4 ms·

LMAO how is that “ruling with an iron fist”? You got that person fired! And no, I am a programmer who does not work in HR. Nobody is saying HR is infallible. B

LMAO how is that “ruling with an iron fist”? You got that person fired! And no, I am a programmer who does not work in HR. Nobody is saying HR is infallible. But a mistake like “HR had a silly policy around hiring” is not as bad for an organization as “the director of engineering got drunk, harassed an intern, and threatened to fire her if she complained.”

leesalminen 6y ago
I only fired them because they had been doing this to other hiring managers without my knowledge for months. So they had been ruling with an iron fist against what was best for the company. This was at a time when the company was growing customer base by 100% every few months and we needed people ASAP. HR decided it was marginally easier for them if everyone started on the 1st, harming productivity of value-add departments. Making your life marginally better at the expense of company growth is ruling with an iron fist. Every department needs to be willing to do what it takes to sustain growth. > “the director of engineering got drunk, harassed an intern, and threatened to fire her if she complained.” It’s unclear to me how HR is any different from the CEO here. If any employee at my company experienced sexual harassment I would expect them to come to me, and said Director would be out the door within minutes. No need for HR there. If anything they’re just another hoop the victim has to jump through.
- lupire 6y ago
  What if the intern was lying or it was a misunderstanding? What if the intern was afraid you'd think they were lying or it was a misunderstanding? What if the intern assumed that you support the director's behavior since you out the director in a high ranking position? If the intern trusted you, why why would HR be a hoop they had to jump through? How many employees do you have that rampant start date abuse had been going on without your knowledge?
  - leesalminen 6y ago
    I think that’s a fair criticism. It’s certainly a harder problem than I let on. A CEO can be as shitty, or more shitty, than HR. I hope I’ll never be viewed as less helpful than HR to anyone I employ. Still, though, most of those issues can still apply to HR. IME, employees rarely trust HR departments to be on their side in a dispute. They’re paid by the company to look after the company’s interests, after all.
- jcadam 6y ago
  > It’s unclear to me how HR is any different from the CEO here. If any employee at my company experienced sexual harassment I would expect them to come to me, and said Director would be out the door within minutes. No need for HR there. If anything they’re just another hoop the victim has to jump through. I agree with this - if a CEO tolerates bad behavior (such as sexual harassment) in their company, having an HR department or not will make little difference.
  - ojnabieoot 6y ago
    This is true (Ubisoft is an extremely good example - there, HR exists to protect the cabal of creeps who run the company). But if a CEO does not tolerate bad behavior, HR is an indispensable tool for protecting workers from unscrupulous managers and colleagues, and for allowing safe whistleblowers. It is ridiculous (and, frankly, suspicious) to suggest the CEO can handle it by themselves.

leesalminen 6y ago

I only fired them because they had been doing this to other hiring managers without my knowledge for months. So they had been ruling with an iron fist against what was best for the company. This was at a time when the company was growing customer base by 100% every few months and we needed people ASAP. HR decided it was marginally easier for them if everyone started on the 1st, harming productivity of value-add departments. Making your life marginally better at the expense of company growth is ruling with an iron fist. Every department needs to be willing to do what it takes to sustain growth. > “the director of engineering got drunk, harassed an intern, and threatened to fire her if she complained.” It’s unclear to me how HR is any different from the CEO here. If any employee at my company experienced sexual harassment I would expect them to come to me, and said Director would be out the door within minutes. No need for HR there. If anything they’re just another hoop the victim has to jump through.

lupire 6y ago
What if the intern was lying or it was a misunderstanding? What if the intern was afraid you'd think they were lying or it was a misunderstanding? What if the intern assumed that you support the director's behavior since you out the director in a high ranking position? If the intern trusted you, why why would HR be a hoop they had to jump through? How many employees do you have that rampant start date abuse had been going on without your knowledge?
- leesalminen 6y ago
  I think that’s a fair criticism. It’s certainly a harder problem than I let on. A CEO can be as shitty, or more shitty, than HR. I hope I’ll never be viewed as less helpful than HR to anyone I employ. Still, though, most of those issues can still apply to HR. IME, employees rarely trust HR departments to be on their side in a dispute. They’re paid by the company to look after the company’s interests, after all.
jcadam 6y ago
> It’s unclear to me how HR is any different from the CEO here. If any employee at my company experienced sexual harassment I would expect them to come to me, and said Director would be out the door within minutes. No need for HR there. If anything they’re just another hoop the victim has to jump through. I agree with this - if a CEO tolerates bad behavior (such as sexual harassment) in their company, having an HR department or not will make little difference.
- ojnabieoot 6y ago
  This is true (Ubisoft is an extremely good example - there, HR exists to protect the cabal of creeps who run the company). But if a CEO does not tolerate bad behavior, HR is an indispensable tool for protecting workers from unscrupulous managers and colleagues, and for allowing safe whistleblowers. It is ridiculous (and, frankly, suspicious) to suggest the CEO can handle it by themselves.