[dominotw]

> someone felt unprotected by HR

How can this ever be true. Why would someone possibly expect HR to protect them.

Isn't it basic commonsense that HR( or anyone) works for person who pays them. Their job is to protect their employers from you ( not the other way around). I've never worked at a place where this wasn't true. Maybe this should be taught in college or something.

[bhk]

Employee: "HR's priority is protecting me."

Experienced employee: "HR's priority is protecting management."

Manager: "HR's priority is protecting the company."

Experienced manager: "HR's priority is protecting HR."

[trenning]

If you ever want to proceed with legal actions against the company then you have to put it into record somewhere which typically means reporting incidents to HR. Which ultimately leads to getting fired. What else are people supposed to do?

It's a shitty unwinnable situation for employees, I've been on the shit end of this stick before at a different tech co for complaining and was retaliated against. It's not fun and I feel sympathy for anyone who's lives are being turned over because of it.

[dlp211]

If only there was some way that employees could create their own organization that can act as an alternative resources to the companies HR department that puts the employees interests ahead if the companies.

[sct202]

If both employees are in the union, it may just be another venue for one side to get railroaded.

[hardlianotion]

It was only last week on twitter I read a well known tweeter and company owner saying he didn't see the point of unions in software companies.

[TallGuyShort]

You have to admit that at least in the Valley, the mobility between companies has done a phenomenal amount to up monetary and non- benefits for employees and help people escape any situation that don't particularly care for. A lot of that started with Google. Several of these articles even mention that they came to Google expecting better - this is a relatively recent blemish on their reputation. For a unionized industry to treat employees they way Silicon Valley does and have the absolute biggest companies occasionally make the news for stuff like this would be pretty impressive. I mean the local teachers and oil workers where I live have unions and deal with shit WAYY worse than this still.

[basq]

A company owner who doesn't see the points of unions... unsurprising.

[dominotw]

> If you ever want to proceed with legal actions against the company then you have to put it into record somewhere which typically means reporting incidents to HR.

This is not true. You don't have to record anything with HR for legal action. Its not a prerequisite by any means.

Going to HR is always a wrong move. Get a lawyer.

[EpicEng]

My mother was a lawyer and did a lot of sexual harassment / workplace descriminiation work. Obviously that doesn't make me a lawyer or anything close to one, but she would have advised going to HR as soon as possible (I even asked just now to be sure.) It's important to document in/action and/or a pattern of abuse on the company's part. You can (and should) certainly document these things on your own, but if you never go to HR the company will have an avenue of escape open ("s/he never told us, this is a rogue manager, we had no idea", etc.)

BTW, you sue your company and you're gone either way.

[anoncareer0212]

If you're ever lucky enough to need a lawyer for a situation like this, one of the first things they'll need is for you to report this to the company – it's very, very, difficult to argue negligence or retaliation if the company never heard about it in the first place

[tomnipotent]

> Going to HR is always a wrong move. Get a lawyer.

This is horrible advice. Going to HR is about leaving a paper trail, which is very important. No judge or arbitrator is going to give two hoots about i-said/they-said without (dated) documentation to back it up.

[AstralStorm]

HR is not obligated to keep any paper trail, but if you went there, they can be made to testify under oath.

[TallGuyShort]

Victims are best off if they can keep their own paper trail - ideally using personal lines of communication or printing them immediately so the company can't "lose" them. As I mentioned in another comment, even IM'ing a fellow employee a casual comment along the lines of "didn't that bother you when the boss used the N-word" or something. Their response likely confirms that it happened. Casual chat to your HRBP in the hallway? Follow up with an email clarifying the important points. May sound awkward if you haven't before, but it's common: just prefacing it with, "I just wanted to make sure we're on the same page about where we left things: <bullet point summary of discussion and outcome>".

In an HN discussion about dealing with medical billing / insurance people who screw you over, it was recommend to keep meticulous notes of everything, and that reading back specific dates and names of people you spoke to who contradicted the person you're speaking to now got people to take you seriously and fix their mistakes real quick. I have since found that to be true.

[tomnipotent]

Of course HR is not obligated. That's the whole problem in the first place.

You're responsible for keeping your own paper trail.

[vageli]

If you don't raise it to the company, how can you later prove they enabled this kind of workplace (or failed to remediate) if it was never raised to be addressed?