Company HR departments. What's the point?
Discussion
Been thinking - what is the point of an HR department from a staff point of view?
They always say, speak to HR if you have any concerns or need guidance/advice.
But surely a company HR department's first priority is the business itself ? - Like when there is a round of redundancies - Speak to HR... why? they're just going to do what's best for the business, not Sandra from Sales.
If the owner of a company is being inappropriate to a member of staff and they go to HR - is it going to get the attention it should? Mr/Mrs HR will understand only too well where their paycheck comes from, may also be interested in progression and 'impressing' so might help sweep under carpet etc?
Shouldn't all employees, in companies with more than 10 people say, have access to an independent HR adviser, paid for by the company?
They always say, speak to HR if you have any concerns or need guidance/advice.
But surely a company HR department's first priority is the business itself ? - Like when there is a round of redundancies - Speak to HR... why? they're just going to do what's best for the business, not Sandra from Sales.
If the owner of a company is being inappropriate to a member of staff and they go to HR - is it going to get the attention it should? Mr/Mrs HR will understand only too well where their paycheck comes from, may also be interested in progression and 'impressing' so might help sweep under carpet etc?
Shouldn't all employees, in companies with more than 10 people say, have access to an independent HR adviser, paid for by the company?
HR are looking after the companies interests, which does not mean ‘covering things up’.
I think the balance between them looking after the employees versus looking after the company changed when they stopped being called Personnel.
My experience of HR in larger companies is that they they largely ensure legal compliance and that employment processes and procedures are fair and are adhered to. Advice given to employees is accurate and honest although often limited to what the company policy is.
If you want independent HR advice then you will need to pay for it just like you need to pay for independent financial advice.
Edit:
I currently have a really good HR business partner who has proved excellent advice when I have had to deal with things like grievances from staff, disciplinary matters and recruitment assessment standardisation. Their input has resulted in a better and fairer processes/outcomes for all involved.
I think the balance between them looking after the employees versus looking after the company changed when they stopped being called Personnel.
My experience of HR in larger companies is that they they largely ensure legal compliance and that employment processes and procedures are fair and are adhered to. Advice given to employees is accurate and honest although often limited to what the company policy is.
If you want independent HR advice then you will need to pay for it just like you need to pay for independent financial advice.
Edit:
I currently have a really good HR business partner who has proved excellent advice when I have had to deal with things like grievances from staff, disciplinary matters and recruitment assessment standardisation. Their input has resulted in a better and fairer processes/outcomes for all involved.
Edited by Scrump on Monday 24th May 17:27
)Hi like anything in work or life there are good ones and bad ones. Finance guys aren't there to give you advice on savings, mortgages, personal tax advice, salaries. Likewise HR folks aren't personal career advisers or there to facilitate you getting enrolled into all the training courses you have on your long list which you think will help you long term in your career.
This last year I've worked on furlough, settlement agreements, redundancy terminations, CV advice, arrangement of outplacement services, collective consultation, facilitating/mediating/counselling of employee manager complaints raised by employees, training of managers to ensure fairness in the application of salary review and performance review processes, developed policies around work experience placements, second jobs plus various others.
This last year I've worked on furlough, settlement agreements, redundancy terminations, CV advice, arrangement of outplacement services, collective consultation, facilitating/mediating/counselling of employee manager complaints raised by employees, training of managers to ensure fairness in the application of salary review and performance review processes, developed policies around work experience placements, second jobs plus various others.
I have never worked in a company with a HR department. I run my own small company but always talk to a third party HR advisor before doing anything in this regard.
My limited experience is that their main concern is making sure you don’t get sued. Can’t see the point in covering anything up. It’s much worse to have an employee lawyered up with proof the company did nothing despite a complaint, because the boss has to stop the behaviour and get sued for the pleasure. That Boss now wants a word with HR about how the f
k it came to that.
That’s just my experience anyway. I have had to deal with complaints about the aggressive nature of my mother who is also a director and minority share holder. Fortunately I could have a ahem “honest” conversation with her about it.
My limited experience is that their main concern is making sure you don’t get sued. Can’t see the point in covering anything up. It’s much worse to have an employee lawyered up with proof the company did nothing despite a complaint, because the boss has to stop the behaviour and get sued for the pleasure. That Boss now wants a word with HR about how the f
k it came to that. That’s just my experience anyway. I have had to deal with complaints about the aggressive nature of my mother who is also a director and minority share holder. Fortunately I could have a ahem “honest” conversation with her about it.
