Your HR Department : How do you feel about them?

Miss Informed

Hi guys,

I've just started an MA and need to decide whether to specialise in finance or HR by the end of this month. I'm really interested in HR, so I'm pretty sure I'll go that direction.

I've noticed that many of my friends, family and even people on the course that I spoke to seem to harbor resentment towards the HR department in their companies and I'm trying to figure out what's going on there. The people I've spoken to often say that the HR dept is pointless, a legal requirement only, and even that HR staff are always b****es!

This could not be the case across the spectrum! In theory, HR is exciting, innovative and focuses on improving the working lives of staff. I'm hoping that I'm not going to find myself in a job that doesn't match up to the ideology of the literature!

I'd love to hear your thoughts guys!

KT10

I've worked for large companies with HR departments and found them to be nothing but a pain in the @rse, only interested in doing things by the book and to the legal letter. I can honestly say nothing they ever did improved my working life, if anything, it only added more stress.

I now work for a much smaller company with no HR dept, and if we have a problem, we solve it like adults by talking things out, not by complaining in secret to department no one likes and ending up getting pulled into "review meetings" with little notice.

endacl

I am my HR department. My HR department rocks. Gave me the morning off today. Totally out of the blue!

bucketybuck

KT10 wrote: »

I've worked for large companies with HR departments and found them to be nothing but a pain in the @rse, only interested in doing things by the book and to the legal letter. I can honestly say nothing they ever did improved my working life, if anything, it only added more stress.

You need to understand who the HR department actually work for.

Hint: They do not exist to help the employees.

pedroeibar1

Miss Informed wrote: »

In theory, HR is exciting, innovative and focuses on improving the working lives of staff.

Most employees start with that presumption (even those in HR!); then they realise that HR is a tool used by management to obtain the maximum amount from staff at the least possible cost / disruption to the company.

As for what to do, if your undergrad is arty and includes for e.g. psychology, a step into HR is a logical move. If you have not done much in finance you might find the going a bit tough (I don’t know what the standard is in Ireland for that course).

I realise you have started, but I’ve always been sort of iffy about those “MA’s” in business – believing that they’re for someone who has an arts degree, realizes a mistake was made and now wants to work in industry. Will they be happy and want to change again? Do I need the headache of again having to invest huge amounts of time/effort in staff training and job recruitment when she leaves? Also, few modules e.g. finance / marketing / communications not going to do much compared to a 3 or 4 yr business degree. Where the MA comes from would count, but generally I'd still favour a BComm or BBS over a MA.

I’d be more inclined to decide in what industry sector I wanted to work and consider doing its professional exams, far more useful/focussed than a general MA.

KlausFlouride

You're unlikely to find anyone with something good to say about HR. One of the biggest costs in any business is personnel, so HR depts. in practice are used by companies to "control" these costs.

micosoft

People always seem to misinterpret what departments and even unions do.

Take for example union recognition. In many businesses they actually prefer to have a Union because you can manage your staff through procedural agreements with the union. If you don't have a union you must manage your staff individually which means more junior management and a bigger HR dept. Anyway, I digress. Let's parse your statement:

HR is exciting. Most of HR work revolves around operations (recruitment, employee paperwork), policy creation and management of certain external parties like pension funds (even then usually through a staff committee). The only time HR becomes "exciting" is during layoffs.
Innovative Innovation at a strategic level tends to actually be carried out by line management and not HR who are a support function. I can't recall the last major innovation that came from HR.
Focuses on improving the working lives of staff. The role of HR is to support line management in carrying out the employment policies of the organisation. They may provide advice to line management on legislation and organisational policy but it's line management that sign off on spending cash that would improve the "lives of staff".

TBH HR would not be my favorite place to be personally - a lot of firms are focused on reducing overheads and automating and outsourcing HR activities. The very senior roles tend to be senior line managers rotated in to get HR management experience which can limit your progression. My suggestion is you decide what area of HR you want to get into and talk to some people. There is more money and job security in Finance if you are still deciding on which to pick.

Mrs OBumble

HR is usually tedious, and the non-tedious bits are high-conflict "dirty" work.

Regular employees are managed by their managers and have little contact with HR except for administrivia (payroll, leave recording).

HR only get involved with problem employees. HR's just is often to get rid of them with minimal cost and risk tot he company.

