51–60 of 76 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't that a good thing? Each team has its own vacation policy that suits them, instead of some rules imposed on them by HR department.
It's also a good way to get slapped with lawsuits from decisions made by people who don't understand FMLA leave.
With good policies and good people, you don't need "HR". I would argue he has HR just without a centralized department. Although either way, the only good HR is no HR. HR sucks.
Your privilege is showing. I think that the thing to keep in mind here is that HR, like legal, isn't for when things are going well. This comment sort of assumes that you'll never have a harassment problem, nobody will ever have an issue with getting their FMLA "approved", and the company will never have a performance problem that requires letting someone go in a way that won't get you sued. These things all happen,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't that a good thing? Each team has its own vacation policy that suits them, instead of some rules imposed on them by HR department.
At that point, why have 1,200 people in a single company? Why not have each team hire each other team as contractors? (This isn't sarcasm, I actually do vaguely suspect the world would be a better place if we did this.)
Economics of scale would also be lost, if you had to do all the book keeping, IRS reporting, etc etc for 120 companies of 10, instead of one company of 1200.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
His managers handle that for their own employees.
That sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen. All it takes is one bonehead. Not even a bonehead really, I don't want to try to maintain any semblance of technical acumen in my role and take care of the folks that I support and know all the intricacies of labor-related laws and standards.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks but no. Managers have their favorites. As young single male I am always expected to pick up the slack for lazy colleagues without compensation. I will take my chances with HR.
That’s crazy that you think that HR would do anything other than back up your biased manager to the hilt.
With good policies and good people, you don't need "HR". I would argue he has HR just without a centralized department. Although either way, the only good HR is no HR. HR sucks.
Your privilege is showing. I think that the thing to keep in mind here is that HR, like legal, isn't for when things are going well. This comment sort of assumes that you'll never have a harassment problem, nobody will ever have an issue with getting their FMLA "approved", and the company will never have a performance problem that requires letting someone go in a way that won't get you sued. These things all happen,…
HR’s closest department in responsibility is Legal, both serve to protect the company, not its employees. So I can see the argument that you don’t need HR if you have a legal department, have it train managers to handle employee grievances properly, and let each manager deal with vacations, sick leave etc as they see fit. And finance can handle ordering computer equipment and network management services, get rid of I…
Some things you just can't double up roles on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At that point, why have 1,200 people in a single company? Why not have each team hire each other team as contractors? (This isn't sarcasm, I actually do vaguely suspect the world would be a better place if we did this.)
It's like microservices: the company, with all the downsides that come from higher transaction latencies between component parts. Economics of scale would also be lost, if you had to do all the book keeping, IRS reporting, etc etc for 120 companies of 10, instead of one company of 1200.
In fact, outsourcing HR in particular is a well-established field - it's what companies like ADP do.
Just like there's a happy ground between one massive monolith and multiple microservices per engineer, I think there's a happy ground between a 1200-person company and a bunch of sole proprietorships. It may not be 10; it might be 50. There are a huge number of faster than a 1200-person company can, because there's less internal hierarchy involved. (In much the same way that avoiding microservices doesn't mean you have no problems of interoperability, it just means they look different.)
HR’s closest department in responsibility is Legal, both serve to protect the company, not its employees. So I can see the argument that you don’t need HR if you have a legal department, have it train managers to handle employee grievances properly, and let each manager deal with vacations, sick leave etc as they see fit. And finance can handle ordering computer equipment and network management services, get rid of I…
There's a lot more to IT than just ordering equipment. Also, no finance person in my entire working history ever knew anything about managing a network. They can barely use Excel in my experience. The flip side is that no IT person I know could do accounting. Some things you just can't double up roles on.
If your team needs a custom network solution, it’s probably better managed by your team. Keep important decisions close.