'HR is not your friend': why frustrated workers are hiring reps of their own
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
It's admittedly pretty cynical, but at this point I treat HR meetings more like police interrogations, and keep my answer short, minimal, and utilitarian, knowing what I say can and will be used against me. It's not fair to the HR people, most of them are perfectly nice, but they're in a position that's often inherently antagonistic towards workers, since they're generally only called when you're in trouble.
... and that they were standing by the manager's decision.
(I didn't expect any different, to be honest. I'm not that naive. But it was straight up acknowledged that the manager had been dishonest with both me, and HR, but because of their larger investment in him, that was the way they were going to go.)
Not sure why anyone would think that they are 'neutral' or trying to help employees against the interests of the company.
In a lot of orgs, an HR rep is the first person a new hire will interact with and IME they're usually very helpful, and kind -- at that point. It's not hard to see why someone unfamiliar with corporate politics or structure would see HR favorably if that's their only experience.
I think my point is, HR reps can be rather deceptive, and in some extreme cases, deliberately so. So I understand your point from a logical perspective, but thankfully, the reality is logic doesn't drive everyone.
There's a certain portion of the population who isn't skeptical of kindness, and accepts it at face value.
Chalk it up to naivety or youthful/willful ignorance, if you must. Whatever the reason there are folks who choose to see the good in people, and not constantly question their motives.
As a reformed cynic, I'd really recommend giving it a try. I personally find it less depressing way to walk though the world.
It was purely factual and about duties (as in duties of an employee).
I think it is when people mix up all the moral concept you mention with facts and legal duties that people indeed get indeed confused.
HR may absolutely appear friendly and helpful, and they can really be so because it is their job to help you succeed as an employee, that is to say to deliver value for the company. It is not their job to help you act against the company. In fact it is their job, as it is for all employees, to work in the company's best interests (that's called fiduciary duty).
Perhaps another issue is that some, perhaps naive, people do not understand the nature (in the factual and legal sense) of employment.
For many people, if someone is helping them and being extremely nice, they're not going to question why; they're just gonna sidle up with them and enjoy the time with their new friend.
Corporations are not people. A corporation is basically a superorganism made up of people, but functions differently. The HR person is probably a genuinely decent human, but fundamentally they still have to do their job, which is (like basically all of us) dictated by their higher-ups. Their job isn't to be your best friend, it's to make the company more money.
Ideally, it is by resolving the problem. Sometimes they need to fire someone, and in order to fire someone without the risk of a lawsuit (in a lot of jurisdictions) they kind of have to substantiate the case. Usually they and the manager will put you into some kind of "performance improvement plan" or some kind of "attitude coaching" so that they can pretend that they tried to work with you, but they will also just try and look for you to slip up and mention when you did something unkosher.
Generally by the time HR is called, it's too late, they've already decided to fire you and they're just going through the motions.
I'm sure most of the HR people are lovely humans, but that's just orthogonal to the point.
Laws that protect employees are there not because companies were thinking of employees and they advocated for them.
HR people can be some of the chattiest, rumor spreading types, so expect whatever you tell one of them, all of them will know and maybe some of their office buddies. They also have some hilarious stories.
I'm completely aware of "HR is not your friend", but I've never had a meeting with HR, nor a situation where someone pretty cynical would treat it as a police interrogation.
So it was pointless and not stressful, but the way they kept trying became kind of interesting to just observe. Was it not obvious to them that it was obvious to me?
You have to wonder what that person's job is actually like. Do they actually care if this huge multinational, which is surely treating them even worse than me, saves a few $k on a rando employee they have no personal interaction with?
Are their own metrics impacted by the details of the people they process?
Or is it more like general unspoken manager pressure where it's a manager who is incentivised by their overall numbers and they in turn just get those numbers out of their staff.
I can imagine in many cases there may be nothing like any overt instruction like "try to get them to incriminate themselves", just formality forms with questions that actually sound constructive like "What could we do better?", etc.
But this was more than that. This person had a goal. I can understand the company having that goal, but I can't understand the person having that goal.
I refused for two weeks while providing alternative solutions but this sociopath still was not happy. HR got involved somehow, but instead of siding with me, they told me in the nicest way that I would be a good employee if I obeyed and sent private data by email.
It was obvious this time that they were building a case against me, because I knew what they were capable of. But younger me would have happily complied and break the law because, after all, HR is good for the employees and are not talking to the managers behind your back, right?
So, the red flag is "when HR is nice to you." Never forget that they also obey the orders of the managers.
Also they will happily forge emails to fire you. I’ve seen that more than once, and they’ll pretend it never happened. That’s why you must keep traces of email conversations if you feel something is wrong.
Really re-proves the advice: Save everything. Volunteer nothing. And do both with neither emotion nor apology. It's just basic formality everyone should always do at this point.
Just low level trying to collect anything that could possibly be used to get out of paying a little, like if I didn't answer an email one day maybe that means I didn't work that day and they only have to pay me one day less on my last paycheck? Or less likely but worth a shot, anything that could be possible to turn into termination for cause, though I don't even know what they would get out of that? Does it even change anything about what they have to pay for things like unemployment insurance? I never did nor ever intended to even apply for unemployment but even if I did does that even affect them? If you quit amicably for your own reasons isn't that the best of all possible ways for an employee to leave for them? Maybe they were just trying to make sure that I wasn't going to try to say something about them afterwards and just trying to arm themselves in case I did? Actually that sounds the most likely now that I think about it, because it fits in a few different ways in their particular case.