Consider the employment opportunities - a lot of HR staff are on contract while there is a recruitment (or downsizing) campaign going on, with a minimum number kept on outside of that.

Look at entry level and further opportunities available in each area to see what is available.

Consultancy would be interesting but difficult to get into.

padjo5

Studied HR once upon a time. Indirectly ended up working in HR 10+ years later, it did not resemble what was studied!

There are a lot of areas in 'HR', some of which may appeal to you; L&D, Talent Mgt, Payroll, Projects, Org Development, Recruitment, Benefits, Contracts, Ind Relations, Business Partnering.

Lots of jobs in Finance, you need to like it though! You will know by your gut which holds most appeal to you.

Avatar MIA

Miss Informed wrote: »

a legal requirement only

Having a HR function is not a legal requirement. Although it may lessen the likelihood of employee litigation.

However, you might want to give a quick google of Hard Vs Soft HR.

dudara

Our HR department is largely excellent. Their main role is talent management, rather than the admin aspects. I work for a professional services firm, so our people are our "product". Our HR dept develops & runs learning & development courses, assists with performance management and is a real business partner.

Rachiee

I nearly always harbour resentment to HR because I think HR should be about managing your human resources and the best way to do that is job retention which should be done through treating staff with dignity and respect and supporting them in their work place. In practice HR s job is about how little we can get away with giving our staff, and making sure that policy meets minimum legal requirements forgetting about the companies moral obligations towards staff.
Is it legal for us not to offer sick pay?yes but it's morally reprehensible, but it's legal so HR says it's ok.

ButtersSuki

It takes a certain type of person to work in HR for a large company (multinational type size). Some would say that person needs to be able to talk out of both sides of their mouth at the same time; some would say they need to be able practice duplicity. I think it's much simpler than that - I think you just need to be a nasty c*nt.

As pointed out above many employees mistakenly feel that HR is there to protect them. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I know of one person who bullied engaged in a systematic bullying campaign of his subordinates over a number of years. This person caused 4 people to leave the company and, most seriously, caused the long term hospitalization of an additional 2 people both of whom had displayed suicidial tendencies as a result of the bullying. All 6 made formal complaints. Was any action taken against the perpetrator? No.

HR's response? To get rid of the problem in their eyes, i.e. the people who claimed they were bullied! Have a quick check of what the term "compromise agreement" in a HR Context means - this company doled them out like confetti. Spoke to one of the recipients one day externally when I met him by chance. He said when he went to HR it became all about him and not the bully. He said he brought up all the other people who said they had made complaints and HR refused to discuss anything but his experience (which I get on one level in fairness) but he said in hindsight that given all the stress HR (not the bully!) put him through that he wish he just left and not bothered making the complaint at all.

Needless to say morale was "amazing" in this company.

I was a contractor there, didn't work for the guy so it didn't really affect me, but to see it up close was horrible. The bully is still there and from those I've stayed in touch with is continuing to behave as he always had.


Maybe that's you? But I hope not.

Avatar MIA

ButtersSuki wrote: »

It takes a certain type of person to work in HR for a large company (multinational type size). Some would say that person needs to be able to talk out of both sides of their mouth at the same time; some would say they need to be able practice duplicity. I think it's much simpler than that - I think you just need to be a nasty c*nt.

As pointed out above many employees mistakenly feel that HR is there to protect them. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I know of one person who bullied engaged in a systematic bullying campaign of his subordinates over a number of years. This person caused 4 people to leave the company and, most seriously, caused the long term hospitalization of an additional 2 people both of whom had displayed suicidial tendencies as a result of the bullying. All 6 made formal complaints. Was any action taken against the perpetrator? No.

HR's response? To get rid of the problem in their eyes, i.e. the people who claimed they were bullied! Have a quick check of what the term "compromise agreement" in a HR Context means - this company doled them out like confetti. Spoke to one of the recipients one day externally when I met him by chance. He said when he went to HR it became all about him and not the bully. He said he brought up all the other people who said they had made complaints and HR refused to discuss anything but his experience (which I get on one level in fairness) but he said in hindsight that given all the stress HR (not the bully!) put him through that he wish he just left and not bothered making the complaint at all.

Needless to say morale was "amazing" in this company.

I was a contractor there, didn't work for the guy so it didn't really affect me, but to see it up close was horrible. The bully is still there and from those I've stayed in touch with is continuing to behave as he always had.


Maybe that's you? But I hope not.

