5 ms·

that is because HR exists to protect the company, not the employee. it would be a big media storm if that aforementioned reverse thing happened.

selcuka 4y ago
This doesn't explain why this one wasn't escalated as it has become a media storm as well.
- bathtub365 4y ago
  HR exists to protect the company, but they still have to be good at their jobs.
  - Slothrop99 4y ago
    True. And HR is not necessarily this intelligent diabolical force "protecting the company". They are often the biggest source of company gossip! If they see you on their level, they'll say all kinds of stuff. They probably assumed this manager would have some sense and stop getting drunk and touching abs, and then went into ass-covering mode when she went on the warpath. When you have a division between salary and wage workers, HR has a certain role. Between managers, its all politics.
- za3faran 4y ago
  You can bet they didn't think it would.
  - justinjlynn 4y ago
    A systematic and impartial third party review of Google's HR incident and report system's records and/or HR incident related communications records would likely indicate just how much they did, or did not, think it would be an issue.
hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
> that is because HR exists to protect the company, not the employee I kind of get annoyed when this statement is bandied about. Not because it's false, but because it's brought up in cases like this one where if HR were actually doing their job well, they would have protected the company by doing a real investigation. That is, one of the primary purposes of HR is "keep the company from getting sued." But, in many cases, that goal aligns with someone who has a valid, verifiable complaint. For example, if you are being sexually harassed and want it to stop, a good HR team will absolutely do their best to make that happen, because if they don't they are opening the company up to huge liability. Not saying everything is always 100% cut and dry (particularly when the accused is somewhere very high up and the company thinks it would cause great disruption to fire them), but reading through the details on this case, that doesn't really appear to be true. I'm certainly not making a judgement since we've only read one side of the story, but I do push back strongly against the idea that HR didn't intervene because they wanted to protect the company.
- foepys 4y ago
  But aren't you just repeating what GP said? HR protecting the employee is coincidental, not their primary goal. From an employee perspective it is a gamble to trust HR to help them, even if HR were doing their job.
  - hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
    The GP was arguing that this was an expected outcome because HR's primary goal is to protect the company. I'm arguing that this was an unexpected outcome precisely because HR's primary goal is to protect the company.
- voytec 4y ago
  > if HR were actually doing their job well, they would have protected the company by doing a real investigation. In a case like this, HR expects the victim to back down. It may be assumed as a likely outcome based on the percentage of cases where this happens.
Aunche 4y ago
> that is because HR exists to protect the company, not the employee. This honestly makes me think that a lot of the story is heavily exaggerated. Why would HR entertain a hypothetical that could only get them in trouble?
- lelanthran 4y ago
  > This honestly makes me think that a lot of the story is heavily exaggerated. Why would HR entertain a hypothetical that could only get them in trouble? Because it ordinarily doesn't get the company in trouble? HR cannot see into the future, you know, and from their PoV, ignoring a male's complaint against a female doesn't usually result in any media firestorm, while investigating a female on the word of a male does.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
Thorrez 4y ago
By making that statement HR was definitely not protecting the company.
- lelanthran 4y ago
  > By making that statement HR was definitely not protecting the company. They couldn't have foreseen that this would blow up, but they almost certainly would have predicted company damage if they had NOT parroted the line about white male aggressors.
  - Thorrez 4y ago
    I don't understand how refraining from saying that quote to him would lead to company damage.
    - lelanthran 4y ago
      > I don't understand how refraining from saying that quote to him would lead to company damage. He's not the audience for that quote. As we've seen time and time again, a mob will form against almost any company that doesn't parrot lines like that. Companies issuing statements, whether internally or externally, are never going to issue anything that can be construed as less than 100% in support of women. On the other hand, the HR person is just a person, and they sometimes make mistakes, like issuing a statement about their official policy when that policy is supposed to be secret.
      - Thorrez 4y ago
        It sounds to me like it was a quote made to him one on one. How could he not be the audience for it?
        lelanthran 4y ago
        > It sounds to me like it was a quote made to him one on one. How could he not be the audience for it? An official statement from a department is no less official and subject to citation just because it was made to a single person. The official making the statement to the effect of "any and all sexual harassment complaints from women* will be investigated fully and comprehensively"* is saying it because even when it is repeated it is, as far as the issuer of that statement goes, in line with "Protecting the Company from harm". I'm very curious about why you cannot see the statement "any and all sexual harassment complaints from women will be investigated fully and comprehensively" as something that an HR person would find safe enough to repeat, and to be repeated.

