7 ms·

>“I felt a wave of relief wash over me when I remembered that I worked at a large company, one with a sizable human resources department,” I feel like someone

>“I felt a wave of relief wash over me when I remembered that I worked at a large company, one with a sizable human resources department,” I feel like someone needs to run an education campaign on what HR is and who it works for. HR is there to protect the business. They aren't there as some moral arbiter. If you reported sexual harassment to HR you are going to be part of an equation - is it better for the business to lose you (and possibly some token amount of cash) or to lose the people you're complaining about. If you're complaining about a systemic issue then there is no chance you come out on top, HR will act to protect the organisation at your expense. Since the only time you go to HR is a situation where you can't deal with this issue alone it means practically every situation where you are going to HR is a situation where HR you will see getting rid of you as the cheapest way of solving the problem.

dstroot 7y ago
So very well said.
devchix 7y ago
This aphorism that HR is there to protect the company -- I hear it all the time and it's terribly cynical, while also probably true. Why must it be this way; asked another way, why do we accept that it must be this way, that every time we engage HR it must be with the understanding that they are the adversary. Why go to HR at all, why even have HR, why not fold it all in the legal counsel's office? Why can't HR be what they purportedly say they are, with all the videos and the role-playing and the seminars that everyone hate-attends yearly? Back to the article - I'm always sad and surprised that there are women doing the work of defending bad actors by attacking the whistle-blowing women. From the article: > "One woman called Fowler, claiming to be a PI working on a case against Uber; when Fowler got off the phone, she discovered the firm the woman worked for pretty much exclusively helped companies discredit people who’d been sexually harassed or assaulted." cf. Lisa Bloom in the Harvey Weinstein case, it's damning as Bloom vociferous claims to be on the side that believes and defends the women accusers.
- catalogia 7y ago
  As far as I can tell, 'HR departments' that advocate for the interests of workers rather than the company exist, and are called 'unions.'
- zajd 7y ago
  > Why can't HR be what they purportedly say they are Because the owners pay them, not the employees
- jerf 7y ago
  "Why must it be this way[?]" Follow the money. I don't mean that as snark; I'm serious. I think people in general don't follow the money enough. Even some people who occasionally advocate for it are very selective about it and frequently just treat it as a slur to deploy sometimes. But it's more important than that. It should always be part of the analysis of a business. If you aren't paying for it, you aren't the beneficiary of it. In the case of HR, if you are a productive, profit-center worker for the company, you may in fact at least be partially paying for it, and may get treated accordingly, though I wouldn't count on that for much. But if you are not clearly in that category....
  - ccsnags 7y ago
    Large companies can combat this by aligning its incentives to include worker well-being and retention as part of their equation. Unhappy workers and revolving-door hiring costs real money. Quantifying these values in terms of dollars can be helpful for creating a work place that encourages personal growth and increases positive feedback for workers in terms of money/bonuses for all levels. You have to put worker relations in terms of money to get the needle to move, but when you do, you will be shocked how much good you can do for the workers if you can quantify their unhappiness and morale. Doing the right thing is often just a matter of paying attention to the right metrics. Not every company is short-sited on labor. Companies are in a position to create win-win scenarios for its workers and the bottom line if the incentives are aligned.
  - downerending 7y ago
    It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
whoisjuan 7y ago
"Toby is in HR, which technically means he works for corporate, so he's really not a part of our family. Also, he's divorced, so he's really not a part of his family." - Michael Scott
wpietri 7y ago
> I feel like someone needs to run an education campaign on what HR is and who it works for. HR is there to protect the business. The problem with running that campaign is that the actual companies, which have much more ability to "educate", will say the exact opposite. "We're different," they say. "We really care about our employees." And as with insurance, one doesn't really find out how good the product is until something pretty bad happens. I'll also note that in my experience, HR often fails to reach the level of protecting the business. HR's first goal is to protect HR, especially at a dysfunctional company.
A4ET8a8uTh0 7y ago
I could not agree more. I too was once somewhat naive individual thinking HR is there to, you know, make work a place where I don't have to fear of having to go to work each morning. I won't bore with details. The unit had a high turnover. Since a good chunk of those were people, who eventually just quit, it did not affect company's employment insurance. The boss was the worst boss I could wish on anyone. Eventually, being a young idiot, I went to HR to complain since it was getting really bad. It helped that a day before I went, another person quit in a rather explosive fashion. Anyway, moments after HR talk I was placed on an improvement plan of sorts. I won't give you the whole back and forth, but I survived 4 months before I found something better. As my wife would attest, I was coming back from work livid. But manager in question was friends with CEO and numbers look good. HR looks at this says: couple of burned out people is just cost of doing business. Bottom line is.. if you are going to HR, you better have a plan.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
fhood 7y ago
This can change. Sure HR will almost always protect the organization, but I hope we are coming to the point where it is unequivocally more damaging to these companies to sweep these issues under the rug rather than dealing with them properly.
