5 ms·

Very much this. You always want to be asking HR for an accommodation that is protected by law. Then HR enters into the mode of protecting the company by ensu

Very much this. You always want to be asking HR for an accommodation that is protected by law. Then HR enters into the mode of protecting the company by ensuring they don't get in trouble for violating the law. You go in and say "Hey my wife is dying and my performance is probably going to be impacted, can something be done?", HR may opt to 'protect' the company by starting to build a case for terminating a low performing employee.

tomhallett 5y ago
Oh wow. This (especially with respect to the mental model of the incentives for how a company works on the inside) should be taught in school.
- teekert 5y ago
  You mean as a way to show kids that no morality exists in a context that allows one to be a faceless HR department? Despicable.
  - vkou 5y ago
    You make not like how sociopathic bureaucracies running society operate, but it's important to educate children on how not to get screwed by them.
    - teekert 5y ago
      Is it though? Children learn by example, it's better to shown them things we deem normal and/or desired. Things like compassion. Even when being part of a faceless organization. It's about knowing that people far away are still people that love their children too. It is how we prevent ourselves from repeating the darker pages of our collective history.
PragmaticPulp 5y ago
> You go in and say "Hey my wife is dying and my performance is probably going to be impacted, can something be done?", HR may opt to 'protect' the company by starting to build a case for terminating a low performing employee. That’s the cynical approach, but most companies don’t actually want to lose valuable employees. This is why they have disability insurance coverage in the first place to help cover those gaps (while having the insurance foot the bill). Also, in this case the author says he voluntarily warned them his wife was dying of cancer during the interview process. If HR wanted to get rid of him for that, they would have simply found an excuse to not hire him. Instead they gave him an offer.
- ucm_edge 5y ago
  No, some element of the people operation whose job performance is in part judged on getting engineers through the door wanted to hire him. Likely all that person cared about was "This engineer will make it X months", where X is based on if the employee separates prior to X the recruiter gets yelled at for sourcing a bad candidate. Other parts of the org clearly had no issues branding the employee as a low performer and target for termination because their performance reviews.
- munchbunny 5y ago
  > That’s the cynical approach, but most companies don’t actually want to lose valuable employees. While an abstract rational actor like a company might come to this conclusion, day to day line managers often do not come to the same conclusions. A low performing employee affected by personal issues is dead weight on said line manager's budget and headcount, and therefore their metrics and their own performance and promotion. The trickle-down performance model often doesn't incentivize long-term-focused management practices.
  - crispyambulance 5y ago
    Given that the employee was making ~300K, we can figure that his manager is probably making 50% to 100+% more. I find it mind-boggling that the manager could not find it within himself to give some slack to the employee. I guess maybe he didn't want to slow down the rate at which he was pulling in F-U money.
soperj 5y ago
"May opt"? HR isn't there for you, they are for the employer. Too many people confuse this. They will always protect the company because that's their job.
RGamma 5y ago
A glimpse into the psychology of corporate dystopia.
the_only_law 5y ago
> Then HR enters into the mode of protecting the company by ensuring they don't get in trouble for violating the law. A common complaint is that these sort of massive companies violate all sorts of laws and get by because the fines they receive are relatively tiny to the companies revenue and the infraction. So why would they worry much about this? Is employment law treated differently or punished more harshly when companies violate it?

tomhallett 5y ago

Oh wow. This (especially with respect to the mental model of the incentives for how a company works on the inside) should be taught in school.

teekert 5y ago
You mean as a way to show kids that no morality exists in a context that allows one to be a faceless HR department? Despicable.
- vkou 5y ago
  You make not like how sociopathic bureaucracies running society operate, but it's important to educate children on how not to get screwed by them.
  - teekert 5y ago
    Is it though? Children learn by example, it's better to shown them things we deem normal and/or desired. Things like compassion. Even when being part of a faceless organization. It's about knowing that people far away are still people that love their children too. It is how we prevent ourselves from repeating the darker pages of our collective history.

PragmaticPulp 5y ago

> You go in and say "Hey my wife is dying and my performance is probably going to be impacted, can something be done?", HR may opt to 'protect' the company by starting to build a case for terminating a low performing employee. That’s the cynical approach, but most companies don’t actually want to lose valuable employees. This is why they have disability insurance coverage in the first place to help cover those gaps (while having the insurance foot the bill). Also, in this case the author says he voluntarily warned them his wife was dying of cancer during the interview process. If HR wanted to get rid of him for that, they would have simply found an excuse to not hire him. Instead they gave him an offer.

ucm_edge 5y ago
No, some element of the people operation whose job performance is in part judged on getting engineers through the door wanted to hire him. Likely all that person cared about was "This engineer will make it X months", where X is based on if the employee separates prior to X the recruiter gets yelled at for sourcing a bad candidate. Other parts of the org clearly had no issues branding the employee as a low performer and target for termination because their performance reviews.
munchbunny 5y ago
> That’s the cynical approach, but most companies don’t actually want to lose valuable employees. While an abstract rational actor like a company might come to this conclusion, day to day line managers often do not come to the same conclusions. A low performing employee affected by personal issues is dead weight on said line manager's budget and headcount, and therefore their metrics and their own performance and promotion. The trickle-down performance model often doesn't incentivize long-term-focused management practices.
- crispyambulance 5y ago
  Given that the employee was making ~300K, we can figure that his manager is probably making 50% to 100+% more. I find it mind-boggling that the manager could not find it within himself to give some slack to the employee. I guess maybe he didn't want to slow down the rate at which he was pulling in F-U money.

soperj 5y ago

"May opt"? HR isn't there for you, they are for the employer. Too many people confuse this. They will always protect the company because that's their job.

RGamma 5y ago

A glimpse into the psychology of corporate dystopia.

the_only_law 5y ago

> Then HR enters into the mode of protecting the company by ensuring they don't get in trouble for violating the law. A common complaint is that these sort of massive companies violate all sorts of laws and get by because the fines they receive are relatively tiny to the companies revenue and the infraction. So why would they worry much about this? Is employment law treated differently or punished more harshly when companies violate it?