Hacker News Reader

Comment by degradas | Hacker News Reader

There is book a called Corporate Confidential [1], written by a former HR person. One of most significant ideas there is that HR is (from the perspective of an employee) not your friend, but rather an enemy. They exist to protect the company, not you. Basically, going to HR is a quick way to get fired (for legal reasons, mind you) or kill your career.

Whole book is highly depressing, but very useful if you want to try to climb up the ladder.

[1] http://www.amazon.com/Corporate-Confidential-Secrets-Company...

View on HN

Totally agree- the primary purpose of HR is to protect a company from lawsuits brought by its own employees.

By establishing that they have policies against sexual harassment, discrimination, etc. etc. the company can say that there's no "systemic problem", and any particular incidents therefore must be the fault of the individual employees concerned and not the company itself.

They need HR to exist in so far as it allows them to tell this story to a judge if it ever does turn into a lawsuit.

It's simply not worth approaching HR. Talk to a lawyer before you talk to HR. You would only want to talk to HR if you were willing to sue your employer, which itself is only worthwhile doing if the amount of money you could win is sufficient that you won't need to work again (because in any public case, other employers are also going to avoid employing someone who has a history of suing their employer... as much as they legally can).

For anything more trivial than that, the best defense against an abusive employer is to be employable elsewhere. If you are willing and able to walk away and into another job, you'll be treated much better, regardless of any specific HR policies.

P.S. it made me laugh to see that the book hyper link is to amazon.com - how's that for irony!

I worked in HR a few times and this is right.

Not because the people there are assholes. They are really nice and want to employ everybody forever. But they just can't.

Often the leadership of HR is the problem.

In civil service, the HR bosses were all about getting their friends and family a job. In the free marked, they wanted to minimize costs and legal obligations to the employees. The rest of the HR-workforce just has to suck it up and they often don't like it...

> Not because the people there are assholes. They are really nice and want to employ everybody forever.

Some. Maybe. But there is also something to be said for being really cut out for a particular line of work. Those types definitely exist as well.

They exist in every profession, HR is no better or worse. Witness the number of startups which end up in PR disasters, etc.

I always thought HR was there to manage the resources the humans need, e.g. teabags. That and justifying their existence by making more resources for the humans. It really does strike me a non-job that requires a lot of work to keep in existence

That's about the only dealings I have with them. I guess that's a benefit of working at a small company :)

On a serious note though, you're right, HR is not your friend, it's there for the companies sack, not yours. I personally have more faith in my immediate manager that HR, at least you have contact with them, vs the nameless/faceless myth that is HR

There are other things as well that are pretty important: Recruiting, performance reviews, and visa sponsorships.

I personally would hate to setup interview loops, having to manage calendars and book rooms, and the amount of paperwork required to hire a candidate that is not a US Resident, boy that would suck too.

...and training, succession planning, workforce planning, onboarding, offboarding, retention and attrition, re-locations, HRIS management, coaching, etc.

Not sure most people really understand what HR does, just as HR arguably doesn't understand what a developer does.

I think a lot people have had very different experience as to what HR does. It can range from the above, to "very little." Its this nebulousness that really accounts for the variety of opinions.

at my employer, many of these are done by our team and we tell HR what we want.

If this is true then that's real bad for Bezos to come out and say that. It's almost as if he's doubling-down on Amazon's evilness.

It's basically the standard corporatespeak reaction to this kind of negative publicity.

There's another book that's good book called Secrets to Winning at Office Politics[1], it basically says that no one likes a complainer so keep it to a minimum. It also saids that perception is what matters.

The book, like the one you mention, is a little depressing but if you're stuck in a corporate environment and want to avoid being depressed it pays off to pay attention to what the book says.

[1] http://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Winning-Office-Politics-Influe...

I find it Amazing that we managed to get Amazon product links into a story badmouthing Amazon :) Here are some alternate links pulled from a quick google search.

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/corporate-confidential-cynth...

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/secrets-to-winning-at-office...

Back on topic, I too well understand these things, having had a few painful incidents with HR myself. I ended up coming out on top, more or less, in the end, but you have to know that if you have a complaint about someone, you probably will have to confront that person and prove it. I managed to do that, but I would probably have had to leave the company if I hadn't, honestly.

HR was mostly worried about lawsuit potential. My immediate boss was, at least, humane. He even made a point of sitting on 'my side' during the meeting so that I wasn't alone there.

They exist to protect the company, not you.

Sure, but that doesn't mean that they can't be on your side. If you report that your boss is doing something which is against company policy and hurts the company, it's quite possible for HR to be simultaneously on your side and on the company's side.

They can that's was my second point when their interests can temporarily align with yours.

Or actually the actions that stem from their interests also end up benefiting you as a side-effect. Say going public with the story. Well now they are forced to protect the PR image so they will actually do something to fix the problem (move the manager to a different location), give you more money to keep quiet, etc. But they are not doing this for your they are doing it for the company's sake.

Yes - but be careful about the equation, it's something like this:

(Your value + cost of incident - squeaky wheel cost) vs (manager's value)

The incident has to be fairly egregious to tip the scales in your favor, and the squeaky wheel cost can follow you.

That is why a last alternative is to suggest you might go public, it forces their hand because now "cost of incident" can be rather high. As it is PR damage all across the board for the company. Of course, it might fix things in the short term but it won't be forgotten in the long term.

I don't think that an unknown Amazon employee going public could add much to the damage that the current media coverage has already inflicted. HR would probably just shrug it off. Also, taking a dispute with your employer public might cause other companies to think twice about hiring you in the future (your publicity will show up if they Google you). If you're down to your last alternative, it's probably time to find a new job.

It is hard to say. HN makes the development world pretty small. It is like a smaller provincial town where everyone kind of can find out stuff even if they don't know you personally. Damaging the image of a tech company on HN could be serious, it could impact ability to hire in the future.

But you are right, it is the nuclear option. After that even if problem is solved immediately, a stab in the back in the future is expected.

As for future employability, you are right as well. However, I can see a small start-up actually seeking out self-reliant people who have a sense of justice doing what is right. So the quality could also be appealing.

That book is golden - it explains clearly the incentives of the players in the corporate world with concise examples. It should be compulsory reading for every corporate employee, not just ones in pathological environments, so everyone would understand what the true rules of the game are.

That the link is for Amazon is hilariously ironic.

Going to HR is indeed the end. I had one boss suggest that some incredibly minor conflict be solved by HR. Immediately, I knew it was time to change jobs. A few weeks later, when I handed in my resignation, my boss was surprised and tried to get me to stay. I offered them about a 15% increase in pay, but left as they weren't interested. I still don't understand why he'd be surprised. I suppose some people, even after many years in the corporate world, have no idea how it works. So I've come up with something to help me remember:

"Going to HR" === "End of job"

It sounds like your complaint was solved and then you decided to bail. That isn't exactly a damning critique of HR.

I guess that this is just applicable to Corporate America context and the outlook is not as dire as you portray it for other corporate cultures around the world.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com