There seems to be a common pattern of HR being disliked in firms and workplaces across different industries no matter where you’re focused on.
To be honest during my apprenticeship/internship HR weren’t too bad and would have a laugh with you, hell one of them loved the dark humor from one of our technicians.
Is there something I’m missing that HR are soul less and will protect the interests of a firm before yourself? I’m not sure as I think not all HR people are terrible, just comes with the territory so to speak
What are your thoughts on the matter?
What do YOU think of them as a department from your current and past experiences?
It depends. I worked at one company without a dedicated HR department (a payroll company) and it ran fine without it. Managers of each department worked with upper management and finance to decide staffing, we went to management and if needed (I never did) upper management or the lady who did our payroll (they handled both our payroll and client payrolls) or the benefits department (same deal) for most of the sort of things HR does at my company.
I think it’s bloated at my current company, there are some people with not a whole job, but it’s not like they do nothing or don’t provide value, they do. But like, one guy’s job is apparently employee development and all he does is choose some general “learning software” that we then have access to. Gives some useless and painfully boring presentations on the aforementioned software that provide nothing of value. Then I have no idea what he does with the rest of the year. Why is that one whole job, when the rest of us basically juggle multiple jobs?
Yes. When shit hits the fan, they are there to protect the company, not you. HR is the enemy, disguised as your friend.
You can easily find HR staff that are wonderful as individuals. Plenty of them.
But HR as an entity isn’t about providing resources to humans, it’s about managing humans as resources. They aren’t there to help employees, though they may do that indirectly sometimes. They’re there to help employers, and even the best individuals doing the job are still doing that job of helping the employer as their primary goal.
Even the best people can be worn down by doing the job and turn into the soulless drone, if they can’t/don’t think they can leave the job.
The only HR department I’ve ever trusted was at a home health agency that was owned by a single person who set the standards, and there were two HR employees that really were there to help balance the company’s needs with the employees’. It was evident in everything they did, and the boss would abide by their decisions even if it cost her.
But! At any point in time, she could have completely done away with that methodology. And that’s why HR as a thing can never be trusted
I just view HR as a less educated lawyer who represenrs the company and that’s served me plenty well.
Class traitors
An HR’s purpose is to find a way to have the company give the least to employees while still complying with the law. They can be nice to you, and most will be because acting nice is part of their job, but if they find out the company will do 0.0001% better without you they will let you go immediately.
In today’s society where 99.9% of the people need to fall in line to their company if they want to not die of hunger or homelessness, it takes a special kind of cruelty to mediate conflicts in favor of the company, undermine any attempt on the side of the employees to improve literally anything of significance, or make the decision to take away someone’s income because they are not being 100% exploitable. Most people cannot do this. So if they become HR while having a heart, they won’t last long in the job. This leaves only the most ruthless, unempathetic removed in the long run. All of which wear humane masks because it’s their job to do so.
Since the only good HR is an HR that quits, AHRAB
HR is not likely to side with the worker over the company.
There’s also a certain kind of “hr energy” that makes my skin crawl. Like if you worked at a company called AB Tech they’d be up front in the meeting going “I SAY A, YOU SAY B! A!” and I’m just like no, please stop, I’m not that excited to make charts for assholes.
The hr person where I work now seems nice, at least. My old job the main hr person gave me the creeps.
It’s because they appear to be something they’re not.
They’re usually friendly and fun and do all sorts of employee retention activities like arranging go karting and such…
They seem like they’re there almost as union stewards, to try and help retain employees and ensure you’re treated well by management. This is not the case. They’re there to protect the company from lawsuits originated by you. This means that they’ll apply rules and such in ways that are not usually beneficial to you.
They’re actually really helpful if you have issues with a coworker! However, you need to remember that despite how friendly they seem, they’re not actually in your corner, they have their own agenda.
So the simple answer is that they aren’t bad at all, but it can feel bad if you thought they were your friend.
So many health benefits, “mental wellness” programs, etc. are ultimately all about “affecting you ability to work”.
I get a free joint-pain exercise program. Every so often, the app asks me a survey which is all about “how many days did you joint pain prevent you from working”, “do you expect your pain to cause you to take time off work” .
It was once upon a time, called Personnel. It was Personnel since its inception, but then one day, some monsters decided that title had the word “person” in it, and, heh, well… ah, we can’t have employees thinking they are people; they need to know that they are no different from a table, a copy machine or a forklift. So some genius of corporate sadism came up with the term Human Resources, to perfectly articulate the fact that to the corporation, you are simply a resource that is classified as human. That should put an end to all this distracting and unproductive “dignity.”
In the startup I worked for, the HR lead was the CEO’s significant other. They had made fundamental contributions to the operations of the company since its inception and relatively humble beginnings. Once it had grown beyond a certain size, there wasn’t really any particular executive position within a logical company structure for them to fill. The individual departments were run by people more qualified in those areas. I think it made sense for the company to continuously recognize their contributions (and obviously the boss isn’t going to fire their partner), but HR ended up being mostly just a cushy job for them to fall into.