Those 4 people need to look up what constitutes constructive dismissal and the ramifications for the company that allows bullying.

ButtersSuki

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Those 4 people need to look up what constitutes constructive dismissal and the ramifications for the company that allows bullying.

It's 6, not 4, just to clarify.

Do you know how much it would cost to take a case to the EAT? Even if you win you will likely have no salary for the period in which the case drags on - there's also an approx 18-24 month waiting list to keep the pressure on in that period. You're fighting huge financial and legal resources - it's real David and Goliath stuff and the company knows this.

That's why they dole out compromise agreements, agreements which are legally binding - and make the victim sign away any right of appeal - in exchange for cash to make the problem go away.

Avatar MIA

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Do you know how much it would cost to take a case to the EAT? Even if you win you will likely have no salary for the period in which the case drags on - there's also an approx 18-24 month waiting list to keep the pressure on in that period.

They need to talk to solicitors. If there are six people in the same position (4 have already left) then you should find a solicitor that will be only too willing to take on the case and postpone fees. You should be able to negotiate a no win no fee if it is very clear cut - at the very least they should get a free first consultation.

If a case goes the full term it will often take 2 years, but quite a number settle before that.

I don't understand the no salary between 18-24 months, haven't 4 already left and as for the other two? Sacking them for taking a legal case would look extremely bad for them.

ButtersSuki wrote: »

That's why they dole out compromise agreements, agreements which are legally binding - and make the victim sign away any right of appeal - in exchange for cash to make the problem go away.

What do you think these 6 people should be looking for?

Compensation?
To get their jobs back?
To get the company to change their ways?

All three - all are possible if desirable by taking a case to the EAT.

Mezcita

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Do you know how much it would cost to take a case to the EAT? Even if you win you will likely have no salary for the period in which the case drags on - there's also an approx 18-24 month waiting list to keep the pressure on in that period. You're fighting huge financial and legal resources - it's real David and Goliath stuff and the company knows this.

There's nothing stopping you from representing yourself in an EAT case. It's very much structured so that anyone can take on a billion dollar multinational corporation if they have been treated unfairly with regards to their employment.

Regarding the loss of salary, you are not prohibited from taking another job while waiting for your case to be heard.

18-24 month time frame is about right.

You are fighting huge legal resources but the key thing is that your bill is negligible when compared to theirs.

ButtersSuki

Mezcita wrote: »

There's nothing stopping you from representing yourself in an EAT case. It's very much structured so that anyone can take on a billion dollar multinational corporation if they have been treated unfairly with regards to their employment.

Yes, if you're assuming this has no emotional impact on the victim. Jot everyone is a robot who can park something of this magnitude and then take on the enormous pressure (emotional, mental and financial) of a court case. This is not a litter fine!

Regarding the loss of salary, you are not prohibited from taking another job while waiting for your case to be heard.

Unless of course you're suicidal or depressed. Yes, ideal circumstances to go looking for a new job. You appear to have a very simplistic view of the impact of bullying - genuine question: do you know anyone who has been the victim of a case of severe bullying? As in it was so bad they had to leave their job or were contemplating suicide?

18-24 month time frame is about right.

Yes, it is - I wasn't just plucking things out of thin air. I'm supporting someone going through this process now. They have been told by their solicitor that delaying is a key part of the company's strategy and tactics to apply as much pressure (financial and emotional etc.) on the victim to make settling outside of court/EAT a way to "take all the pain away". Now imagine if you've left because you couldn't take it anymore and couldn't get a job in the interim, and have only dole to live on?

You are fighting huge legal resources but the key thing is that your bill is negligible when compared to theirs.

Again, a very simplistic view of things. Maybe negligible in terms of actual euros spent, but in terms of % of total income, resources etc., there is no comparison. It's all part of "the game" for the company who ultimately have infinitely more resources than the individual.

Replies above in bold.

ButtersSuki

Avatar MIA wrote: »

They need to talk to solicitors. They all did. All 6 settled - on advice from their solicitors (more than one firm of solicitors involved). Why? Because it's a lot easier than fighting on battling a big machine.

If there are six people in the same position (4 have already left) then you should find a solicitor that will be only too willing to take on the case and postpone fees. You should be able to negotiate a no win no fee if it is very clear cut - at the very least they should get a free first consultation. See above.

