4 ms·

> In an email reviewed by Motherboard, an HR representative told Jennifer, “your situation could never be planned for so would never be communicated,” and “all

> In an email reviewed by Motherboard, an HR representative told Jennifer, “your situation could never be planned for so would never be communicated,” and “all normal situations don’t fit your situation.” Jennifer was told that because she couldn't plan for the tragedy, Informatica would renege its promises. Perhaps Informatica should plan a bit more about what happens when you have incoherent policies and treat human beings as disposable resources. edit: updated for clarity

KaiserPro 7y ago
I still don't understand how this is going to result in anything positive for the company. the whole point of an HR department is to stop anything developing that could cause productivity issues for a company. Cutting the leave short for because someone's child dies shows a stunning lack of empathy or understanding of wider consequences for staff and company. If I had found out that my company had pulled shit like that, then there would be hell to pay. what kind of emotional vacuum do these people live in?
- dlp211 7y ago
  I have nothing (to my knowledge) but my opinion on this, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that a majority of people just lack empathy.
  - folkhack 7y ago
    I'm speaking anecdotally but would 100% posit that this is true. One of the biggest things I'm learning as an adult in a capitalistic society is that empathy is an anti-pattern to how most medium-to-larger sized corporations operate. Recently I've really come to fully accept that HR at most companies is not there for the employee (regardless of how they internally brand), vs. it being a compliance department and a risk barrier between general employees and the upper-crust. If something bad enough happens, they'll pin it on the HR employee and fire them vs. taking accountability for the company's actions. HR is not your friend.
    - XorNot 7y ago
      No but in terms of risk management HR is taking a huge gamble that a bunch of people getting recruiter offers aren't going to go "you know what, screw this place" and leave.
      - folkhack 7y ago
        Yeah here's the thing - if you get a better offer... Leave. If you operate otherwise you're a fool.
        XorNot 7y ago
        The idea that there's zero-cost to looking for jobs or switching jobs is incredibly naive, doubly so if you're American.
  - pharrington 7y ago
    That's just not true. It's only in cases of extreme pathology that empathy is absent in people. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2374373517699267 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/23743735176992... is a good start if you wanna learn more.
  - matt4077 7y ago
    Or, to be a bit optimistic, they lack agency. I've noticed in myself and others that when you're stressed/inexperienced/otherwise not-at-ease at work, people start behaving defensively. That often turns into this sort of cold-hearted behaviour that people believe is considered professional, even though no competent manager would actually behave that way. It's similar to middle management wearing nicer clothes in the typical signalling theory example.
- hn_throwaway_99 7y ago
  My thought exactly. Honestly, I think Informatica should consider firing their entire HR department. As you say, the entire point of HR is risk management. I hear loads of time on HN about how you can never trust HR because they are only there to protect the company, and while that's true, a lot of the time good HR people realize that the employees' needs and the long-term needs of company are aligned, so they should be working to improve your situation. In this case, they asked a woman whose baby just died to come back to work over 2 weeks of leave. Did they honestly believe this inhumane act, which would basically guarantee them lots of deservedly shitty press, was worth it over a measly 2 weeks of leave? Any decent HR person (and, honestly, any decent person in general) would have immediately realized this was an idiotic decision.
  - lawnchair_larry 7y ago
    “My thought exactly. Honestly, I think Informatica should consider firing their entire HR department.” Why? They changed the policy over a year ago to 16 weeks of paid leave, and included pregnancy recovery in that. Is that not good enough?
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - hn_throwaway_99 7y ago
      First, yes, perhaps I was using a bit of hyperbole. But the point still stands that my response had really nothing to do with whether 8 weeks or 6 weeks or 16 weeks is "good enough". When someone has a baby, and that baby dies, it doesn't take much to realize you don't nickel and dime that employee over a couple of weeks of leave. You send flowers and a heartfelt letter. The job of HR is specifically to lower employee related risk for a company, and is should be obvious that sending an email to the effect of "well, since your baby died, you'll be ready to come back to work sooner!" would in fact raise multiple risks for the company.

KaiserPro 7y ago

I still don't understand how this is going to result in anything positive for the company. the whole point of an HR department is to stop anything developing that could cause productivity issues for a company. Cutting the leave short for because someone's child dies shows a stunning lack of empathy or understanding of wider consequences for staff and company. If I had found out that my company had pulled shit like that, then there would be hell to pay. what kind of emotional vacuum do these people live in?

dlp211 7y ago
I have nothing (to my knowledge) but my opinion on this, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that a majority of people just lack empathy.
- folkhack 7y ago
  I'm speaking anecdotally but would 100% posit that this is true. One of the biggest things I'm learning as an adult in a capitalistic society is that empathy is an anti-pattern to how most medium-to-larger sized corporations operate. Recently I've really come to fully accept that HR at most companies is not there for the employee (regardless of how they internally brand), vs. it being a compliance department and a risk barrier between general employees and the upper-crust. If something bad enough happens, they'll pin it on the HR employee and fire them vs. taking accountability for the company's actions. HR is not your friend.
  - XorNot 7y ago
    No but in terms of risk management HR is taking a huge gamble that a bunch of people getting recruiter offers aren't going to go "you know what, screw this place" and leave.
    - folkhack 7y ago
      Yeah here's the thing - if you get a better offer... Leave. If you operate otherwise you're a fool.
      - XorNot 7y ago
        The idea that there's zero-cost to looking for jobs or switching jobs is incredibly naive, doubly so if you're American.
- pharrington 7y ago
  That's just not true. It's only in cases of extreme pathology that empathy is absent in people. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2374373517699267 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/23743735176992... is a good start if you wanna learn more.
- matt4077 7y ago
  Or, to be a bit optimistic, they lack agency. I've noticed in myself and others that when you're stressed/inexperienced/otherwise not-at-ease at work, people start behaving defensively. That often turns into this sort of cold-hearted behaviour that people believe is considered professional, even though no competent manager would actually behave that way. It's similar to middle management wearing nicer clothes in the typical signalling theory example.
hn_throwaway_99 7y ago
My thought exactly. Honestly, I think Informatica should consider firing their entire HR department. As you say, the entire point of HR is risk management. I hear loads of time on HN about how you can never trust HR because they are only there to protect the company, and while that's true, a lot of the time good HR people realize that the employees' needs and the long-term needs of company are aligned, so they should be working to improve your situation. In this case, they asked a woman whose baby just died to come back to work over 2 weeks of leave. Did they honestly believe this inhumane act, which would basically guarantee them lots of deservedly shitty press, was worth it over a measly 2 weeks of leave? Any decent HR person (and, honestly, any decent person in general) would have immediately realized this was an idiotic decision.
- lawnchair_larry 7y ago
  “My thought exactly. Honestly, I think Informatica should consider firing their entire HR department.” Why? They changed the policy over a year ago to 16 weeks of paid leave, and included pregnancy recovery in that. Is that not good enough?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - hn_throwaway_99 7y ago
    First, yes, perhaps I was using a bit of hyperbole. But the point still stands that my response had really nothing to do with whether 8 weeks or 6 weeks or 16 weeks is "good enough". When someone has a baby, and that baby dies, it doesn't take much to realize you don't nickel and dime that employee over a couple of weeks of leave. You send flowers and a heartfelt letter. The job of HR is specifically to lower employee related risk for a company, and is should be obvious that sending an email to the effect of "well, since your baby died, you'll be ready to come back to work sooner!" would in fact raise multiple risks for the company.