3 ms·
I think it bears repeating that HR exists to protect the company, not the employee. Often, an interaction with HR will work out terribly for the employee when H
by hughes 8y ago
I think it bears repeating that HR exists to protect the company, not the employee. Often, an interaction with HR will work out terribly for the employee when HR is acting in the company's best interests.
That's not the case here though. They're just terrible.
- projectileboy 8y agoI've been berated by people (especially HR people) for giving this advice, but I couldn't agree with this more. HR does not exist to help the employee, period. Because they manage benefits, it's easy to get confused and think of them as your advocate, but they are not. If you have an issue in the workplace, you first must figure out what to do, and then you talk to HR. It should be your last step.
- netsharc 8y agoEven in that role, the HR failed miserably, so much that she got fired, and the letter writer got rehired with so much more money. He should've threatened to sue and say "Let's see who the courts think is insane here.". But how it happened in the update is the best, with the HR being fired after the boss finding out about her misconduct from the lawyer. If he had threatened to sue and she realized she had no case, she would've backed down, they both would've kept their jobs, but she would have started a new medium to long term mission of figuring out a bullet-proof way to get him fired.