5 ms·

> The HR rep began the meeting by asking me if I had noticed that I was the common theme in all of the reports I had been making That's such a meaningless thin

> The HR rep began the meeting by asking me if I had noticed that I was the common theme in all of the reports I had been making That's such a meaningless thing for an HR person to ask someone, that it clearly only serves to be patronising and hopefully stop them bringing problems up. I mean, how could you as an HR staffer possibly justify your inaction with an argument like that? "We didn't act on any of their complaints, as we noticed that in all the cases of harassment that they reported, they were the victim in all of them!"

HarryHirsch 10y ago
HR serves to protect the company, you have to think in HR's shoes. If the complainant goes away and finds another job the problem is solved. Most harassment cases tend not to end up in court, usually the aggrieved party quits.
- tfar 10y ago
  "HR serves to protect the company" That point comes up every time a bad-HR related post is placed here. However, isn't it very short sighted to consider silencing/removing the accusers a protection of the company. This results in a bad culture and bad PR about that culture in developer circles. Won't the reduced diversity and all that comes with it have bad effect on the company long term?
  - Chinjut 10y ago
    It may be short-sighted, but, frankly, most people and organizations in the world act in most contexts in short-sighted pursuit of their goals. Foolish, sure, and unethical in the case of HR departments, but nonetheless, the behavior one can expect from them.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - vertex-four 10y ago
    Plus the lawsuits that should be brought... except that bringing a lawsuit on a sexual harassment case results in even more of the same shit in court, plus potential employers hearing about it.
  - allenz 10y ago
    It isn't short-sighted, because a discrimination lawsuit has unbounded liability and gets widely reported on. Words are temporary and can be whitewashed, whereas few companies can afford an admission of guilt. In a reputable company, HR will pass the message higher up (probably off the record), and a manager will look at the evidence and make a good judgment. In this case, the evidence is clear, the manager should have been fired, and the employee given a sincere (but not in writing) apology and compensation. Note that HR is a legal role. HR will never advise an employee to consider filing a lawsuit against the company, but instead dissuade the employee by saying that there isn't good evidence, it was an honest mistake, he has a family to feed, try to work with someone else. The saying exists because advice from HR is not in the employee's best interest.
  - adekok 10y ago
    > isn't it very short sighted to consider silencing/removing the accusers a protection of the company. Yes. It's also human psychology. See the church sex abuse scandals. The morality that people claim to have is less important than protecting the group. The same thing applies to HR. The HR person who shuts down an accuser is doing it in order to protect their position in the hierarchy, and to protect the people in the hierarchy that they know. The fact that it's illegal, and can very well destroy the company is completely irrelevant. In these cases, short-term focus is more important than long term goals.
  - Xuber_112233 10y ago
    Most people don't publicly post something due to a fear of a lawsuit.
- more_corn 10y ago
  The best thing HR can do to protect the company is to take prompt, effective action in cases of sexual harassment. If they fail to do that they expose the company to lawsuits. In this case Uber would clearly lose. Sometimes companies need to be taken to court to be reminded of their obligations. For the sake of the women still there and any women who may be considering going there, I sincerely hope this goes to court. I expect the punitive damages to be in the tens of millions of dollars, perhaps that would be a sufficient reminder.
- BinaryIdiot 10y ago
  > HR serves to protect the company, you have to think in HR's shoes. If the complainant goes away and finds another job the problem is solved. While it's true HR is there for protect the company it's false to say that if a complainant just "goes away" that the problem is solved. HR also has to ensure the company keeps a good culture, avoids lawsuits and stays a great place to work for the majority to ensure talent is not only attracted but kept. Thinking about ignoring or making complaints just go away isn't protecting the company. It's literally harming the company and its employees.
  - HarryHirsch 10y ago
    No, no, it's leadership that sets the culture. HR is merely the arm of the leadership.
    - BinaryIdiot 10y ago
      I agree; HR is very much a part of how that culture shapes when bad apples are discovered.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- nilved 10y ago
  > HR serves to protect the company, you have to think in HR's shoes. If the complainant goes away and finds another job the problem is solved. Not if they go on to write a blog post that reaches the top of HN.
- ansible 10y ago
  HR serves to protect the company, you have to think in HR's shoes. HR, done ethically and applied consistently, protects both the company and the employees. It makes clear what is acceptable, and what isn't. And it makes clear what is expected of each employee in general.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
sampl 10y ago
I laughed out loud at this one--that's some first-class ass-backwards reasoning...
bjorns 10y ago
Is anyone versed enough in common HR practices to actually explain this behavior? It seems much more likely that this is some perverse instantiation of an aggressive incentive to the HR team that actual incompetence. Is Uber rewarding HR for minimizing actions taken?
brongondwana 10y ago
I complained to HR that it was 16 degrees one day and 26 the next when the air conditioning was being awful and was actually told "first you complain it's too cold, and now you complain it's too hot". Duh, because it was too cold and then it was too hot. You get some classy responses when people don't want to deal with stuff.

