Err, yes?

Stories abound of HR departments working much harder to protect companies than the well-being of employees,

The power skirts work for the company. So, who should they be protecting? You know, they’re not a labour union being paid for by the workers, are they?

16 thoughts on “Err, yes?”

  1. The two purposes of an HR department is to secure your labour at the minimum cost to the company and to make sure employment law is adhered to. If you want someone on your side, join a union or buy a dog

  2. “The two purposes of an HR department is to secure your labour at the minimum cost to the company

    Just one reason why they are so utterly useless.

    What a company wants from its staff is excellent value for money (amongst other things). It’s that “value” bit – are they any good – the first fucking clue about which most HR departments generally have none.

  3. In my experience HR departments work for themselves, not anyone else.

    They might as well, everyone else hates them!

    I used to work for a company which published a magazine for HR professionals. One of its most successful side products was a members only forum for people in HR across the country to interact, share best practice etc. Unofficially known as the ‘No Mates Club’.

  4. @MC
    “Unofficially known as the ‘No Mates Club’.”
    After all you can’t spell who cares without HR.

  5. Aren’t we about due for another renaming of the personnel department? “Human” sounds so very exclusive and systemically racist. We should be able to get the acronym up to at least three letters.

  6. ‘treated with contempt when a senior man’s advances were spurned’

    Treated with contempt by whom?

    The feminazi’s problem is women. Women who don’t spurn advances.

  7. Amen, PJF. I knew we were going to hell when they changed the name from personnel department to human resources.

    How ’bout “employment justice department?”

  8. On a lark I called up my HR rep yesterday and lodged a complaint about my company’s discriminatory culture against straight males, given their numerous programs to promote and hire everyone else, the incessant rhetoric around having too many straight males, and their embrace of feminist orgs that have a clear anti-male bias. (I’m holding back on their racist issues for now).

    I knew it wasn’t going to help, but I often chide fellow travellers for not at least saying something when they’re bothered by it. That’s the favored tactic of the insane left so why not give it a go?

    After immediately arguing the point instead of dutifully lodging my complaint as her job requires, she said, “I guess you could have the philosophical debate…”, at which point I did, bringing up hypotheticals and counter-examples. When she laughed at one of my points I said she had provided the response I expected from such a bigoted company and hung up. As I’ve been one foot out the door for a while now it was the literal least I could do. We’ll see what comes from it.

  9. @Sam. Very interesting take. At what point does positively pushing the idea of promoting everyone but a straight white male become discrimination against said straight white male? Clearly if a SWM complains and is told that the complaint is told complaint is unjustified because the company NEEDS to promote the welfare of others over said SWM then the case is an easy win for SWM.

    Are sex and race discrimination awards still uncapped?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *