4 ms·

The whole concept of a "human resources" department was developed as a response to workers organizing unions to bargain over terms and conditions of employment.

The whole concept of a "human resources" department was developed as a response to workers organizing unions to bargain over terms and conditions of employment. Whatever the flaws of some unions, they are ultimately economically dependent on their members, and the officers are elected. HR is accountable only to executives. https://inthesetimes.com/article/human-resources-me-too-sexual-harassment-workers-union-labor-ford https://inthesetimes.com/article/human-resources-me-too-sexu...

jacobr1 4y ago
Wasn't the precursor "Personnel Departments" which were more administrative? Especially in a pre-computer era with more literal paperwork? It seems like HR evolved out of that to service more "strategic" business needs, which sure, probably included union busting, but also includes many other functions to serve companies in more competitive environments that are dominated by knowledge work.
- nyolfen 4y ago
  HR departments grew out of fear of compliance with the amorphous legal incentive structures created by federal discrimination laws in the 1970s https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/3322830/Dobbin_StrengthWeakState.pdf?sequence=2 https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/3322830/Dobbin_S... > The continuing ambiguity of compliance standards led management writers to advocate permanent antidiscrimination offices to track legal shifts. Because the courts were so fickle, Marino (1980, p. 25) advised executives to adopt the “Good-Faith-Effort Strategy,” the heart of which was a special office designed to signal that the employer was making every effort to figure out how to comply. In a Harvard Business Review article, Antonia Chayes (1974, p. 81) noted that “vigorous enforcement” had brought “serious top management attention to antidiscrimination legislation....Now the penalties imposed under employment discrimination laws are seen as posing a severe financial threat.” She advised executives to set up EEO and AA programs that could prevent lawsuits. Meanwhile, compensation of upper managers was being tied to affirmative action performance, and this led them to support dedicated antidiscrimination departments. this may sound familiar

jacobr1 4y ago

Wasn't the precursor "Personnel Departments" which were more administrative? Especially in a pre-computer era with more literal paperwork? It seems like HR evolved out of that to service more "strategic" business needs, which sure, probably included union busting, but also includes many other functions to serve companies in more competitive environments that are dominated by knowledge work.

nyolfen 4y ago
HR departments grew out of fear of compliance with the amorphous legal incentive structures created by federal discrimination laws in the 1970s https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/3322830/Dobbin_StrengthWeakState.pdf?sequence=2 https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/3322830/Dobbin_S... > The continuing ambiguity of compliance standards led management writers to advocate permanent antidiscrimination offices to track legal shifts. Because the courts were so fickle, Marino (1980, p. 25) advised executives to adopt the “Good-Faith-Effort Strategy,” the heart of which was a special office designed to signal that the employer was making every effort to figure out how to comply. In a Harvard Business Review article, Antonia Chayes (1974, p. 81) noted that “vigorous enforcement” had brought “serious top management attention to antidiscrimination legislation....Now the penalties imposed under employment discrimination laws are seen as posing a severe financial threat.” She advised executives to set up EEO and AA programs that could prevent lawsuits. Meanwhile, compensation of upper managers was being tied to affirmative action performance, and this led them to support dedicated antidiscrimination departments. this may sound familiar