2 ms·
No its really because: 1 In order for hr to justify themselves. 2 As a hypocritical way to cut the pay quanta.
by walshemj 8y ago
No its really because:
1 In order for hr to justify themselves.
2 As a hypocritical way to cut the pay quanta.
- all2 8y agoJust for giggles, lets say that a large company doesn't need an HR person or department. What are the alternatives? Is this something we could build an automated system around? Could the functions be moved to managers (hiring, firing, pay, etc.)? It seems like moving this way would be somewhat like implementing the officer/NCO relationship in the US military. Are there benefits for non-specialized decision making as it applies to employees? > pay quanta. What's that?
- NewsAware 8y ago>> pay quanta. > What's that? "paying a lot". So basically as away to combat a (perceived) inflation in salaries
- all2 8y agoSo, amongst other things, it could refer to salary and raise confidentiality agreements as a way to reduce employee negotiating power?
- walshemj 8y agoIts the amount the pay bill increases sorry its a HR/IR term
- giobox 8y agoI think HR can justify its existence probably just fine in the absence of annual performance reviews. Off the top of my head: Healthcare (especially in the US - as a non-native I was truly shocked the amount of HR time that is spent managing this...), benefits, immigration issues, legal disputes, compliance, pay, hiring and firing, disabilities... there’s plenty for a competent HR team to do at most medium or larger sized enterprises that isn’t performance reviews.