HarryHirsch 10y ago

HR serves to protect the company, you have to think in HR's shoes. If the complainant goes away and finds another job the problem is solved. Most harassment cases tend not to end up in court, usually the aggrieved party quits.

tfar 10y ago
"HR serves to protect the company" That point comes up every time a bad-HR related post is placed here. However, isn't it very short sighted to consider silencing/removing the accusers a protection of the company. This results in a bad culture and bad PR about that culture in developer circles. Won't the reduced diversity and all that comes with it have bad effect on the company long term?
- Chinjut 10y ago
  It may be short-sighted, but, frankly, most people and organizations in the world act in most contexts in short-sighted pursuit of their goals. Foolish, sure, and unethical in the case of HR departments, but nonetheless, the behavior one can expect from them.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- vertex-four 10y ago
  Plus the lawsuits that should be brought... except that bringing a lawsuit on a sexual harassment case results in even more of the same shit in court, plus potential employers hearing about it.
- allenz 10y ago
  It isn't short-sighted, because a discrimination lawsuit has unbounded liability and gets widely reported on. Words are temporary and can be whitewashed, whereas few companies can afford an admission of guilt. In a reputable company, HR will pass the message higher up (probably off the record), and a manager will look at the evidence and make a good judgment. In this case, the evidence is clear, the manager should have been fired, and the employee given a sincere (but not in writing) apology and compensation. Note that HR is a legal role. HR will never advise an employee to consider filing a lawsuit against the company, but instead dissuade the employee by saying that there isn't good evidence, it was an honest mistake, he has a family to feed, try to work with someone else. The saying exists because advice from HR is not in the employee's best interest.
- adekok 10y ago
  > isn't it very short sighted to consider silencing/removing the accusers a protection of the company. Yes. It's also human psychology. See the church sex abuse scandals. The morality that people claim to have is less important than protecting the group. The same thing applies to HR. The HR person who shuts down an accuser is doing it in order to protect their position in the hierarchy, and to protect the people in the hierarchy that they know. The fact that it's illegal, and can very well destroy the company is completely irrelevant. In these cases, short-term focus is more important than long term goals.
- Xuber_112233 10y ago
  Most people don't publicly post something due to a fear of a lawsuit.
more_corn 10y ago
The best thing HR can do to protect the company is to take prompt, effective action in cases of sexual harassment. If they fail to do that they expose the company to lawsuits. In this case Uber would clearly lose. Sometimes companies need to be taken to court to be reminded of their obligations. For the sake of the women still there and any women who may be considering going there, I sincerely hope this goes to court. I expect the punitive damages to be in the tens of millions of dollars, perhaps that would be a sufficient reminder.
BinaryIdiot 10y ago
> HR serves to protect the company, you have to think in HR's shoes. If the complainant goes away and finds another job the problem is solved. While it's true HR is there for protect the company it's false to say that if a complainant just "goes away" that the problem is solved. HR also has to ensure the company keeps a good culture, avoids lawsuits and stays a great place to work for the majority to ensure talent is not only attracted but kept. Thinking about ignoring or making complaints just go away isn't protecting the company. It's literally harming the company and its employees.
- HarryHirsch 10y ago
  No, no, it's leadership that sets the culture. HR is merely the arm of the leadership.
  - BinaryIdiot 10y ago
    I agree; HR is very much a part of how that culture shapes when bad apples are discovered.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
nilved 10y ago
> HR serves to protect the company, you have to think in HR's shoes. If the complainant goes away and finds another job the problem is solved. Not if they go on to write a blog post that reaches the top of HN.
ansible 10y ago
HR serves to protect the company, you have to think in HR's shoes. HR, done ethically and applied consistently, protects both the company and the employees. It makes clear what is acceptable, and what isn't. And it makes clear what is expected of each employee in general.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

sampl 10y ago

I laughed out loud at this one--that's some first-class ass-backwards reasoning...

bjorns 10y ago

Is anyone versed enough in common HR practices to actually explain this behavior? It seems much more likely that this is some perverse instantiation of an aggressive incentive to the HR team that actual incompetence. Is Uber rewarding HR for minimizing actions taken?

brongondwana 10y ago

I complained to HR that it was 16 degrees one day and 26 the next when the air conditioning was being awful and was actually told "first you complain it's too cold, and now you complain it's too hot". Duh, because it was too cold and then it was too hot. You get some classy responses when people don't want to deal with stuff.