Poll: HR - Why?
Total Members Polled: 107
Discussion
A while back there used to be a (small) department called Personnel, with a couple of nice ladies who would help out staff who had admin-type problems.
Now there is a whole division called "Human Resources" who are into every bloody aspect of work, represented on management committees, setting policy (and checking compliance with those policies), introducing ridiculous interviewing procedures and job application processes (and selection criteria!). They are now generally acting as though they have done everything useful, overstayed their welcome and are simply dreaming up new things to do.
I would get rid of 80% of them. Nobody would notice.
I guess this should potentially be in the "business" forum, but I doubt anybody would agree with me there, as that is probably where most of them spend their day.
Now there is a whole division called "Human Resources" who are into every bloody aspect of work, represented on management committees, setting policy (and checking compliance with those policies), introducing ridiculous interviewing procedures and job application processes (and selection criteria!). They are now generally acting as though they have done everything useful, overstayed their welcome and are simply dreaming up new things to do.
I would get rid of 80% of them. Nobody would notice.
I guess this should potentially be in the "business" forum, but I doubt anybody would agree with me there, as that is probably where most of them spend their day.
It depends on the size of the business - once you have over 100 employees (I'm guessing) then you probably need a specialist department. Compliance with employment law and the increase in litigant employees (and candidates) means you need them.
I went from running a company of 40 people to one with 12,500 employees. I felt far happier without HR people in my life who were, by and large, how you describe them. Worse actually.
So I find I can't vote! I recognise the need for them and yet hate their pathetic 'politically correct' nonsense.
Mello said:
A while back there used to be a (small) department called Personnel, with a couple of nice ladies who would help out staff who had admin-type problems.
Now there is a whole division called "Human Resources" who are into every bloody aspect of work, represented on management committees, setting policy (and checking compliance with those policies), introducing ridiculous interviewing procedures and job application processes (and selection criteria!). They are now generally acting as though they have done everything useful, overstayed their welcome and are simply dreaming up new things to do.
I would get rid of 80% of them. Nobody would notice.
I guess this should potentially be in the "business" forum, but I doubt anybody would agree with me there, as that is probably where most of them spend their day.
HR departments are an absolute bane.Now there is a whole division called "Human Resources" who are into every bloody aspect of work, represented on management committees, setting policy (and checking compliance with those policies), introducing ridiculous interviewing procedures and job application processes (and selection criteria!). They are now generally acting as though they have done everything useful, overstayed their welcome and are simply dreaming up new things to do.
I would get rid of 80% of them. Nobody would notice.
I guess this should potentially be in the "business" forum, but I doubt anybody would agree with me there, as that is probably where most of them spend their day.
My wife is a senior manager in the public sector, and a few years back she had an absolute nightmare of an employee - disruptive, unreliable, rude, divisive etc etc. He was doing serious damage to a previously excellent scheme.
My wife quite rightly decided that he needed to go. Instead of taking her side as a Senior Manager, HR immediately took his side and seemed to think they were some kind of unnofficial Union reps fighting to preserve the job of a comrade.
He did go, but my missus and her senior colleagues were utterly disgusted by the power and irresponsibility wielded by the much more junior "staff" of the HR Department.
kwits, girls that get promotions by giving head and the sort I would not piss on if they were on fire.
kambites said:
"HR" are better than "finance".
As a Finance Director I'd disagree with that - a good Finance team can add a lot of value to the business.FWIW : the HR division ( Yes there are that many of them)...in the PE owned business where I work are overmanned , underskilled , and mainly useless...having no real interaction with the business
alfaman said:
kambites said:
"HR" are better than "finance".
As a Finance Director I'd disagree with that - a good Finance team can add a lot of value to the business.FWIW : the HR division ( Yes there are that many of them)...in the PE owned business where I work are overmanned , underskilled , and mainly useless...having no real interaction with the business
How can someone, let alone an entire department of thousands of people, not understand that laying a contractor off on March the 20th and then giving you funding to get a new one on April the 2nd does NOT only lose 13 days work?
At least HR don't actually do anything. The short-termism of our finance department is killing the company I work for.
Edited by kambites on Wednesday 25th February 20:44
We are blighted with 3 different lots of HR people (who shall all be nameless):-
1. Retained HR, who are employed by the company. They deal with day-to-day stuff, salaries, disciplinary issues, etc.
2. "Outsourced HR company 1", who deal with the recruitment of contract staff and graduates.
3. "Outsourced HR company 2", who deal with the recruitment of permanent staff.
Retained HR just seem to spend all their time coming up with arty farty ways of measuring absence, performance, etc. as a means of justifying their pointless existence. All these things actually do is distract the managers from doing their primary tasks. I know how my staff are performing without being "metricated" into oblivion, thank you!
"Outsourced HR company 1" used to deal with all recruitment, but were spectacularly useless. They would typically take so long to complete each step of the process that many prospective employees got fed up waiting and accepted jobs elsewhere. Hence we have now gone to a second company for the recruitment of permanent staff. We're told it will be better now....
One of the main issues with the kind of arrangement we have is that most of the non-HR people in the business simply don't understand who in HR does what, which makes it easy for each of the HR factions to shift blame & responsibility around so that no-one is ever accountable for any problems.
Another problem is that when you phone "Outsourced HR company 1" you speak to a different person each time, so there's no continuity and you have to start from scratch each time you phone about an unresolved issue. One of my staff phoned them on one occasion and asked to speak to a particular individual, only to be told "sorry, you can't, she hasn't got a phone".
HR? Better off without them.
1. Retained HR, who are employed by the company. They deal with day-to-day stuff, salaries, disciplinary issues, etc.
2. "Outsourced HR company 1", who deal with the recruitment of contract staff and graduates.
3. "Outsourced HR company 2", who deal with the recruitment of permanent staff.
Retained HR just seem to spend all their time coming up with arty farty ways of measuring absence, performance, etc. as a means of justifying their pointless existence. All these things actually do is distract the managers from doing their primary tasks. I know how my staff are performing without being "metricated" into oblivion, thank you!
"Outsourced HR company 1" used to deal with all recruitment, but were spectacularly useless. They would typically take so long to complete each step of the process that many prospective employees got fed up waiting and accepted jobs elsewhere. Hence we have now gone to a second company for the recruitment of permanent staff. We're told it will be better now....
One of the main issues with the kind of arrangement we have is that most of the non-HR people in the business simply don't understand who in HR does what, which makes it easy for each of the HR factions to shift blame & responsibility around so that no-one is ever accountable for any problems.
Another problem is that when you phone "Outsourced HR company 1" you speak to a different person each time, so there's no continuity and you have to start from scratch each time you phone about an unresolved issue. One of my staff phoned them on one occasion and asked to speak to a particular individual, only to be told "sorry, you can't, she hasn't got a phone".
HR? Better off without them.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff