doing a job
|
| I don't know about this one, HR (or the lack thereof) in silicon
| valley has a pretty strong track record of evil.
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/technology/google-sexual-...
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/18/technology/zenefits-scand...
|
| https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-27/uber-like...
| rr888 wrote:
| We dont have HR we have HCM - Human Capital Management, which
| makes you feel even less important.
| mathattack wrote:
| HR exists to maximize shareholder value, like every other
| function. They do things that sound nice in support of this. But
| don't ever expect them to take someone's side out of principle if
| that hurts shareholder value.
|
| They push for anti-harassment policies because it's good for
| shareholders. They normalize compensation because it's good for
| shareholders. If they treat people good on the way out, it's
| because it's good for shareholders.
|
| They're no different than the Finance, Legal or any other
| department.
| orblivion wrote:
| I want to ask a really base level question. And maybe it doesn't
| relate to this article in particular. Why do I get the vibe that
| people talk about HR as if it's some sort of clandestine
| political power center in our society? Or is this is just a
| recent right wing talking point?
|
| I could maybe see a power struggle between "engineering" and
| "design" in a company like Apple. Is HR not just a basic
| managerial function the the CEO can adjust as necessary if
| something goes wrong?
| rippercushions wrote:
| In a well-run company, HR stays in their lane and executes
| orders from management.
|
| In all too many companies in the real world, management is a
| chaotic revolving door of political infighting, and HR has a
| great deal of power. I've worked in a team where an HR rep
| attended every personnel-related management meeting, and
| overruled performance ratings, promotions etc while the VP
| supposedly running the show played Candy Crush.
| moonlighter wrote:
| If you talk to HR employees and ask them whether they feel like
| an employee or rather as "the employer"... based on my own
| findings most will tell you that they feel like the employer;
| even though they're just employees too.
| lapama wrote:
| The day I realised HR were (at my employer's) a bunch of liars
| and manipulating personas it was too late. Since then I am
| extraordinarily hardline in all my meetings with them. I cannot
| be sure it is actually working, but you need to be very demanding
| to get what you deserve (with my employer).
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-01-05 23:02 UTC)