HR exists to protect the company. Imagine if you were about to sign a contract and asked to have your lawyer review it; it's obvious that if the company were to say "don't worry, we had our lawyers review it," you would still want your own lawyer.
However, the laws are written to protect employees from abuse, and if they're decent laws, the company should have a strong incentive to do the right thing, and then never give a bad reference when another company asks if they should hire the offender.
You'll quickly run out of jobs that way. HR can almost never be trusted to do "the right thing". Or rather, the right thing for them is to protect their employer.
You should go to HR anyway as a way to strengthen your case and have a documented precedent, but it should never be your plan A. They cannot be counted on to help you directly, because that's not their actual job.
If you've privileged to have adequate savings and good prospects, sure. For a lower-middle-class graduate on their first job it isn't always that simple.
It's a good point. From a purely procedural standpoint, "Discuss with colleague, contact HR immediately if it persists (or immediately if serious enough), then hire lawyer" is impeccable advice.
On the other hand, from an outcomes standpoint, this gets a lot more murky. "I see you recently graduated and worked for Google for a month?" "Yes, I had to leave under difficult circumstances" isn't a great conversation to be having career-wise, right out of college, interviewing for a replacement job. So I empathize with the blogger's confusion as to the right course.
You document that you went to HR concerning the situation wait a week and then contact a lawyer. Or contact a lawyer and then documents it.
This is what I told a family friend who also got the sit on my lap request. Well lets say her husband got laid off for a few years and they weren't in any trouble.
Indeed; never trust HR to do the right thing. HR will choose the approach they believe minimizes risk to the company.
If they believe kicking you out instead of your harasser is less risky they won't hesitate twice to do so. I can confirm that from personal experience.
If you can afford it get legal advice first ... and then go to HR.
I would disagree with this advice. Unless you have a good reason not to trust your particular hr department for this situation, you should put in a good faith effort. Perhaps you could argue that most hr departments are incompetent, but I cannot imagine a scenario where retaliating against an employee for reporting sexual harassment would minimize a company's risk.
Also I believe most employment discrimination employees will work on a contingency basis, so you should consider reaching out to them regardless of your financial situation.
I understand the constant refrain from HN of never trust hr, but I think reporting to hr could form a better foundation for a lawsuit. Feel free to contact an attorney first. That is what I would do.
> I cannot imagine a scenario where retaliating against an employee for reporting sexual harassment would minimize a company's risk.
As the initial point of contact for a sexual harassment complaint, beginning to construct a paper trail that explains the superior's behavior and puts blame for the incident on the employee?
I'm not saying this as pro- or anti-HR, just that as the document-keeper of record they have a lot of latitude to influence the narrative if they choose to. Remember: performance reviews tend to go through them at some point as well.
Good point. My point is that if HR were to retaliate against the employee, HR would open the company to a far greater amount of risk.
I think the point should be not to trust HR with the only copies of any documents or evidence. Again, I would argue that if HR does the steps you suggest, they are exposing themselves to much more risk than if they did pretty much anything else. Not to say they wouldn't do it, but that it would be a foolish thing to do.
As a note: the above comments advice is probably specific to the US.
In the UK, for instance, terminating someone for reporting sexual harassment is a very good way of losing a lot of money at a subsequent Employee Tribunal and getting your company fined. There's a lot of great precedent for siding with the reporter, even if other flimsy reasons are given for their termination.
However, the point made is a correct one. An HR person has a duty not to you but to the company, so never assume they have your best interests at heart.
The comment was actually based on experience in the Netherlands; which has similar if not stronger employee protection than the UK.
If your case is as clear-cut as the one in this article you might indeed not need a lawyer but if there's any wiggle room; if it's discrimination and not harassment and the accused is sufficiently important to the company and HR judges that you might not have the energy to file a lawsuit etc. etc. etc. then it's still very easy to end up getting kicked out of the company.
The above advice (grandparent post) is also accurate for countries in Latin America. I vouch for that. HR doesn't have the employee's best interests at heart. It's not that they will actively seek to harm you, of course; it's just that they strive to protect the company at all costs, even if that means undermining you. All other things being equal they will help you, but things are seldom "equal", especially in cases of unjust treatment by a manager, abuse, etc.
In this case, yes. It's in their best interest to protect the company and not the manager; a scandal like this would probably be much more damaging to the company than firing any single executive.
However, the laws are written to protect employees from abuse, and if they're decent laws, the company should have a strong incentive to do the right thing, and then never give a bad reference when another company asks if they should hire the offender.