|
"HR department exists to protect the company from being sued by current and former employees" This is, of course, true. There is a surprising amount of work involved in making sure that the company operates within the bounds of employment law. From basics, such as minimum wage, or correct application of tax credits/benefits to payroll, to ensuring that discrimination does not take place in hiring/promotions, that disciplinary processes are within the letter AND spirit of the law, to banal, such as carrying out exit interviews - ensuring that there are no buried issues about to explode. Their more useful proceedural functions: training staff to conduct interviews within the law, ensuring performance appraisals are carried out, that staff ratios are in-line with "industry norms", or that salaries are competitive. And finally, the stuff that most of them would actually prefer to do: ensuring that training happens, that the best staff are retained and have their career appropriately managed, that hiring of new employees is as simple as possible whilst being legal. Of course, the only way this gets done if HR is not "embedded", is through policy and procedure. and discussion with management (not managers). As HR is a cost centre, and increasingly being outsourced (many of these functions are now seen as requiring only occasional consulting, and not full time attentions), I don't see things improving. Also, the systems they have are shockingly crap. shudder at Oracle HR support software. |