It was one of those companies that likes to say its “like a family”, but really there’s an in-crowd (i.e. the founding staff) and everyone else. I was part of the former, so I could be honest and open with them with regard to HR issues and be supported, and that was nice. But on the other hand, I witnessed HR actions related to incidents involving other staff that caused me cognitive dissonance, because it would’ve been handled differently if I were the staff member involved. More than anything else, because I had found myself in the right place at the right time. Because I was a part of the landed gentry, as it were. That’s fucking bullshit, and the experience made me realize that they weren’t actually different from other companies like I had thought.
HR is there to protect the company.
They will have a laugh with you, sure. Why not? And they will come up with silly games for employees, because it increases employee retention and makes employees likely to think HR is just about boosting fun.
But trusting them? God no.
At best they are pretty much useless for employees, at worst they are as dangerous as managment.
They are usually very aligned with management, and try to obscure that…
My wife works in HR and there a lot of misconceptions about the field. First off, a lot of people call them “the cops of the company” or claim that they’re only out to protect the company. If your HR person is any good then that is not their goal. Good HR people are there to protect the company, yes, but they’re also there to protect the employees. It’s been proven time and time again that being good and fair to your employees leads to more productivity. A good HR person is always fighting with the top brass trying to convince them to do the right thing for the employees. They’re in the weeds with the executives explaining to them why giving a raise that just matches inflation is not a raise, and anything less is actually a demotion. They’re explaining why giving benefits will actually earn the company money in the long run through employee retention. They’re trying their best to get performance reports, pay bands, etc, so that employees will see feedback on their performance and receive help when they need it and increased salaries when they’re excelling.
Not all HR departments are great, there are plenty that are awful, but imagine this scenario – and this has happened to my wife many, many, many times:
You go to the executives with a plan for raises and benefits, you’ve been working on it for months. Both physically working on it, and in meetings explaining to the executives how this plan will not just benefit them but also the employees. After all that work, the executives take your carefully crafted plan, completely gut it despite all your advising, then hand it back to you and tell you to present it to everyone as though this was your grand dream from the beginning. It’s pretty demoralizing, but you have to put on a brave face and try to remain positive while explaining “your plan”, and keep all the stuff about how good it actually could have been if you’d be allowed to do what you know is right to yourself.
It’s better than nothing, after all. You’ve made some improvement to people’s experience of the workplace.
You know you’ve got a good HR team if you’re working somewhere that has solid benefits, quarterly or semi-annual performance reports (with raises), pay bands and clear paths forward in your career, raises that at least meet inflation, a positive work culture where you feel at least some trust and comradery in your peers, etc. If you do, then those people are not your enemy.
In brief, I hope some of you reading this will take away this message: HR people are not the enemy. They’re just the messengers, and the advisors. If you have a problem with the HR department where you work, then you almost certainly have a problem with the team of executives who aren’t listening to their expertise.
I appreciate the positive and constructive outlook and for that I value your contribution. Your wife seems like she’s being the change we want to see in less-than-stellar HR departments, but I think to consider the benefits of HR from the employee POV just isn’t safe unless you’re absolutely certain where the priorities lie for your local HR team.
The phrase “cops of the company” is an even more accurate term in the sense that while some cops may actually believe in serving their community, many perhaps most do not, and trusting one is hazardous to your health. A good HR department does care about employees and the company, but how does an employee know that they have one of the good ones? I feel like this is something you don’t really know until you lean upon it such as when disagreements occur, and then either the rickety post will hold or you fall flat on your face. Me? I’m not leaning on that rickey post any more than I would willingly speak to a “friendly” neighborhood police officer. Your job isn’t a place for trust. It’s business. That HR person could be your wife, or they could be the kind to shoot first and ask questions later.
I don’t have a problem with my local PD nor do I have any issues with my HR, but I definitely don’t want a visit from either.
I understand your point, although I disagree. I will say that my intentions were never that you (and everyone else) should be buddies with HR, or even trust them. But there’s a huge difference between being friendly but at a distance and being actively hostile.
Good HR people are there to protect the company, yes, but they’re also there to protect the employees.
Their primary responsibility is to protect the company, protecting employees only matters in the context of protecting the company.
Didn’t bother reading the rest, because you’re already bullshitting.
Source: almost 4 decades in very large (tens of thousands of employees) companies
Does it matter what their intentions are if the result is that they end up protecting employees too? They are being paid by the company too, and it’s their job to make sure the company follows legal practices to ensure the company doesn’t get sued. Of course they have an incentive to protect the company, but any trained and educated HR person knows that treating employees well is a great way to protect the company.
