6 ms·

My experience has been that HR stonewalls all efforts to use external recruiters due to perceived cost. Yet at the same time they can’t deliver quality candidat

My experience has been that HR stonewalls all efforts to use external recruiters due to perceived cost. Yet at the same time they can’t deliver quality candidates so a position stays open for 6 months; incredibly infuriating.

chillydawg 7y ago
Unfortunate to be in your position. My solution is to not have HR and be a tiny company where we can happily ignore that kind of tedium.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- mlthoughts2018 7y ago
  > “not have HR” and that’s how you get bully psychopath CEOs sexually harassing people, infusing their religious / racist biases on the hiring process, etc. Would much rather have HR + bureaucratic tedium than to be beholden to unbridled CEO whims.
  - wffurr 7y ago
    HR doesn't prevent any of that.
    - mlthoughts2018 7y ago
      Compared to how it manifests without HR constraints, boy it absolutely does. Are there examples of these bad behaviors in big companies? Sure, and that’s hardly the point.
      - gentaro 7y ago
        Do you actually have figures to back that up? HR's job is primarily to support the currently existing power structure.
    - dredmorbius 7y ago
      If the pathological culture is being established from the top, probably not. But with principled leadership and monitoring, guidance, and procedures from HR, a great deal of this (and the legal, risk, and financial pain resulting) can be avoided, or at least, caught early.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    HR rarely controls problem CEOs for the same reason the Justice Department doesn't effectively constrain a criminal President.
    - mlthoughts2018 7y ago
      This way of thinking displays a baffling lack of imagination. Even the mere existence of the Justice Department constrains President behavior considerably compared to having no such office. It’s incredible to think that you’re taking the existence of bad behavior that happens despite these checks & balances as evidence that the checks & balances do nothing.
      - GVIrish 7y ago
        Yeah but the US government has checks and balances the average private company does not. The president has to get an attorney general confirmed, there are laws preventing him from using political considerations to affect civil service hiring, etc. In a private company, the CEO can simply fire anyone in HR who stands up to them, no questions asked. In toxic situations HR often actively covers for bad behavior because the perpetrator signs their pay checks. Not to say HR is useless and many times they can be an effective check on behavior. But as we've seen in some of these high profile cases of misconduct, HR has enabled abusers by taking their side against victims.
        dragonwriter 7y ago
        > Yeah but the US government has checks and balances the average private company does not. That's less true within the executive branch than between it and other branches; the main one relating to DoJ is the Senate confirmation process and the hope that the Senate won't confirm stooges of a corrupt President to leadership roles in the DoJ. That isn't particularly reliable, however, making DoJ not a consistently strong constraint.
        GVIrish 7y ago
        Yep. Normally we'd like to think that the Senate confirmation process would stop outright unethical enablers of presidential misconduct from getting confirmed. But, here we are.
  - chillydawg 7y ago
    We also don't have an events department or a facilities management team, but we have plenty of fun parties and the kitchen always has coffee.
delinka 7y ago
Startups don't tend to have HR.
- rhizome 7y ago
  Sure they do, they just outsource it to one of the all-in-one HR/Payroll startups or actual companies. Whether that results in startups having effective HR is a separate question.
  - bdcravens 7y ago
    Having a company like Gusto (great company and product) do your payroll is only a small portion of the overall role of HR.
mikhailfranco 7y ago
It's not perceived cost, it's HR job security. Same attitude for any type of employee towards any external consultant. They think: that's my job, I can do it cheaper, otherwise I'll just leave and hire myself back as a consultant and double my salary - but never have the skills or the guts to actually do it.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

chillydawg 7y ago

Unfortunate to be in your position. My solution is to not have HR and be a tiny company where we can happily ignore that kind of tedium.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
mlthoughts2018 7y ago
> “not have HR” and that’s how you get bully psychopath CEOs sexually harassing people, infusing their religious / racist biases on the hiring process, etc. Would much rather have HR + bureaucratic tedium than to be beholden to unbridled CEO whims.
- wffurr 7y ago
  HR doesn't prevent any of that.
  - mlthoughts2018 7y ago
    Compared to how it manifests without HR constraints, boy it absolutely does. Are there examples of these bad behaviors in big companies? Sure, and that’s hardly the point.
    - gentaro 7y ago
      Do you actually have figures to back that up? HR's job is primarily to support the currently existing power structure.
  - dredmorbius 7y ago
    If the pathological culture is being established from the top, probably not. But with principled leadership and monitoring, guidance, and procedures from HR, a great deal of this (and the legal, risk, and financial pain resulting) can be avoided, or at least, caught early.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  HR rarely controls problem CEOs for the same reason the Justice Department doesn't effectively constrain a criminal President.
  - mlthoughts2018 7y ago
    This way of thinking displays a baffling lack of imagination. Even the mere existence of the Justice Department constrains President behavior considerably compared to having no such office. It’s incredible to think that you’re taking the existence of bad behavior that happens despite these checks & balances as evidence that the checks & balances do nothing.
    - GVIrish 7y ago
      Yeah but the US government has checks and balances the average private company does not. The president has to get an attorney general confirmed, there are laws preventing him from using political considerations to affect civil service hiring, etc. In a private company, the CEO can simply fire anyone in HR who stands up to them, no questions asked. In toxic situations HR often actively covers for bad behavior because the perpetrator signs their pay checks. Not to say HR is useless and many times they can be an effective check on behavior. But as we've seen in some of these high profile cases of misconduct, HR has enabled abusers by taking their side against victims.
      - dragonwriter 7y ago
        > Yeah but the US government has checks and balances the average private company does not. That's less true within the executive branch than between it and other branches; the main one relating to DoJ is the Senate confirmation process and the hope that the Senate won't confirm stooges of a corrupt President to leadership roles in the DoJ. That isn't particularly reliable, however, making DoJ not a consistently strong constraint.
        GVIrish 7y ago
        Yep. Normally we'd like to think that the Senate confirmation process would stop outright unethical enablers of presidential misconduct from getting confirmed. But, here we are.
- chillydawg 7y ago
  We also don't have an events department or a facilities management team, but we have plenty of fun parties and the kitchen always has coffee.

delinka 7y ago

Startups don't tend to have HR.

rhizome 7y ago
Sure they do, they just outsource it to one of the all-in-one HR/Payroll startups or actual companies. Whether that results in startups having effective HR is a separate question.
- bdcravens 7y ago
  Having a company like Gusto (great company and product) do your payroll is only a small portion of the overall role of HR.

mikhailfranco 7y ago

It's not perceived cost, it's HR job security. Same attitude for any type of employee towards any external consultant. They think: that's my job, I can do it cheaper, otherwise I'll just leave and hire myself back as a consultant and double my salary - but never have the skills or the guts to actually do it.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]