If a case goes the full term it will often take 2 years, but quite a number settle before that.
Not in the interests of the employer to settle early - read previous post for more info. on this.

I don't understand the no salary between 18-24 months, haven't 4 already left and as for the other two?
They either left or went on sick leave (stress-related). Company policy in this case has a sliding scale after time periods related to reduction of salary to as low as 33%. It's kinda hard to make ends meet (car payments, mortgage, creche etc.) on 33% of your salary.

Sacking them for taking a legal case would look extremely bad for them. Never said they were sacked. They left voluntarily as they couldn't take it anymore.



What do you think these 6 people should be looking for? were it me I'd want the guy's head on plate. But I wasn't the one involved. What the guy who confided in me said "all I wanted was for it to stop". He didn't want the guy fired, he didn't want compensation. He just wanted to stop. The irony is going to HR and doing what we're all told to do in the case of bullying MADE IT 100 TIMES WORSE.

Compensation? No.
To get their jobs back? Yes. But didn't and won't happen.
To get the company to change their ways? Yes. But didn't and won't happen.

All three - all are possible if desirable by taking a case to the EAT.
In theory, yes. In reality, practicalities and pragmatism take over.

Replies in bold again.

Avatar MIA

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Replies in bold again.

It depends on the levels of compensation they received.

It doesn't make sense that the company i shappy to have 6 cases of bullying that they had to pay out over and don't want to change.

And no point getting angry with the people replying to you.

Mezcita

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Replies above in bold.

I'm speaking from personal experience and while my view on the whole thing might be "simplistic" in your eyes it's a business related situation. In that factually if the employer has failed to follow the rules regarding bullying, conduct, contracts, whatever, the EAT sides with the employee. Have a read of some of the previous determinations here.

https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/Decisions_Determinations/

I appreciate that it's a stressful situation and that lawyers are obviously paid to wind up the stress levels regarding the whole thing. Primarily because companies fear the bad PR from cases like these as the determinations are made public. I do disagree totally about the financial aspect though. I spent €50 on photocopying for my case.

As I said, the EAT is structured so that anyone can make a company account for their employment related decisions when it comes to an individual employee. In terms of the OP's original question, it's the HR department's role to ensure that EVERYTHING is carried out in a clear and fair manner. If they have failed to do that or cannot prove that they acted fairly then they are in big trouble when it comes to the EAT.

ButtersSuki

Avatar MIA wrote: »

It depends on the levels of compensation they received.

It doesn't make sense that the company i shappy to have 6 cases of bullying that they had to pay out over and don't want to change.

And no point getting angry with the people replying to you.

Not getting angry at all. Ever heard the expression tone and text are not the best bedfellows?

Re. this:

It doesn't make sense that the company i shappy to have 6 cases of bullying that they had to pay out over and don't want to change.


I'm obviously not going to name the company but it's a multinational and what they paid out is pennies to them compared to their turnover/profit in Ireland alone (never mind globally). They are known in their industry as being "horrible" to work for (and I'm being polite with that descriptor), do while it may not make "sense" to you, these things happen in the real world.

Re. change; no, they don't want to change. They're too profitable. It's a very macho culture.

What I've committed to print is very top line/tip of the iceberg stuff. There's loads more.

The only reason I even commented on this thread was to dispel the warm and fuzzy image some (and I'm emphasising "some") people have about HR. They're not here to help you, they're there to protect the company AT ALL COSTS.

ButtersSuki

Mezcita wrote: »

I'm speaking from personal experience and while my view on the whole thing might be "simplistic" in your eyes it's a business related situation. In that factually if the employer has failed to follow the rules regarding bullying, conduct, contracts, whatever, the EAT sides with the employee. Have a read of some of the previous determinations here.

https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/Decisions_Determinations/

I appreciate that it's a stressful situation and that lawyers are obviously paid to wind up the stress levels regarding the whole thing. Primarily because companies fear the bad PR from cases like these as the determinations are made public. I do disagree totally about the financial aspect though. I spent €50 on photocopying for my case.

As I said, the EAT is structured so that anyone can make a company account for their employment related decisions when it comes to an individual employee. In terms of the OP's original question, it's the HR department's role to ensure that EVERYTHING is carried out in a clear and fair manner. If they have failed to do that or cannot prove that they acted fairly then they are in big trouble when it comes to the EAT.