Does it always work out that way? No. Why? There are HR people who are bad at their jobs or intentionally malicious or unscrupulous, yes. There are also “HR departments” that are run by family members of an executive of the company and don’t have any idea what they’re doing.
All I’m saying is that HR departments, most of them, at least try to talk executives into doing the right thing, but at the end of the day HR doesn’t get to make the final decision.
If you’re mad at the HR department of your company for something, it almost certainly wasn’t their idea.
Or in very simple terms, don’t shoot the messenger.
Just a friendly fyi, it’s camaraderie.
Thanks, but they’re actually both accepted spellings.
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/comradery/ https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/comradery
Weird. Never seen that spelling. English is messed up.
My wife also works in HR and I now work in an adjacent department, EHS. I came to post pretty much the same as you did.
I will add that it’s interesting reading these threads and seeing the conspiracy theory type comments uniformly painting HR across the world. They speak as if the employees that comprise HR have no agency or are uniformly of one mindset, protecting the company at all costs, even though that doesn’t benefit them personally at all. It’s a simple solution for a complex situation, so it sounds good but doesn’t hold up under the merest scrutiny.
We get the same shit in EHS, how we’re just there to prevent company liability and don’t really care. It’s quite frustrating since it’s anything but true and tends to be perpetuated by employees who don’t actually engage with EHS, so they don’t actually know who we are or what we do. Reading through the comments, it’s much the same here.
Most EHS departments are like most HR departments. Perception management to benefit 1) the department and 2) the company. Any possible way EHS can use lax regulations (most places outside the EU) to avoid accountability, it will happen in nearly every circumstance.
I worked in EHS for a time. The amount of scab, toxic and corrupt behavior I saw made me NOPE out of that career field real fast. EHS got more people fired and swept more incidents under the rug than anyone else. Masters of gaslighting and virtue signaling.
Of course there will be exceptions, and I’m sure you’re one of them.
I don’t know how you expected the Everyone Here Sucks department to be a good idea /s
Seriously!! Not my smartest move.
It’s been proven time and time again that being good and fair to your employees leads to more productivity.
That still only benefits the company. In capitalism my productivity is truly the only variable I control. The more productive I am the more value is extracted from me to the company/shareholders. Yet nothing is gained from me except exhaustion.
You get paid by the company. The company not closing down benefits you. Also, your performance should (in most cases) lead to raises to your salary.
The company extracts a profit, technically if they came out even they still wouldn’t need to close.
Min-maxing one’s own productivity is truly the only power the wage slave has in his pocket.
Also, your performance should (in most cases) lead to raises to your salary.
We all know that is 100% not how things work.
You’re simping for the boss, typical HR.
You’re making up straw man arguments and you obviously haven’t even read my post.
Also, I’m not HR.
Not defending either side, but how often do hourly employees get raises based on performance at your wife’s company? You say performance should lead to salary increases, but what about the majority of people who only make hourly rates?
I have no opinion on that because that’s not what we’re talking about. Usually companies that offer hourly rates rather than salaries don’t have an HR department, or the HR department is so far removed from those employees as to make no difference to them whether they’re there or not.
I’m not sure what you want me to say because it’s pretty much irrelevant to the situation I’m describing.
The reason it’s relevant is that most working people do not earn salaries, they earn hourly rates. I’m a welding engineer earning a salary, working with maintenance men and welders and operators who all earn hourly rates. Every company I’ve ever worked for has both salary and hourly and also an HR department.
The situation you are describing does not align with the vast majority of working people’s experiences.
Hahaha, you’re so full of shit your eyes are brown.
All companies with more than a handful of employees, have HR. It’s a legal issue for them.
Salary vs hourly really has fuck all to do with this.
Let me throw you a little binary choice set:
A1: HR are great, and I trust them.
A2: HR are great, and I don’t trust them.
B1: HR sucks, and I trust them.
B2: HR sucks, and I don’t trust them.
Obviously option A1 and A2 have the same outcome, while B1 has significantly worse outcomes than B2. What’s worse is that, by your own post, HR can go from A to B in an instant, because they’re following orders.
Obviously it’s in my own best interest that I district all HR.
I currently work for a large corporation with one of the worst HR strategies I’ve ever seen. Their primary focus, as far as I can tell, is to prevent employees from suing the company. But here’s how it practically works out: It is really difficult to promote or get raises for high performers, which makes them a flight risk. That is coupled with it being equally difficult to remove low performers. It takes 6 months to get someone on a PIP, then another 6 months to go through the PIP process. Meanwhile the high performers have to pick up the slack without any extra comp. No one who is any good wants to work in that environment. So what you end up with is a death spiral of talent and increasingly worse products and services. I can’t get out of here fast enough.
We must be coworkers
OMG, what a nightmare. I can only assume you are looking for work elsewhere too. Best of luck to you!!
Human Resources is just a department that cares about the image of the company
