Hacker News Reader

Comment by unityByFreedom | Hacker News Reader

That speaks to me. After salary negotiations, HR within companies has never done anything for me when I approached them.

They seemed to be there only to defend the boss and register me as a complainer. It took me several jobs and this post to learn that.

View on HN

> HR within companies has never done anything for me when I approached them....

The thing you need to keep in mind about HR is this: they aren't there to help you, to have your back. They're there to protect the company from you. Incidental to that, they've traditionally managed the benefits the company is either required or chooses to give you, and acts as a place for you to take concerns such as sexual harassment. But even in those cases, their duty is to the company, not to any individual employee.

Yep. And I think it takes a while for that to sink in for young people. They are more idealistic and assume that things are set up to be beneficial to everyone. They aren't. HR is there to make sure there is no blowback on the company and they do a lot of shitty things to make that true.

I believe there are some good HR groups out there who truly do look out for the long term interests of their companies.

I think what's good for me, if I'm a hard worker, is also good for the company.

Certainly I'm my best advocate. Even a union couldn't do everything for me.

How does one protect oneself in cases of sexual impropriety then? This seems like a pretty dangerous flaw. To be completely honest I've always felt that HR has been the "police" of the workplace, there to keep issues like this from getting out of control (as it most certainly did in the case of OP). Now I feel much more exposed...

HR's role is to advise management on how to adhere to labor law. Often times they also handle record keeping for legal purposes, including reporting of sexual harassment. But they're not there to protect you. They're there to protect management from itself.

> How does one protect oneself in cases of sexual impropriety then?

Document, document, document. Not because you're going to sue, but because this is rarely a 1-off situation and when the class action comes around you will be prepared with ammunition.

Document everything then lawyer up. I noticed the OP never mentioned contacting a lawyer, which is a total "wow" after reading the story.

Bosses who harass employees and a culture that encourage such things present a much larger risk to the company than a single employee's complaints, so in a well-functioning company their incentives align with policing these issues. But it's still worth keeping in mind that their incentives are not your incentives, and if they have given up on keeping the company culture healthy, their interests will be oppossed to yours.

This is true, but I think you've overstating HR's loyalty to other individuals in the company.

When an employees places a complaint against another employee, neither of those parties is "the company", even when one is in management. If the subject of the complaint is breaking laws, HR (who has the company's back) is rightfully incentivized to show that person the door. That person is a liability, and the company will have to pay if it is sued for that individual's behavior.

If you're running the HR to mediate a personal fight, sure, there's a decent chance they'll side with the person with more organizational clout. But if you're bringing to light evidence of legal wrongdoing, HR is _absolutely_ supposed to be on your side. The company needs to know that, and protecting the company looks like firing the offending party.

> When an employees places a complaint against another employee, neither of those parties is "the company", even when one is in management. If the subject of the complaint is breaking laws, HR (who has the company's back) is rightfully incentivized to show that person the door.

Which is exactly what happens... When the harasser is not a 'Top performer' in a culture that claims to reward meritocracy.

The best way I've heard it discussed is that too many people focus on the wrong word in HR. It's not Human Resources, it's Human Resources. Understanding that seems to be the critical step in getting HR and understanding why they are the way they are.

Every time I hear advice along these lines (which is precisely every single time anyone talks about HR), I always wonder what these HR people are taught in school. I think they have Human Resources related majors in school right? And I'm assuming a good amount of the people in HR have studied that, so then is this what they learn in school? To treat employees like shit and lie to them? I'm really curious.

HR has been fine with me.

Arranging the paperwork to ensign then arranging the paperwork to resign.

Forwarding some more paperwork for taxes, HMRC, benefits, pension and various things that pop up at times.

Arranging interviews, candidates feedback loop, on-site events, university recruiting events, some conferences, offers, etc...

Maybe I just have better than you guys.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com