Sorry. I'm not discussing this any further after this:

I'm using my phone so I can't highlight/bold/italicise etc. but you used the word "fair" above. HR are not fair! Their role is not to be fair.

I'm glad you were able to represent yourself and appear to have had a satisfactory outcome. However, that suggests to me that your case was on the lower level compared to what I'm referring to, as are the outcomes you've linked to and to suggest that approach will work for everyone is actually dangerous. Ok, you may not have suggested it implicitly but your attitude appears to IMPLY that one can just Rock up to the EAT and sure "when they hear what happened to me" everything will be grand.

So, you disagree on the financial aspect despite the real life example I gave you? No problem, your opinion. I'm not saying anymore for fear of incriminating anyone, naming the company etc. But what I will say is this - not sure how you'd survive on 33% of your salary after 6 months OR €188 per week (if you just quit to make the bullying stop) and then wait 18-24 months for your case to be heard with the expenses I noted. No disrespect but I think we're talking completely different levels here compared to your case.

And that's it. I'm done on this. As per usual on boards people seem more concerned with attacking the poster or nit picking certain points rather than actually reading information placed in front of them. Even the "have a read of...." comment suggests that I don't know much about this topic. I do. Surely my posts on this indicate thus?

OP, if you want to discuss further, you can pm me.

Mezcita

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Sorry. I'm not discussing this any further after this:

I'm using my phone so I can't highlight/bold/italicise etc. but you used the word "fair" above. HR are not fair! Their role is not to be fair.

Numerous people above have noted that HR departments do not behave fairly. My point is that if they cannot show in front of the EAT that they behaved fairly then they will have to explain why.

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Ok, you may not have suggested it implicitly but your attitude appears to IMPLY that one can just Rock up to the EAT and sure "when they hear what happened to me" everything will be grand.

No. The person gets to give their version of events in front of the EAT. That person will win or lose based on their ability to prove facts relating to their employment.

ButtersSuki wrote: »

But what I will say is this - not sure how you'd survive on 33% of your salary after 6 months OR €188 per week (if you just quit to make the bullying stop) and then wait 18-24 months for your case to be heard with the expenses I noted. No disrespect but I think we're talking completely different levels here compared to your case.

Don't think so. I did the whole €188 per week thing as well after I got shoved out.

ButtersSuki wrote: »

And that's it. I'm done on this. As per usual on boards people seem more concerned with attacking the poster or nit picking certain points rather than actually reading information placed in front of them. Even the "have a read of...." comment suggests that I don't know much about this topic. I do. Surely my posts on this indicate thus?

I'm not attacking you at all. I've read what the information you have described and some of it is factually incorrect with regards to how the process works with the EAT.

Best of luck with your friend's case.

Avatar MIA

ButtersSuki wrote: »

But what I will say is this - not sure how you'd survive on 33% of your salary after 6 months OR €188 per week (if you just quit to make the bullying stop) and then wait 18-24 months for your case to be heard with the expenses I noted.

This bit doesn't make any sense. The 4 people that left weren't precluded from working elsewhere.

Your opinions of HR are hardly unique, but I'd not take advice from you either.

ButtersSuki

Avatar MIA wrote: »

This bit doesn't make any sense. The 4 people that left weren't precluded from working elsewhere.

No, technically they weren't. But they were in no mental state to work at the time OR couldn't get a job - this was in the period 2008-10. Make sense now?

Your opinions of HR are hardly unique, but I'd not take advice from you either.
Not asking you to.

Now that really is it. I'm out.

Carlos Orange

I remember a friend of a friend saying they were on a HR course and they were told HR are always on the side of the employee except when it conflicts with the company and it always conflicts.

Avatar MIA

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Now that really is it. I'm out.

One person, maybe two... but six people mentally traumatised. What level of psycho are we talking about? That's criminal behaviour.

Has anyone considered going to the Gardai?

pedroeibar1

Rather a lot of OT fertilizer in many of the posts above. If you have a bullying problem, forget the union touchy feely hugging stuff (they need an excuse to justify themselves).
If the person bullied is in the job for less than 5 years the correct response is to move jobs. What is the point of taking action for bullying or worse? Even if you win its Pyrrhic. The corporate culture has been and is wrong, is unlikely to change short-term and it certainly will not cause the removal of the senior, who in the first stages will be backed by HR/Company and possibly at a much later date removed / sideways. Firms that have that culture/are that badly managed to allow it happen are not worth working for.