The details will be different in each case, and in my case I don't know how to translate them to equivalent generic examples, and the actual details would get more detailed than I want to get from a non-anonymous account. Not because I have anything to hide, because I think I am actually still subject to a no-disparagement clause even though I am in no contract with them since years ago. I do know that I don't want to get into a lawyer dick-waving contest with them. So about that clause, remember above when I said maybe they were just preparing in case I was planning to badmouth them? Let's just say there is a reason they have that clause, and so a reason they might worry about that at every termination.
Anyway, in general, no longer talking about the wonderful nameless company that I am not at all disparaging, when I say obvious I don't just mean obvious to me because I'm a perceptive genius or a wizened old vet that's seen it all. (hey I'm both but beside the point ;)
Some questions or remarks would be obviously adversarial, like asking why you took so many days off or whatever (it wasn't that). Whether you choose to engage and defend or not, either way you know the question was not for example aimed at making sure you didn't lose out on some extra days you might be entitled to. It's possible but there is no reason to operate from that assumption as most likely.
Others are indirect and less obvious, like the example I did give like if they ask why are you leaving, or even what could we do better? etc.
Those kinds of things that could be legit sincere feedback, are also merely sources of material that can be used for any purpose, not just good or sincere or constructive purposes.
You don't need to think of any particular example of a nefarious intention and then see if it is convincing or likely, or fail to. The intended purpose of the answer to any question doesn't matter. All that matters is that it is material you supply and then they have forever, in their own private files, which you are no longer in the room to weigh in on whenever someone wants to look at that file and use the material as part of whatever story they want to tell for whatever reason. So the rule for how to handle that is simple, you simply volunteer nothing in the first place, regardless, as a formality, nothing personal, etc.
Nope, it's not cynical. Everyone needs to know that HR is there to protect and benefit the company, not the individual. There is a truckload of rules and laws that a company needs to comply with in order to not get fined or sued. Additionally, the company must coordinate the human capital which is why the department exists. Helping the employee is a side effect. It's not its primary role. Always keep in mind that you are not paying the HR employee's salary. It's the company. Therefore you are not the department's primary client.
They work more like cops. Or maybe vampires. Never tell them anything that could be used against you. Or let them in your house.
It's much, much worse. There's "lawyer-client" relationship between HR and the company.
You are NOT the client. You are the adverse party.
> pretty cynical
They are being cynical, not you.
Except where legally required (e.g. government provided attorney) it should come as no surprise that people are loyal to whoever pays them.
HR are paid by the company, and thus they will act in the interests of said company.
Most of the people working in HR that I’ve met (and I’ve met hundreds working in the industry) sincerely believe that valuing people and treating them well is the best way for a company to succeed financially. They are advocates within the organization for it, including on difficult issues like DEI and harassment/abuse.
That makes this issue especially pernicious. Sincere, well-intentioned people are very effective gaslighters, especially when they are surprised themselves to find they have been “given orders” when a true crisis occurs.
Now I treat HR situations like a lot of other things: if you're in the situation and dealing with HR about something serious, it's already too late, your mistake was earlier. Optimize towards trying not to make the kinds of mistakes that lead to such situations in the first place, rather than how best to respond while in a bad situation. (Eventually there was a reminder sent out about bringing kids to work outside of any formal bring-them-to-work day being against office policy, as I expected, and for various good reasons some of which I had brought up too, and it stopped. So I got what I wanted out of the exercise, though I got a bit more too with how unsettling it was.)
HR in all companies are crap, but Amazon and its HR department are a special kind of hell. I'm glad I'm out.
At this point, it really is. It's unfortunate too many people consider companies, their bosses and HR as their "friends". Only your friends are your "friends" and that too, not always.
I don't really want to go into too much detail, but I had to talk to an HR person because of some "concerns" they had about me. The concerns were actually perfectly fair, and the HR rep was very friendly, but when I explained some personal information to the HR person in response, and despite the fact that I told them it was something I wasn't terribly comfortable telling anyone, they felt it prudent to tell my direct manager, and his manager, and his manager's manager that day.
I wasn't at the company much longer, but that wasn't even the reason why.
Friendliness goes a long way towards quelling suspicion. I think it's rather safe to say unassuming kindness can disarm most anyone who isn't a cutthroat, Type A personality.
I'm autistic as hell and I can still see how people would fall for it.
Perhaps I was surprised just because I'm older and have decades of experience working for various companies, so I've learned better.
For example, take any office within academia that exists to investigate mistreatment.
These offices operate only under the color of problem solving for victims.
They're not your enemy, but not automatically your friend either.
Of course, gratitude is not a common virtue on the corporate world, and you're now marked for execution in a near future convenient time.
Unions seem to solve many of the issues that arise out of the inherent power imbalance of most employment.
Simply different rules for how the union power structure is populated?
Entire organization is a co-op instead of owner + employees?
Or is it already the case that union problems are not inevitable and when they have gone bad it was pretty clear how & why, and so no problem?
Just don't forget who they work for.
American Frustrated Workers™ are so close to discovering unions...
This is one of a long laundry list of problems to which the average American has been trained to abhor the most obvious solution.
> As I’ve mentioned before, software engineers will embrace unions once they accidentally reinvent the concept from first principles under a different name.
The nuclear engineering consultancy I worked at in the 90's was one such example.
What would a hypothetical developers' union do if it called a strike and people kept working on their OSS projects?
Unless the person working on the OSS project is a member of the union, the union isn't doing things for them. He pays no dues, they don't poll him or count his vote. So it's like when companies demand OSS contributors are part of their "supply chain" and therefore must fix bugs on the company's timetable: You can't unilaterally foist an obligation on someone and expect to be taken seriously.
So if a hypothetical union I'm not part of demands I stop working on my hobby, they can neither hurt me nor stop helping me if I don't comply, so I'm not going to.
And given the ability of a single hobbyist, or a small group, to do outsized things in software, that seems like a pretty big hole in the concept of a union having a monopoly on labor in a given field.