- mercer 7y ago
  How do you see that happening? As long as HR is department paid by the organization, how is there any way, structurally, for said department to change? How would said change translate to 'less damaging' in a way that is measurable enough that stakeholders will care? As much as unions can be problematic, at least there's at least a possibility they'll pick the worker's side.
chrisseaton 7y ago
I think you may be misunderstanding. The idea is that a large HR department knows how to do things legally correctly. People hope that a large corporate HR department is going to be at least following the law, which is a step up compared to a tiny company with no HR expertise that may do things unprofessionally. I don't think anyone's under a misapprehension that having an HR department means they're going to side with you.
- mercer 7y ago
  I'd say the very assumption that those who 'own' the output of your labor, especially in larger companies, is hopelessly but understandably naive.
  - brazzy 7y ago
    I think you're missing half a sentence in there.
    - mercer 7y ago
      Oops, I does appear I accidentally part of the sentence.
eweise 7y ago
They are there to protect the business. One way they do that is by ensuring that the business follows the law. So, they are aligned the the interests of the employees up to a point.
- rat9988 7y ago
  Unless they think you cannot prove it.
- p_l 7y ago
  Only so long as they don't decide that not following the law vigorously isn't better for any reason. Said reason might not be well thought through.
itsmhuang 7y ago
If that's the case, who do you report sexual harassment to?
- 08-15 7y ago
  The police.
- Traster 7y ago
  Well, its difficult- and it's important to realise that there's not going to be some perfect resolution. A lot of people simply decide fighting isn't worth it and move on to other companies. If it's very serious, you can obviously contact the police. In my opinion if you consider your position and you do want to pursue complaining about harassment the first thing to do is contact a third party for advice. In the UK you can contact acas.org.uk who will give impartial advice about what your rights are. I'm sure there are equivalent organisations elsewhere about what your rights are, if you really are all out of options contact /r/legaladvice but obviously take that advice with a pinch of salt. A good rule of thumb is you need contemporaneous records of what you're complaining about - whether that is a diary or inducing the person you're accusing to put their suggestions in writing (eg, via email) and keeping a copy of that outside of work. Telling people outside of work what's happening also helps. Obviously solving these sorts of problems within the company's HR system isn't great, but it really is the only resolution you can have beyond law enforcement, and even if you succeed in getting your harraser disciplined or removed your career will be damaged. But the point is that if you know your legal rights and have a strong record of what you're complaining about then the HR equation changes- no longer are you someone to brush off, now you're someone who poses a legitimate threat to cost the company money (and more importantly, if the HR person screws up dealing with the issue it'll be a black mark against hem, so they may well decide it's best to take your side). But remember, every single meeting, every single issue needs recording, time and date. And it's for the exact reason this article demonstrates - if you have a noted timeline saying "25th July - I complained about X, I was told "A",27th July- HR told X, 28th July - X initiated a performance conversation with me" it becomes much much easier to demonstrate retaliation - and because it's easier for you to prove, it makes it much more likely the company will want to avoid you actually demonstrate that in arbitration or court.
puszczyk 7y ago
> someone needs to run an education campaign on what HR is and who it works for. HR is there to protect the business What I still don't understand is why the uber HR acted this way. I think people understand that HR is there for the company, but the assumption is that they want to avoid any bad press. If they protect a person who is a multiple offender. And this person is not C*E or high ranking manager, just a regular "high performer" (what does it even suppose to mean). What's the outcome going to be. Isn't it obvious that at some point this will generate a bad press for the company. And the bad press will be more costly than replacing the offender. Also, when they fire an offender they are likely to "send a message" and avoid some offenses in the future. I totally don't get how on earth protecting a "high performer" and sexual offender is good for the business. -- Unrelated but I wonder what happened to the HR folks that handled these cases. What would have been their line of defense — "I was only following orders", "I didn't want any trouble in the team"? Do they have good careers now because the next employers consider them loyal? Do they have hard time because they did poor job protecting uber?
- arvinsim 7y ago
  It's never as simple as a moral equation. You must take account office politics and the connections people have inside the company. For all we know, that guy might be a friend of a CEO, a relative of HR, etc.
- SideburnsOfDoom 7y ago
  Point well made that quite often, "the right thing" and "protect the company" are the same, because "protect the abuser" is not good for the company, good publicity etc. However, people often act for short term gain at the cost of long-term pain. I think that it's fair to say that Uber did when they repeatedly tried to "make the problem go away".
- magduf 7y ago
  >I totally don't get how on earth protecting a "high performer" and sexual offender is good for the business. It probably isn't, in the long run, but it IS good for the HR chief's career to keep the executives happy, and the "high performing" sexual predator is probably a good buddy of the executives. And as for the good of the business, why should the executives care about that (in the long run)? As long as it performs well for the next few years, that's good enough, because the executives will move on by then.

dstroot 7y ago

So very well said.

devchix 7y ago

This aphorism that HR is there to protect the company -- I hear it all the time and it's terribly cynical, while also probably true. Why must it be this way; asked another way, why do we accept that it must be this way, that every time we engage HR it must be with the understanding that they are the adversary. Why go to HR at all, why even have HR, why not fold it all in the legal counsel's office? Why can't HR be what they purportedly say they are, with all the videos and the role-playing and the seminars that everyone hate-attends yearly? Back to the article - I'm always sad and surprised that there are women doing the work of defending bad actors by attacking the whistle-blowing women. From the article: > "One woman called Fowler, claiming to be a PI working on a case against Uber; when Fowler got off the phone, she discovered the firm the woman worked for pretty much exclusively helped companies discredit people who’d been sexually harassed or assaulted." cf. Lisa Bloom in the Harvey Weinstein case, it's damning as Bloom vociferous claims to be on the side that believes and defends the women accusers.

catalogia 7y ago
As far as I can tell, 'HR departments' that advocate for the interests of workers rather than the company exist, and are called 'unions.'
zajd 7y ago
> Why can't HR be what they purportedly say they are Because the owners pay them, not the employees
jerf 7y ago
"Why must it be this way[?]" Follow the money. I don't mean that as snark; I'm serious. I think people in general don't follow the money enough. Even some people who occasionally advocate for it are very selective about it and frequently just treat it as a slur to deploy sometimes. But it's more important than that. It should always be part of the analysis of a business. If you aren't paying for it, you aren't the beneficiary of it. In the case of HR, if you are a productive, profit-center worker for the company, you may in fact at least be partially paying for it, and may get treated accordingly, though I wouldn't count on that for much. But if you are not clearly in that category....
- ccsnags 7y ago
  Large companies can combat this by aligning its incentives to include worker well-being and retention as part of their equation. Unhappy workers and revolving-door hiring costs real money. Quantifying these values in terms of dollars can be helpful for creating a work place that encourages personal growth and increases positive feedback for workers in terms of money/bonuses for all levels. You have to put worker relations in terms of money to get the needle to move, but when you do, you will be shocked how much good you can do for the workers if you can quantify their unhappiness and morale. Doing the right thing is often just a matter of paying attention to the right metrics. Not every company is short-sited on labor. Companies are in a position to create win-win scenarios for its workers and the bottom line if the incentives are aligned.
- downerending 7y ago
  It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair

whoisjuan 7y ago

"Toby is in HR, which technically means he works for corporate, so he's really not a part of our family. Also, he's divorced, so he's really not a part of his family." - Michael Scott

wpietri 7y ago

> I feel like someone needs to run an education campaign on what HR is and who it works for. HR is there to protect the business. The problem with running that campaign is that the actual companies, which have much more ability to "educate", will say the exact opposite. "We're different," they say. "We really care about our employees." And as with insurance, one doesn't really find out how good the product is until something pretty bad happens. I'll also note that in my experience, HR often fails to reach the level of protecting the business. HR's first goal is to protect HR, especially at a dysfunctional company.

A4ET8a8uTh0 7y ago

I could not agree more. I too was once somewhat naive individual thinking HR is there to, you know, make work a place where I don't have to fear of having to go to work each morning. I won't bore with details. The unit had a high turnover. Since a good chunk of those were people, who eventually just quit, it did not affect company's employment insurance. The boss was the worst boss I could wish on anyone. Eventually, being a young idiot, I went to HR to complain since it was getting really bad. It helped that a day before I went, another person quit in a rather explosive fashion. Anyway, moments after HR talk I was placed on an improvement plan of sorts. I won't give you the whole back and forth, but I survived 4 months before I found something better. As my wife would attest, I was coming back from work livid. But manager in question was friends with CEO and numbers look good. HR looks at this says: couple of burned out people is just cost of doing business. Bottom line is.. if you are going to HR, you better have a plan.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

fhood 7y ago

This can change. Sure HR will almost always protect the organization, but I hope we are coming to the point where it is unequivocally more damaging to these companies to sweep these issues under the rug rather than dealing with them properly.

mercer 7y ago
How do you see that happening? As long as HR is department paid by the organization, how is there any way, structurally, for said department to change? How would said change translate to 'less damaging' in a way that is measurable enough that stakeholders will care? As much as unions can be problematic, at least there's at least a possibility they'll pick the worker's side.

chrisseaton 7y ago

I think you may be misunderstanding. The idea is that a large HR department knows how to do things legally correctly. People hope that a large corporate HR department is going to be at least following the law, which is a step up compared to a tiny company with no HR expertise that may do things unprofessionally. I don't think anyone's under a misapprehension that having an HR department means they're going to side with you.

mercer 7y ago
I'd say the very assumption that those who 'own' the output of your labor, especially in larger companies, is hopelessly but understandably naive.
- brazzy 7y ago
  I think you're missing half a sentence in there.
  - mercer 7y ago
    Oops, I does appear I accidentally part of the sentence.

eweise 7y ago

They are there to protect the business. One way they do that is by ensuring that the business follows the law. So, they are aligned the the interests of the employees up to a point.

rat9988 7y ago
Unless they think you cannot prove it.
p_l 7y ago
Only so long as they don't decide that not following the law vigorously isn't better for any reason. Said reason might not be well thought through.

itsmhuang 7y ago

If that's the case, who do you report sexual harassment to?

08-15 7y ago
The police.
Traster 7y ago
Well, its difficult- and it's important to realise that there's not going to be some perfect resolution. A lot of people simply decide fighting isn't worth it and move on to other companies. If it's very serious, you can obviously contact the police. In my opinion if you consider your position and you do want to pursue complaining about harassment the first thing to do is contact a third party for advice. In the UK you can contact acas.org.uk who will give impartial advice about what your rights are. I'm sure there are equivalent organisations elsewhere about what your rights are, if you really are all out of options contact /r/legaladvice but obviously take that advice with a pinch of salt. A good rule of thumb is you need contemporaneous records of what you're complaining about - whether that is a diary or inducing the person you're accusing to put their suggestions in writing (eg, via email) and keeping a copy of that outside of work. Telling people outside of work what's happening also helps. Obviously solving these sorts of problems within the company's HR system isn't great, but it really is the only resolution you can have beyond law enforcement, and even if you succeed in getting your harraser disciplined or removed your career will be damaged. But the point is that if you know your legal rights and have a strong record of what you're complaining about then the HR equation changes- no longer are you someone to brush off, now you're someone who poses a legitimate threat to cost the company money (and more importantly, if the HR person screws up dealing with the issue it'll be a black mark against hem, so they may well decide it's best to take your side). But remember, every single meeting, every single issue needs recording, time and date. And it's for the exact reason this article demonstrates - if you have a noted timeline saying "25th July - I complained about X, I was told "A",27th July- HR told X, 28th July - X initiated a performance conversation with me" it becomes much much easier to demonstrate retaliation - and because it's easier for you to prove, it makes it much more likely the company will want to avoid you actually demonstrate that in arbitration or court.

puszczyk 7y ago

> someone needs to run an education campaign on what HR is and who it works for. HR is there to protect the business What I still don't understand is why the uber HR acted this way. I think people understand that HR is there for the company, but the assumption is that they want to avoid any bad press. If they protect a person who is a multiple offender. And this person is not C*E or high ranking manager, just a regular "high performer" (what does it even suppose to mean). What's the outcome going to be. Isn't it obvious that at some point this will generate a bad press for the company. And the bad press will be more costly than replacing the offender. Also, when they fire an offender they are likely to "send a message" and avoid some offenses in the future. I totally don't get how on earth protecting a "high performer" and sexual offender is good for the business. -- Unrelated but I wonder what happened to the HR folks that handled these cases. What would have been their line of defense — "I was only following orders", "I didn't want any trouble in the team"? Do they have good careers now because the next employers consider them loyal? Do they have hard time because they did poor job protecting uber?

arvinsim 7y ago
It's never as simple as a moral equation. You must take account office politics and the connections people have inside the company. For all we know, that guy might be a friend of a CEO, a relative of HR, etc.
SideburnsOfDoom 7y ago
Point well made that quite often, "the right thing" and "protect the company" are the same, because "protect the abuser" is not good for the company, good publicity etc. However, people often act for short term gain at the cost of long-term pain. I think that it's fair to say that Uber did when they repeatedly tried to "make the problem go away".
magduf 7y ago
>I totally don't get how on earth protecting a "high performer" and sexual offender is good for the business. It probably isn't, in the long run, but it IS good for the HR chief's career to keep the executives happy, and the "high performing" sexual predator is probably a good buddy of the executives. And as for the good of the business, why should the executives care about that (in the long run)? As long as it performs well for the next few years, that's good enough, because the executives will move on by then.