Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by walshemj 2784 days ago
No its really because:

1 In order for hr to justify themselves.

2 As a hypocritical way to cut the pay quanta.

2 comments

I think HR can justify its existence probably just fine in the absence of annual performance reviews.

Off the top of my head: Healthcare (especially in the US - as a non-native I was truly shocked the amount of HR time that is spent managing this...), benefits, immigration issues, legal disputes, compliance, pay, hiring and firing, disabilities... there’s plenty for a competent HR team to do at most medium or larger sized enterprises that isn’t performance reviews.

Just for giggles, lets say that a large company doesn't need an HR person or department.

What are the alternatives? Is this something we could build an automated system around? Could the functions be moved to managers (hiring, firing, pay, etc.)? It seems like moving this way would be somewhat like implementing the officer/NCO relationship in the US military.

Are there benefits for non-specialized decision making as it applies to employees?

> pay quanta.

What's that?

>> pay quanta.

> What's that?

"paying a lot". So basically as away to combat a (perceived) inflation in salaries

So, amongst other things, it could refer to salary and raise confidentiality agreements as a way to reduce employee negotiating power?
Its the amount the pay bill increases sorry its a HR/IR term