selcuka 4y ago

This doesn't explain why this one wasn't escalated as it has become a media storm as well.

bathtub365 4y ago
HR exists to protect the company, but they still have to be good at their jobs.
- Slothrop99 4y ago
  True. And HR is not necessarily this intelligent diabolical force "protecting the company". They are often the biggest source of company gossip! If they see you on their level, they'll say all kinds of stuff. They probably assumed this manager would have some sense and stop getting drunk and touching abs, and then went into ass-covering mode when she went on the warpath. When you have a division between salary and wage workers, HR has a certain role. Between managers, its all politics.
za3faran 4y ago
You can bet they didn't think it would.
- justinjlynn 4y ago
  A systematic and impartial third party review of Google's HR incident and report system's records and/or HR incident related communications records would likely indicate just how much they did, or did not, think it would be an issue.

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago

> that is because HR exists to protect the company, not the employee I kind of get annoyed when this statement is bandied about. Not because it's false, but because it's brought up in cases like this one where if HR were actually doing their job well, they would have protected the company by doing a real investigation. That is, one of the primary purposes of HR is "keep the company from getting sued." But, in many cases, that goal aligns with someone who has a valid, verifiable complaint. For example, if you are being sexually harassed and want it to stop, a good HR team will absolutely do their best to make that happen, because if they don't they are opening the company up to huge liability. Not saying everything is always 100% cut and dry (particularly when the accused is somewhere very high up and the company thinks it would cause great disruption to fire them), but reading through the details on this case, that doesn't really appear to be true. I'm certainly not making a judgement since we've only read one side of the story, but I do push back strongly against the idea that HR didn't intervene because they wanted to protect the company.

foepys 4y ago
But aren't you just repeating what GP said? HR protecting the employee is coincidental, not their primary goal. From an employee perspective it is a gamble to trust HR to help them, even if HR were doing their job.
- hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
  The GP was arguing that this was an expected outcome because HR's primary goal is to protect the company. I'm arguing that this was an unexpected outcome precisely because HR's primary goal is to protect the company.
voytec 4y ago
> if HR were actually doing their job well, they would have protected the company by doing a real investigation. In a case like this, HR expects the victim to back down. It may be assumed as a likely outcome based on the percentage of cases where this happens.

Aunche 4y ago

> that is because HR exists to protect the company, not the employee. This honestly makes me think that a lot of the story is heavily exaggerated. Why would HR entertain a hypothetical that could only get them in trouble?

lelanthran 4y ago
> This honestly makes me think that a lot of the story is heavily exaggerated. Why would HR entertain a hypothetical that could only get them in trouble? Because it ordinarily doesn't get the company in trouble? HR cannot see into the future, you know, and from their PoV, ignoring a male's complaint against a female doesn't usually result in any media firestorm, while investigating a female on the word of a male does.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

Thorrez 4y ago

By making that statement HR was definitely not protecting the company.

lelanthran 4y ago
> By making that statement HR was definitely not protecting the company. They couldn't have foreseen that this would blow up, but they almost certainly would have predicted company damage if they had NOT parroted the line about white male aggressors.
- Thorrez 4y ago
  I don't understand how refraining from saying that quote to him would lead to company damage.
  - lelanthran 4y ago
    > I don't understand how refraining from saying that quote to him would lead to company damage. He's not the audience for that quote. As we've seen time and time again, a mob will form against almost any company that doesn't parrot lines like that. Companies issuing statements, whether internally or externally, are never going to issue anything that can be construed as less than 100% in support of women. On the other hand, the HR person is just a person, and they sometimes make mistakes, like issuing a statement about their official policy when that policy is supposed to be secret.
    - Thorrez 4y ago
      It sounds to me like it was a quote made to him one on one. How could he not be the audience for it?
      - lelanthran 4y ago
        > It sounds to me like it was a quote made to him one on one. How could he not be the audience for it? An official statement from a department is no less official and subject to citation just because it was made to a single person. The official making the statement to the effect of "any and all sexual harassment complaints from women* will be investigated fully and comprehensively"* is saying it because even when it is repeated it is, as far as the issuer of that statement goes, in line with "Protecting the Company from harm". I'm very curious about why you cannot see the statement "any and all sexual harassment complaints from women will be investigated fully and comprehensively" as something that an HR person would find safe enough to repeat, and to be repeated.