Question for HR people...
Discussion
wsurfa said:
Unfortunately most have such limited knowledge that they are unlikely to know what they need to know
Sorry to say you’re about right with that, I’ve had dealings with so many poor HR people, a basics course for the lot of them would be amazing. It truly seems to be the Chris Grayling of the corporate world. How about a top 10 every HR person should know, I’m not in HR but I’m interested.
Jasandjules said:
krisdelta said:
Sorry to say you’re about right with that, I’ve had dealings with so many poor HR people, a basics course for the lot of them would be amazing.
Exactly, what basics do they need?I see such a variation, the question is what "core" information would assist?!?!
- Accurate role description
- Key requirements and nice-to-have’s of candidates
- Managing communication with hiring manager and any agency involved
- Ensuring fair selection process takes place
- Negotiating and knowing what to pay people
- Induction and checking in with new hires
- Providing resources and support for managing high / low performers
- Highlighting flight risks and mitigation’s for the business
- Managing exit interviews and putting feedback to good use
I think my experience has been (as a candidate, employee, pat leave user and hiring manager) that I’ve had to wrestle information from HR to help me, sought confirmation, rather than having a competent go-to person who just made it all work from any angle. The only profession more fraught with muppetry in my experience, are auditors.
My interest revolves around Employment Law as that is what I can offer to teach them... Some pitfalls to avoid. It is just that some of the real world situations I have found are somewhat basic and I presumed all would know this before so I wanted to look to see what tricks and tips HR would want to know about to avoid Employment Law issues..
As an HR person I am curious to know what the top 10 things are that commonly crop up needing employment law advice to rescue a case or situation.
HR is a broad church and most haven't studied law. I am fortunate that I studied a law degree and started the LPC but it doesn't make me a lawyer.
HR is a broad church and most haven't studied law. I am fortunate that I studied a law degree and started the LPC but it doesn't make me a lawyer.
I’m an HR person. I handle most things in house, including empathy and employment law, but will generally seek specific advice on TUPE, pensions (scheme closure etc) and some aspects of discrimination legislation. Large scale redundancy I would always run past our legal advisers too.
c8bof said:
I’m an HR person. I handle most things in house, including empathy and employment law, but will generally seek specific advice on TUPE, pensions (scheme closure etc) and some aspects of discrimination legislation. Large scale redundancy I would always run past our legal advisers too.
What about things like MSA? Do you deal with the statements and policies or farm it out?No need to take advice on Grievance processes and so on?
In reality a lot is to do with risk management. If we do x what are the possible outcomes and what are the risks associated.
As an example in the UK the law will say that an HR1 must be submitted under certain redundancy circumstances, what are the risks if you don't do this. If for example
1.) You'll try and screw everyone for the minimum, or less, or
2.) Everyone will receive 4-30x the cap per year of service
If mgt think that HR cry wolf because 'you cant do x because y or it's illegal' but they never see consequences, then they are likely to take more and more high risk decisions. If they can explain the risk environment and how to minimise within commercial constraints, then they are much more likely to be successful. HR being rules & payroll (pay&rations) only means they will have no perceived benefit to the business, and their views will be treated as such.
TBH if businesses treated employees more like commodities/assets then they'd be much more likely to be successful.
Sotheby's don't leave art work in s
tty damp conditions, Shell don't let most of their oil leak away, they spend huge amounts of money/time perfecting the conditions to find, acquire, develop and keep/maximise value from those commodities/assets.
For some reason many businesses don't think the same way about their people, some probably spend more time on how they buy printer paper than how they manage/dev/retain etc their people.
As an example in the UK the law will say that an HR1 must be submitted under certain redundancy circumstances, what are the risks if you don't do this. If for example
1.) You'll try and screw everyone for the minimum, or less, or
2.) Everyone will receive 4-30x the cap per year of service
If mgt think that HR cry wolf because 'you cant do x because y or it's illegal' but they never see consequences, then they are likely to take more and more high risk decisions. If they can explain the risk environment and how to minimise within commercial constraints, then they are much more likely to be successful. HR being rules & payroll (pay&rations) only means they will have no perceived benefit to the business, and their views will be treated as such.
TBH if businesses treated employees more like commodities/assets then they'd be much more likely to be successful.
Sotheby's don't leave art work in s
tty damp conditions, Shell don't let most of their oil leak away, they spend huge amounts of money/time perfecting the conditions to find, acquire, develop and keep/maximise value from those commodities/assets. For some reason many businesses don't think the same way about their people, some probably spend more time on how they buy printer paper than how they manage/dev/retain etc their people.
Jasandjules said:
What about things like MSA? Do you deal with the statements and policies or farm it out?
No need to take advice on Grievance processes and so on?
Modern Slavery Act? Hasn’t touched us yet but I’m now googling to see if I’ve missed something we should have been thinking about. Other policies - depends on the complexity as to whether or not I take legal guidance. No need to take advice on Grievance processes and so on?
Grievance - again, depends on the complexity and issue. Governance related or allegations of fraud / financial misconduct issues will have me speak to legal - we are a regulated third sector organisation.
What is your reason for asking?
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff