3 ms·

>> [Workers] tend to see human resources as an extension of corporate dogma meant to reinforce company policies. It is. HR may do other stuff above and beyond

by ethbr1 2y ago

>> [Workers] tend to see human resources as an extension of corporate dogma meant to reinforce company policies. It is. HR may do other stuff above and beyond, but their first priority will always be compliance. Consequently, whether or not HR is the appropriate venue to address your problem boils down to -- "Is this a compliance issue for the company? And if so, will resolving it be in my favor?" (E.g. sexual harassment) If yes/yes, go to HR. If anything else, find another line of redress.

RachelF 2y ago
Interesting that the examples in the article are from Australia. Perhaps employee protection is better in Australia than in the US?
- skissane 2y ago
  Australian law has “unfair dismissal” - if your employer terminates you for “unfair” reasons, then you can take them to court, and if you win you either get reinstated or compensated. Very different from the “at-will employment” which prevails in much of the US. (I put "unfair" in quotes because it is ultimately about what a court concludes is unfair, based on the legislation and case law, which might not be the same as what you or I think is unfair.) It is worth pointing out it only applies if your annual salary is less than the "high income threshold", which is currently AU$175,000 (approximately US$107,000). They increase that amount every year, and their definition of "income" excludes certain things (such as bonuses). If your income is above that, you can't sue under unfair dismissal law, although you still can sue for common law breach of contract (which is more difficult, however–employers generally try to word employment contracts to maximise their freedom to terminate you, although there is always the chance a court will find the relevant terms of the contract legally invalid, at least as applied to your particular case.) https://www.fwc.gov.au/high-income-threshold https://www.fwc.gov.au/high-income-threshold
jimbob45 2y ago
HR needs to adopt a mantra similar to medicine’s “First, do no harm”. If there was any question over whether doctors would ever knowingly hurt patients, the entire profession would halve its patientload over night. Likewise, HR departments are by-and-large good places with helpful and supportive people. However, the fact that they have the ability at all to report your conversations to management means no one trusts them and they become ineffective as a result.
- refulgentis 2y ago
  I get what you're saying, but it's a dizzying problem - the proximate problem to HR in these scenarios isn't that people think HR is bad or worry they'll relay the complaint, it's that HR has no teeth. At Google, I had an...unusual...de-facto manager for 2 years. After declining their offer to join their team, they spent six months engaging in behavior that violated company policies - though not in obvious ways like sexual harassment or violence. Going to HR seemed futile. Even assuming they could keep anonymity, their role is simply to investigate and report to management three levels up. Without clear-cut violations, it becomes a credibility contest. Since upper management selected the middle managers, they're inherently biased toward defending their choices. The situation came to a head between December 1st and January 1st. My performance rating plummeted from "O" (top 10%) to "MI" (bottom 10%) and a technically separate formal warning. Things came to a head because they were nominally leading work that was a huge political warzone between organizations, and they didn't really want to do anything. After I politely demurred their invitation to transfer, they hired a childhood friend as my replacement - they're still launching "new" features with the code I wrote two years ago. I documented various incidents over those six months that violated Google's code of conduct. But even in the best-case scenario: - HR confirms the violations. - They report findings to my third-level manager. - My second-level manager (who chose my de-facto manager) blames me. - The third-level manager (who chose the second-level manager) defers to their choice. I entered Google wondering how they handled professional disagreements. (I was a young CEO for the 5 years prior) Seven years later, I realized they don't - disagreement itself is seen as inappropriate. This dynamic inevitably hurts those lowest in the hierarchy. It's not malicious; everyone believes they're acting appropriately. But once anyone decides to prioritize comfort over strict policy enforcement (a natural human tendency), standard human politics take over. I honestly, swear to god, saw this in abundance at Google in ways I never saw at a fast food job. What I once dismissed as complaints from underperformers now seems depressingly accurate.
- SOLAR_FIELDS 2y ago
  As long as this is an arm of the company and there is no disinterested third party the incentive will always dictate that HR will place the interest of the company over the employee. As the old adage goes (paraphrased): “It’s difficult to make someone believe something when their salary depends on them not believing it”.
mihaaly 2y ago
I find the name expressive. Human RESOURCES. Desks, xerox machine, Vasarely replica in the meeting room, humans, printers, patents and inventions, inventory in the warehouse, etc., all the same. Resources. Buy, sell, replace, act like it worths more than elsewhere. But eventually just items tossed around. ... I had a sceptic smile when one pretended they are better by pinning 'People Manager' designation on the very same person taming this troublesome and risky resource for the very big and famous but utmost caring company that I came across recently. Some seem to feel the weigth of the word (or just trying to pretend ever stronger how caring they are, when the bi-weekly pizza and everyone-is-so-happy-here group photo in company logo t-shirts are just too stale and overused).
toastercat 2y ago
Great point, this reminded me of this great fasterthanlime video about your relationship with your employer: https://youtu.be/52pdPQHDKho?t=373 https://youtu.be/52pdPQHDKho?t=373

by ethbr1 2y ago

RachelF 2y ago

Interesting that the examples in the article are from Australia. Perhaps employee protection is better in Australia than in the US?

skissane 2y ago
Australian law has “unfair dismissal” - if your employer terminates you for “unfair” reasons, then you can take them to court, and if you win you either get reinstated or compensated. Very different from the “at-will employment” which prevails in much of the US. (I put "unfair" in quotes because it is ultimately about what a court concludes is unfair, based on the legislation and case law, which might not be the same as what you or I think is unfair.) It is worth pointing out it only applies if your annual salary is less than the "high income threshold", which is currently AU$175,000 (approximately US$107,000). They increase that amount every year, and their definition of "income" excludes certain things (such as bonuses). If your income is above that, you can't sue under unfair dismissal law, although you still can sue for common law breach of contract (which is more difficult, however–employers generally try to word employment contracts to maximise their freedom to terminate you, although there is always the chance a court will find the relevant terms of the contract legally invalid, at least as applied to your particular case.) https://www.fwc.gov.au/high-income-threshold https://www.fwc.gov.au/high-income-threshold

jimbob45 2y ago

HR needs to adopt a mantra similar to medicine’s “First, do no harm”. If there was any question over whether doctors would ever knowingly hurt patients, the entire profession would halve its patientload over night. Likewise, HR departments are by-and-large good places with helpful and supportive people. However, the fact that they have the ability at all to report your conversations to management means no one trusts them and they become ineffective as a result.

refulgentis 2y ago
I get what you're saying, but it's a dizzying problem - the proximate problem to HR in these scenarios isn't that people think HR is bad or worry they'll relay the complaint, it's that HR has no teeth. At Google, I had an...unusual...de-facto manager for 2 years. After declining their offer to join their team, they spent six months engaging in behavior that violated company policies - though not in obvious ways like sexual harassment or violence. Going to HR seemed futile. Even assuming they could keep anonymity, their role is simply to investigate and report to management three levels up. Without clear-cut violations, it becomes a credibility contest. Since upper management selected the middle managers, they're inherently biased toward defending their choices. The situation came to a head between December 1st and January 1st. My performance rating plummeted from "O" (top 10%) to "MI" (bottom 10%) and a technically separate formal warning. Things came to a head because they were nominally leading work that was a huge political warzone between organizations, and they didn't really want to do anything. After I politely demurred their invitation to transfer, they hired a childhood friend as my replacement - they're still launching "new" features with the code I wrote two years ago. I documented various incidents over those six months that violated Google's code of conduct. But even in the best-case scenario: - HR confirms the violations. - They report findings to my third-level manager. - My second-level manager (who chose my de-facto manager) blames me. - The third-level manager (who chose the second-level manager) defers to their choice. I entered Google wondering how they handled professional disagreements. (I was a young CEO for the 5 years prior) Seven years later, I realized they don't - disagreement itself is seen as inappropriate. This dynamic inevitably hurts those lowest in the hierarchy. It's not malicious; everyone believes they're acting appropriately. But once anyone decides to prioritize comfort over strict policy enforcement (a natural human tendency), standard human politics take over. I honestly, swear to god, saw this in abundance at Google in ways I never saw at a fast food job. What I once dismissed as complaints from underperformers now seems depressingly accurate.
SOLAR_FIELDS 2y ago
As long as this is an arm of the company and there is no disinterested third party the incentive will always dictate that HR will place the interest of the company over the employee. As the old adage goes (paraphrased): “It’s difficult to make someone believe something when their salary depends on them not believing it”.

mihaaly 2y ago

I find the name expressive. Human RESOURCES. Desks, xerox machine, Vasarely replica in the meeting room, humans, printers, patents and inventions, inventory in the warehouse, etc., all the same. Resources. Buy, sell, replace, act like it worths more than elsewhere. But eventually just items tossed around. ... I had a sceptic smile when one pretended they are better by pinning 'People Manager' designation on the very same person taming this troublesome and risky resource for the very big and famous but utmost caring company that I came across recently. Some seem to feel the weigth of the word (or just trying to pretend ever stronger how caring they are, when the bi-weekly pizza and everyone-is-so-happy-here group photo in company logo t-shirts are just too stale and overused).

toastercat 2y ago

Great point, this reminded me of this great fasterthanlime video about your relationship with your employer: https://youtu.be/52pdPQHDKho?t=373 https://youtu.be/52pdPQHDKho?t=373