4 ms·

I hear this truism a lot, along with "companies must put the profit obligation first." It's only true in a very limited technical sense. When someone is harassi

I hear this truism a lot, along with "companies must put the profit obligation first." It's only true in a very limited technical sense. When someone is harassing you, "protecting the company" generally means making sure that person doesn't harass you or anyone else, often by firing them. Because if they don't, the company is at risk of massive liability. That doesn't mean they can't be terrible at their jobs, or fail to understand what the true purpose of their job is. But that's a potentiality that's not limited to HR. *Not a lawyer, but this is what I was told at my employer's harassment and legal training, which all employees are obligated to attend.

chimeracoder 10y ago
It's true, and to some extent the problem is that you hear about the bad HR stories, but rarely the good ones - in which they quietly take action, but nobody except the parties involved ever notice. When HR does their job right, nobody other than those people even notices that they're there. That said, lots of companies have HR departments that are terrible, so it all depends on whether you think yours is trustworthy and competent or not.
- daemin 10y ago
  Kind of the same can be said about IT. If they do their job correctly then nobody should notice they are there. Also about finance/payroll and others.
EliRivers 10y ago
...along with "companies must put the profit obligation first." At risk of labouring your point; which also certainly isn't true in a legal (and thus actual) sense.