3 ms·

Any action that involves engaging with HR is a mistake, pure and simple. They're there to protect the company even when it's acting through managerial malfeasa

Any action that involves engaging with HR is a mistake, pure and simple. They're there to protect the company even when it's acting through managerial malfeasance.

kabdib 11y ago
HR is not there for you. HR is there for the company. I've made the mistake of thinking that HR would solve malfeasance and Bad Political Shit done to me by managers. Won't make that mistake again.
- rrauenza 11y ago
  I don't completely agree and have experienced otherwise, but it also depends on whether the manager is going against company culture and policy.
  - kabdib 11y ago
    Let's just say that making a manager's girlfriend mad at me (she was a cow-orker of mine, he was a manager in the same group) and thinking that HR would fix anything forced me into one of the best career choices I ever made (srlsly!)
    - andreyf 11y ago
      Any company which is OK with manager-subordinate romance is not worth working for, IMO.
      - kabdib 11y ago
        Company was okay. That group, not so much . . .
        andreyf 11y ago
        Fair enough, although this seems like something which is ideally a company-wide policy from very early on. FWIW, I regretted typing that after re-reading it later. There are most certainly exceptions.
andreyf 11y ago
Of course HR is the company rep, and sometimes one who is happy to forget things which aren't in writing. If you want someone advising your interests, pay a lawyer. Engaging with HR is still a good idea. Ensuring a fair and reasonable process for evaluations and promotions and bonuses is very much in HR's domain. When there are problems of the sort OP talks about, HR should at least be aware of it.