Human Resources

[FridgeMagnet]

That's like saying that mods are the 'enemy'. Tar the whole lot because of a function that trys to balance policing with justice

No it isn't. The function of HR is to mollify workers for the benefit of the company, get them to cause as little trouble as possible and stitch them up if they can't be persuaded otherwise. They're employed by the company. You honestly think the company is interested in "balancing policing with justice"?

 

[franklin1777]

You honestly think the company is interested in "balancing policing with justice"?

The good HR departments in the good companies are.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

The only examples that I can think of are when they have no other choice, when they have to be prepared to negotiate because they're faced with strong unions.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Even in situations where you'd think they had an interest in treating workers well - e.g. in sellers' market areas like certain IT branches - they don't. They don't understand the concept and they try to treat people like shit every time.

 

[Guineveretoo]

I am a full time trade union official and legal adviser (employed by the union, not elected). I have done this work, and similar, for about 20 years.

I don't agree that all HR people are bad, or even that the HR function is bad. In fact, I often recommend managers to get their HR folks involved, when they are considering what they should do with regard to people they manage.

Of course there are some bad HR folks. There are bad trade unionists, too.

Overall, in my considered view, organisations who employ a properly trained HR specialist are able to provide a better service to their staff and their managers (and, usually, are more willing to work with trade unions) than those without.

So there!

 

[Derian]

No it isn't. The function of HR is to mollify workers for the benefit of the company, get them to cause as little trouble as possible and stitch them up if they can't be persuaded otherwise. They're employed by the company. You honestly think the company is interested in "balancing policing with justice"?

It depends on the organisation - much as it depends upon the nature of the boards- using my analogy.

The function of HR in organisations is very similar to that of a moderator on boards.

Do you disagree?

 

[Guineveretoo]

The only examples that I can think of are when they have no other choice, when they have to be prepared to negotiate because they're faced with strong unions.

On the contrary. I have experience of HR people bringing in the union because they realise that the individual is not getting the advice they need. As a rule, HR specialists don't negotiate with unions as such.

You do seem to have some bad experiences of working with HR professionals, though, and I don't want to detract from that, but please don't suggest that the whole lot are bad, or that the function isn't helpful.

 

[Derian]

I am a full time trade union official and legal adviser (employed by the union, not elected). I have done this work, and similar, for about 20 years.

I don't agree that all HR people are bad, or even that the HR function is bad. In fact, I often recommend managers to get their HR folks involved, when they are considering what they should do with regard to people they manage.

Of course there are some bad HR folks. There are bad trade unionists, too.

Overall, in my considered view, organisations who employ a properly trained HR specialist are able to provide a better service to their staff and their managers (and, usually, are more willing to work with trade unions) than those without.

So there!

Excellent post

 

[Guineveretoo]

Even in situations where you'd think they had an interest in treating workers well - e.g. in sellers' market areas like certain IT branches - they don't. They don't understand the concept and they try to treat people like shit every time.

Yep - you have had some bad experiences of poorly trained and improperly motivated HR professionals.

This is NOT the norm.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Yes, entirely.

The function of a moderator is to keep the boards running and operational. The function of HR is to maximise profit for the company as regards hiring and firing and contract disputes etc. Unless you have for-profit boards, which we don't have here, the two are not similar.

 

[Guineveretoo]

Excellent post

Hi-five!

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Yep - you have had some bad experiences of poorly trained and improperly motivated HR professionals.

This is NOT the norm.

Except that it's applied to every single HR situation I've ever encountered, and every single one that anyone I know has every encountered, and furthermore follows logically from who pays them and why.

 

[Guineveretoo]

Yes, entirely.

The function of a moderator is to keep the boards running and operational. The function of HR is to maximise profit for the company as regards hiring and firing and contract disputes etc. Unless you have for-profit boards, which we don't have here, the two are not similar.

I am afraid this is really not true about HR. HR professionals are not recruited for this purpose at all, but, at worst, to ensure that the management of an organisation is aware of the current employment legislation and how to hire and fire people without ending up in court, getting bad publicity, and having to pay out costs.

At best, the HR professionals' role is to keep an organisation and its workforce running efficiently and effectively, recognising that the workforce is the most valuable asset and that, if for this reason alone, they need to be motivated and supported.

 

[Guineveretoo]

Except that it's applied to every single HR situation I've ever encountered, and every single one that anyone I know has every encountered, and furthermore follows logically from who pays them and why.

In my 20 plus years as a trade union official, I have had experience of HR people across a really wide spread of organisations and employers. I have, of course, met bad ones. And I have made complaints against some of them. Sometimes, they were so senior that I wasn't able to, and I had to grit my teeth and try and work with the bastards.

But I can promise you that what you describe is not the norm in any of the areas where I work or have worked.

 

[Derian]

Yes, entirely.

The function of a moderator is to keep the boards running and operational. The function of HR is to maximise profit for the company as regards hiring and firing and contract disputes etc. Unless you have for-profit boards, which we don't have here, the two are not similar.

Well. I don't know who you are replying to, because you haven't quoted.

Whilst making some obvious assumptions ... moderators keeps boards running and functional. Some moderators also have admin responsibilities - techie stuff - let's put the techie stuff aside.

