3 ms·
This is an interesting idea, but I think you need to clarify what "HR department" means here. Because companies will just get around this by calling HR somethin
by pcthrowaway 3y ago
This is an interesting idea, but I think you need to clarify what "HR department" means here. Because companies will just get around this by calling HR something else, and I don't think it's practical for any serious company with employees to not have someone doing HR-adjacent duties.
- baq 3y agoI'd leave that for the lawmakers and courts, not an expert. Same goes for the definition of "unions". The point is HR is always acting in the interest of the company first (if you're surprised, you're probably young and work at a tech megacorp) and if the interests of employees are aligned with these (again, usually the case at tech megacorps), all is fine and dandy. Unions are needed when those interests start to diverge as individual employees have basically zero negotiating power and it's in the interest of the company to exploit that to the maximum legally achievable level - pure game theory. IOW I see the perfect union as an HR-but-for-employees department. Real unions are obviously broken by individuals exploiting unions they're part of.
- binary132 3y agoClearly we just need an “HR on the side of the union” that manages the union member adversarially. :P