With good policies and good people, you don't need "HR". I would argue he has HR just without a centralized department. Although either way, the only good HR is no HR.
HR sucks.
HR sucks.
Ever.
I think that the thing to keep in mind here is that HR, like legal, isn't for when things are going well. This comment sort of assumes that you'll never have a harassment problem, nobody will ever have an issue with getting their FMLA "approved", and the company will never have a performance problem that requires letting someone go in a way that won't get you sued.
These things all happen, and there's a lot of No True Scotsmanning in the idea that they only happen to bad companies/people.
Edit: I don't like HR either, but I'm very unlikely to need them to keep my boss from harassing me.
Just because some people in HR suck and don't do this doesn't mean that's not what their job is a.
As I have repeatedly said on this thread, some HR people being bad does not mean that isn't what HR does/is supposed to do. You're painting with an inappropriately large brush here.
My experience is that HR conspires with managers to serve their aims, so why not just deal with your manager?
Its such an adversarial and sanctimonious position. You know absolutely nothing about me.
Everyone has blind spots created by the confluence of their intrinsic and environmental characteristics. Pointing out where someone might be missing something because it doesn't apply to them has nothing to do with moral superiority. Conversely, declaring that you won't _interact_ with people who say certain things is pretty preachy and adversarial.