Moderators keep the boards running and operational. Out the trolls. Sack the disruptors. Look after the core users.

HR staff help to keep business operational. Out the trolls in probationary periods (or longer). Sack the poor performers/poor conduct users. Look after the core staff.

What's the difference?

 

[Derian]

Hi-five!

 

[FridgeMagnet]

<edit: unnecessarily aggressive of me, in retrospect, sorry>

The function of HR in a company is explicitly to manage personnel. This is clearly going to be done on the basis of the best interests of the company, if they are employed by them - why bother otherwise? Out of the goodness of their hearts?

They know the legislation so that they won't be fucked by it, and this can make negotiation shorter, certainly, since you don't have to go around proving that actually practice X is illegal. But the motivation, unless you manage to get some freak who thinks that they're there to help people (a trainee) is to fuck the worker. If they didn't do that, they'd get the sack.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Well. I don't know who you are replying to, because you haven't quoted.

Whilst making some obvious assumptions ... moderators keeps boards running and functional. Some moderators also have admin responsibilities - techie stuff - let's put the techie stuff aside.

Moderators keep the boards running and operational. Out the trolls. Sack the disruptors. Look after the core users.

HR staff help to keep business operational. Out the trolls in probationary periods (or longer). Sack the poor performers/poor conduct users. Look after the core staff.

What's the difference?

Are you taking the piss? You really don't see the difference between keeping a board running and fulfilling the interests of the board of a company? You actually think moderators "look after the core users"? Who is the board of Urban? What interests do they have that moderators fulfil? What policies do they define which determine how moderators behave so that profit is maximised?

 

[Guineveretoo]

Okay, this thread is getting personal, so I am leaving it.

I am sorry that you are not prepared to consider that there may be another perspective, particularly when I did try to acknowledge your unfortunate experiences, but it is quite clear that this is not a reasoned debate, so I don't think I want to take part in it.

Shame really, since it looks to me as if it could have been resolved, in that some of what you said is pretty much the same as I had already said.

Oh well. Onwards and upwards. I find it vaguely surreal that I am on here, ostensibly arguing in support of human resources as a function, anyway!

 

[FridgeMagnet]

<edit: unnecessarily aggressive of me, in retrospect, sorry>

 

[Derian]

Are you taking the piss? You really don't see the difference between keeping a board running and fulfilling the interests of the board of a company? You actually think moderators "look after the core users"? Who is the board of Urban? What interests do they have that moderators fulfil? What policies do they define which determine how moderators behave so that profit is maximised?

I might be wrong.

OK.

Thinking about it for a moment.

Editor has set up the boards. Editor can't be everywhere at once - needs some ground rules to make sure that the boards reflect his idealogy and operational practices - within the law.

Editor appoints mods to assist with that objective. The role of the mods inevitably means a policing function balanced with a cultural judgement. Great if all mods can rise to the occasion and fulfill this function to the satisfaction of all concerned. Yeah ... well... there will always be the dissenters blah blah blah.. But the silent majority support.

Sounds exactly the same as an HR function to me - in terms of a business environment.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Except that the motivations of the editor are not the same as the motivations of a private company; quite the opposite in fact, it's a money-losing proposition. And the moderators are not actually employed by the editor, we don't get a penny. And they are given pretty much a free hand.

As opposed to a situation where our function is defined by word from on high, which comes from on the basis of the interests of a tiny group of people, mostly financial but sometimes simply random, and one's financial health depends on maintaining the approval of said people.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Oh, and there's the "no money involved" thing as well, being banned has very little effect on someone's life.

 

[Derian]

Motivations aren't all about money.

Not all HR people or TU people get paid.

Status and hierarchy aren't necessarily rewarded by money.

I'm joining Guineveretoo at this point. Carry on with the HR/TU employment advice.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Which HR people don't get paid?

 

[Derian]

Which HR people don't get paid?

I can't generalise. But I don't charge for much work that I do for some individuals, and for some organisations that are in financial trouble. For example.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

You're some sort of freelance HR person?

You're not at all typical.

 

[Derian]

I am, yes.

I'm as typical, atypical, or stereotypical as anyone that does my job. Or who is my race. Or gender. Or class.

 

[equationgirl]

I am afraid this is really not true about HR. HR professionals are not recruited for this purpose at all, but, at worst, to ensure that the management of an organisation is aware of the current employment legislation and how to hire and fire people without ending up in court, getting bad publicity, and having to pay out costs.

One HR person in my uni offered a colleague of mine a weekend at a health spa in response to said colleague's launch of an action of sexual harassment and bullying against another employee after 2 years of being stonewalled by HR about dealing with this individual.

HR have repeatedly try to bully my colleague into dropping her grievances and it is only due to her integrity that she has not given in.

I have very little faith in HR departments.

I myself am trying to get a full-time job in industry and have so far encountered HR 'professionals' who belittle and verbally attack me in interviews and those who advertise vacancies through several recruitment agencies at once as well as on their company websites. My applications are rarely acknowledged, and I consider myself lucky if I'm informed of the outcome of the application at all. Most of the time I think my application disappears into a black hole. If I try to chase my application, I'm treated as if I'm being a nuisance.

 

[Streathamite]

What the hell is a Human Resources department?

better known as a Human Remains department!