[fazza99]

I've worked at a couple organisations where there was a mantra of 'No HR'. In all cases I saw mistakes and abuses that would / should have been picked up by a sensible HR person. I don't buy it. Granted you don't need entire departments of people but when you get to be a billion-pound company, there will be a need for some expertise.

[watwut]

How does HR "picks up" abuses? I work in company that has HR, but I don't see them as a place to solve actual issues - basically any of them. They do routine administration just fine, they are useful for that, but that is it.

If you actually think that something bad is going on, talking up actual hierarchy (complaining to higher ups) or leaving are only two sensible options. And if complaining to higher ups, then you put your resignation to HR.

But none of my interactions with HR made me think that these would be people capable to solve issues. They don't have processes to even realize problems are happening. They don't have trust of employees either.

[mbg721]

At a company I once worked for, HR talked to us prior to interviewing candidates for an open position, with suggested lines of questioning for soft-skills, a framework for the decision process, and reminders of things to avoid for legal reasons. It may have been largely intended to cover the company's backside, but I would say it was useful at heading off some potential problems.

[watwut]

> reminders of things to avoid for legal reasons

I would see this as "routine administration". It is useful thing.

> with suggested lines of questioning for soft-skills, a framework for the decision process

Our HR quite sux in these. They also consistently attempt to match people on positions that don't suit them - both by personality (the persons personality not matching job) and by technical knowledge/background. So their input is not trusted and managers doing hiring consistently complain about it or simply ignore them.

[donnythecroc]

Agree with this 100% people never seem to realise HR is there to protect the company ONLY. Literally they are a compliance function to stop company getting sued.

[matthewmacleod]

Right you say that, but I swear this view is some kind of really fucking weird Americanism that y'all take as gospel truth.

I've interacted with HR teams at a couple of jobs in the UK. These interactions have been fine. They have been there as the contact people to make sure I get paid for my work, that I can access my benefits, and that I am subject to the procedures and processes that I'm entitled to.

They are paid by the company and therefore they of course work for the company – and part of that job is ensuring compliance. But this is the same as e.g. a security officer, or a health and safety officer, or any number of other roles the involve running companies correctly and in accordance with best practices in a way that can benefit both company and staff. It's not an "either-or" situation!

[hguant]

I think the big 'Americanism' comes from the somewhat two faced nature of HR culture in the States - HR are (generally!) the people being super friendly and coming up with "the company is one big family aren't we so happy together" events and whatnot. They're also the people who, in my experience, have mostly bought into the MBA-isms about maximizing value in all things, which includes screwing over said employees as much as possible through legal, yet sketchy methods that make a lot of sense if you're treating employees as resources, not humans.