I would say im a pretty good judge of character.
I have never come across a person in HR that doesn't come across as a fake, two faced son of a gun(I always wanted to say that)
I don't personally put any faith or trust in anybody in HR.
I agree that an independent HR department makes sense. Sounds like a good business idea to be honest
I have never come across a person in HR that doesn't come across as a fake, two faced son of a gun(I always wanted to say that)
I don't personally put any faith or trust in anybody in HR.
I agree that an independent HR department makes sense. Sounds like a good business idea to be honest
clio007 said:
I would say im a pretty good judge of character.
I have never come across a person in HR that doesn't come across as a fake, two faced son of a gun(I always wanted to say that)
I don't personally put any faith or trust in anybody in HR.
I agree that an independent HR department makes sense. Sounds like a good business idea to be honest
An outsourced or independent HR type service can be useful. But be prepared to follow all the requirements to receive the indemnity. If you want practical business led advice where you can evaluate the risks and options and choose the best approach for you/company you probably won't find this. There is a reason why most corporate companies do not use Peninsula type HR services. I have never come across a person in HR that doesn't come across as a fake, two faced son of a gun(I always wanted to say that)
I don't personally put any faith or trust in anybody in HR.
I agree that an independent HR department makes sense. Sounds like a good business idea to be honest
HR is not just about a transaction or a piece of advice on a grievance or disciplinary. In the same way a Finance person isn't just about processing expenses or showing you the accounts.
Pixelpeep Z4 said:
But surely a company HR department's first priority is the business itself ?
It is indeed. So too for Marketing, Sales, Production, Accounts, etc...The primary role of an HR department is to administer all employee administration; regulatory compliance, contracts, holidays, etc.
It's often incorrect to look upon HR as the company 'Mum'. Whilst some firms will expand the role of HR to provide pastoral care to staff, this is normally the role of managers and directors. Where this exists, HR will always weight their support to the company unless there has been a transgression of regulation when they are duty bound to resolve the matter. This is why you have external arbitration and Unions to step in from an independent viewpoint.
Like others on here, HR is such an anathema to me after decades in corporations, I refuse to have one in my own business. We use PeopleHR as an online repository for all the HR stuff you need, essential for Home Office visa records etc, and have off-the-shelf policy documents. It should be good up to about 50 staff, after that may need an admin grunt to deal with some things, but not 'own' looking after staff, that is my job.
Edited by SpartacusF on Tuesday 25th May 08:05
StevieBee said:
Pixelpeep Z4 said:
But surely a company HR department's first priority is the business itself ?
It is indeed. So too for Marketing, Sales, Production, Accounts, etc...The primary role of an HR department is to administer all employee administration; regulatory compliance, contracts, holidays, etc.
It's often incorrect to look upon HR as the company 'Mum'. Whilst some firms will expand the role of HR to provide pastoral care to staff, this is normally the role of managers and directors. Where this exists, HR will always weight their support to the company unless there has been a transgression of regulation when they are duty bound to resolve the matter. This is why you have external arbitration and Unions to step in from an independent viewpoint.
Not defending HR but the amount of wuckfits they have to deal with (in terms of both Managers and Employees) would make even the most placid good-natured person a total misanthrope.
On the plus side some surveys that I've carried out confirm that they have a higher than average proportion of hotties, especially in management roles, and that tends to make disciplinary meetings almost enjoyable.
Pixelpeep Z4 said:
Been thinking - what is the point of an HR department from a staff point of view?
They always say, speak to HR if you have any concerns or need guidance/advice.
But surely a company HR department's first priority is the business itself ? - Like when there is a round of redundancies - Speak to HR... why? they're just going to do what's best for the business, not Sandra from Sales.
If the owner of a company is being inappropriate to a member of staff and they go to HR - is it going to get the attention it should? Mr/Mrs HR will understand only too well where their paycheck comes from, may also be interested in progression and 'impressing' so might help sweep under carpet etc?
Shouldn't all employees, in companies with more than 10 people say, have access to an independent HR adviser, paid for by the company?
Whilst employed by the company, HR can be a useful intermediary between individuals in the business. They always say, speak to HR if you have any concerns or need guidance/advice.
But surely a company HR department's first priority is the business itself ? - Like when there is a round of redundancies - Speak to HR... why? they're just going to do what's best for the business, not Sandra from Sales.
If the owner of a company is being inappropriate to a member of staff and they go to HR - is it going to get the attention it should? Mr/Mrs HR will understand only too well where their paycheck comes from, may also be interested in progression and 'impressing' so might help sweep under carpet etc?
Shouldn't all employees, in companies with more than 10 people say, have access to an independent HR adviser, paid for by the company?
Take redundancies. HR are there to look after the interests of the business but also to ensure that the process is carried out correctly and that your rights are looked after.
As for sweeping things under the carpet, in my experience a good HR team will not allow significant transgressions to be swept aside. However, they are there to advise at the end of the day, not dish out punishments.
It's in the interests of the business (and therefore, HR) to ensure that problems are dealt with properly.
IMO, poor practice in the business is the fault of the business, not the fault of HR.
Employment lawyer here who spends a lot of time consulting for various companies.
Most in-house HR personnel I encounter are useless and have next to no knowledge of actual law.
From where I sit, I act entirely for the interests of the company and work to protect it first. If it is screwed then it will need to negotiate with the employee.
I can't see any situation where an in-house HR team can truly act in an impartial way and I would advise any client to get rid of any HR function that can't work out which side their bread is buttered.
My advice to business owners would be to either employ properly qualified in-house professionals or outsource it to a proper HR consulting firm, with outsourced support to HR reps for on-site support where needed.
For employees, make sure you get legal expenses insurance with your home insurance. That should give you free access to employment law advice. Don't rely on Unions - again, in my experience most reps are useless or have their own agendas. ACAS are not there to give advice or take sides. CAB are under funded and most advisors don't have proper training or experience.
Most in-house HR personnel I encounter are useless and have next to no knowledge of actual law.
From where I sit, I act entirely for the interests of the company and work to protect it first. If it is screwed then it will need to negotiate with the employee.
I can't see any situation where an in-house HR team can truly act in an impartial way and I would advise any client to get rid of any HR function that can't work out which side their bread is buttered.
My advice to business owners would be to either employ properly qualified in-house professionals or outsource it to a proper HR consulting firm, with outsourced support to HR reps for on-site support where needed.
For employees, make sure you get legal expenses insurance with your home insurance. That should give you free access to employment law advice. Don't rely on Unions - again, in my experience most reps are useless or have their own agendas. ACAS are not there to give advice or take sides. CAB are under funded and most advisors don't have proper training or experience.
I had a bit of rude awakening as to what the HR function really was when I went from a global privately owned confectionary company to UK public sector. The former has a Personnel Department really did support and help staff, the latter is there to ensure employees meet their contractual obligations, squeeze every last ounce from people and do anything and everything to protect management.
Edited by 21TonyK on Wednesday 26th May 14:25
Pixelpeep Z4 said:
Shouldn't all employees, in companies with more than 10 people say, have access to an independent HR adviser, paid for by the company?
The argument then is, predictably and unavoidably, that the HR adviser is biased by dint of being paid for by the employer.An argument some will extend to occupational health, note takers, etc.
iphonedyou said:
Pixelpeep Z4 said:
Shouldn't all employees, in companies with more than 10 people say, have access to an independent HR adviser, paid for by the company?
The argument then is, predictably and unavoidably, that the HR adviser is biased by dint of being paid for by the employer.An argument some will extend to occupational health, note takers, etc.
There are structures which may cover this such as Unions, Works Councils, Employee Representative bodies, ACAS or CAB type organisations.
HR is broad just like Finance. I understand the employment law criticism. But, most HR folk haven't even completed a law degree let alone have any formal legal qualifications. But HR isn't just about the statutory employment processes. Some employees want a career counseller, some want somebody who can arrange more/better non cash benefits and nicer canteen areas. You don't expect a Finance person to be able to complete statutory accounts, provide personal and corporate tax advice, compete management accounts and also do the financial analysis. In most larger companies these can be distinct roles.
basherX said:
"Human Resources", a departmental name which couldn't have been better constructed to dehumanise employees. As ever, the clue is in the name.
Lol, should be called "Humans as Resources" - where an employee ranks just above items in the stationary cupboard like a stapler. Anyway, it's not the 1990's, the new term is I believe - "Talent Acquisition".
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff