Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I employ 1,200 people and have no HR department [video]

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 76 posts

Re: I employ 1,200 people and have no HR department [video]

#61

Post by jcims »

chrisseaton wrote: post #48
jcims wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What makes HR immune to having 'boneheads' in any other company? If your risk is 'someone might be a bonehead' then having HR as a separate department doesn't help does it?

Possibly, but if you have a separation of duties with the manager and HR tasks, you’re more likely to have someone go to bat for you when one gets out of line.

When it all goes through a single person, there’s less of a balancing force there.

Both obviously can be abused.

Re: I employ 1,200 people and have no HR department [video]

#62

Post by dogma1138 »

Kranar wrote: post #47
alexdean wrote: post #27

He may think he doesn't have an 'HR department', but whoever holds the pen on his holiday policy, equipment policy, training & development policy, maternity & family friendly rights policy, expenses policy - well, there's his HR department.

Not having an HR department doesn't mean you don't have HR and no one is claiming that. The entire point is that you don't need a department to do those things and the argument presented here is that those responsibilities are left integrated within a team rather than compartmentalized into a separate and independent system.

That’s exactly how HR departments formed... you can distribute their functionality across the company and guess what it will cause issues that would lead to an HR department forming.

Re: I employ 1,200 people and have no HR department [video]

#63

Post by dogma1138 »

chrisseaton wrote: post #48
jcims wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What makes HR immune to having 'boneheads' in any other company? If your risk is 'someone might be a bonehead' then having HR as a separate department doesn't help does it?

Nothing but as a manager I wouldn’t want to deal with clearly HR related issues alone.

Form a managers perspective I see HR essentially as your legal counsel, if the company wants to delegate that to the legal department sure but they’ll be likely overpaying those who’ll be tasked with dealing with HR issues all day long.

Re: I employ 1,200 people and have no HR department [video]

#64

Post by Godel_unicode »

valuearb wrote: post #52
Godel_unicode wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

It sounds like you think HR la job is to prevent harassment, instead of protecting the company against employees who claim harassment.

What if I told you that preventing harassment is the best way to protect the company from harassment claims?

Just because some people in HR suck and don't do this doesn't mean that's not what their job is a.

Re: I employ 1,200 people and have no HR department [video]

#66

Post by nkrisc »

keenreed wrote: post #42
nkrisc wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not if you let managers actually "manage" their team and capacity. You don't need to manage sick leave if you don't have sick leave and just let people take time off when they're sick and treat them like, you know, adults. I'm sure a manager is also better equipped to know when someone is taking advantage, as opposed to some HR person who's never even seen the employee.

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.

There's shitty managers and there's shitty HR. The existence of one doesn't preclude the existence of the other.

I'd tell you to stand up for yourself if that's happening to you, but it won't matter because HR isn't on your side anyway.

Re: I employ 1,200 people and have no HR department [video]

#67

Post by timoth3y »

HR gets a lot more hate than they deserve.

I've built several startups, and I do get the the whole "we don't need no stinking HR to tell us how to treat people!" vibe. It's definitely true at small companies and one of the great things about startups.

But it doesn't scale.

Onboarding a new employee at a larger company involves coordination with IT (laptop and account setup), security (badges and access), legal, accounting (payroll and tax info), and a bunch of things I probably don't even know about.

If I had had to put all my work on hold and do this myself for each new employee, my productivity would plummet.

Also, it's not my job to understand the nuances of labor law or how it's reflected company policy. If a team member asks me, for example, "Does my broken arm qualify me for disability accommodation?" I want to have an expert I can refer them to rather than having to go on somme corporate scavenger hunt to get the answer.

Re: I employ 1,200 people and have no HR department [video]

#69

Post by andreskytt »

valuearb wrote: post #31

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…

That is one view at it. The other one is, that hr is a strategic partner to ceo in terms of organizational behaviour and its fit to the strategy. The former appears dominant in US, the latter in EU.

Re: I employ 1,200 people and have no HR department [video]

#70

Post by kjjjjjjjjjjjjjj »

Godel_unicode wrote: post #38
kjjjjjjjjjjjjjj wrote: post #2

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,…

I don't interface with people who say things like "Your privilege is showing"

Its such an adversarial and sanctimonious position. You know absolutely nothing about me.

Post reply on HN