HR is not your friend, and other things I think you should know

I think a lot of your criticism here is valid. A two-sided approach would be better. Still, I've seen far more people hurt thinking HR was their friend than by not empathizing enough with HR.

> How is that subtext not correct here?

The grammar is a little bit hard to parse in the original article, and I don't know the cultural context, so I don't so much have AN interpretation as a probabilistic cloud of possible interpretations.

The thing I would remember when reading anything like this is how much language means different things in different cultures:

1) Words like "racism," "white supremacy," "gaslighting," and "abuse" get tossed around a lot in younger, ultra-liberal circles. If I call someone conservative in their fifties a white supremacist, I won't be welcome back ever again. If I'm talking to a liberal 20-something, we're both expected to accept our white supremacy.

2) Positive / negative language varies between cultures. If an Eastern European says something is mediocre, they mean it's typical. If an American says the same, they mean it's bad. Some cultures use language in ways which are hyper-positive, and others, in ways which are hyper-negative. Acceptable degree of exaggeration varies too.

I recently had a "friendly" lawyer for an adversarial party provide me with some "friendly" legal advice (which was specifically that I had no case, and would be out both sides' legal fees if I went to court, and so on). They were lying. I knew that, and they knew that. This was an attorney for a megacorp, where I filed an arbitration complaint as a typical consumer (so they probably didn't know that I knew that they were lying).

With filters for how the author might be using language -- well within the norms of some cultures I've interacted with -- I didn't see this as going far beyond "If an opposing counsel tells you that you have no legal case, they might be lying to you."

I am an old person, still working, but here are a couple points I have lived by:

1)when you decide it is time to look for a new job, even if you have your sights set on a particular position, always fan your resume out to at least three places, and go to multiple interviews. You never know what opportunities exist unless you look. What you thought was your first choice might not be where you actually end up.

2)If you do go through the process of sending out resumes and interviewing, go into it with the attitude that if you get an acceptable offer for what you think will be an interesting position, accept it and move on.

As long as you leave a job on good terms, with a two week notice, you can always go back in the future. Never (never!) burn bridges. The world is small, and networks matter!

Always follow up with any job offer that you receive but turn down. Keep it short, keep it factual, be polite. Thank them for the opportunity. Note that if a company gives you a good faith offer, and you turn it down, it will be harder to get an interview there in the short term. In the long term, they took a chance on you once, they'll take a chance again.

Network, network, network. I cannot stress that enough.

With the final note. Never (never) burn bridges.

> it was an improvement and ... enabled coverage for a lot of people

This is kind of my point. The ACA was designed to benefit the middle class and non-vulnerable. At which point the middle class and non-vulnerable (and the press) stopped caring about who had healthcare.

To drive home that point: A few years ago I ran ACA quotes for typical income levels (typical for non-wealthy regions, 12k-32k) and found that premium cost steeply dropped for each 10k rise in income.

My primary issue isn't that this happened, it's that we weren't told. It's that ACA supporters + the entirety of press compulsively gloss over ACA realities.

> I wish the Dems could just own up to that and push for something more.

I suggest that uncovered Americans don't need something more. They need something.

> The problem is that both sides are so deep in the industry’s pockets, that I don’t think real reform is even possible.

Pols trading law/power for campaign cash is the other thing that news orgs have ~0 interest in.

You're comparing individuals to departments. There are certainly people in HR who have put coworkers first. Depending on the company they may have succeeded or not in those actions. "The dictates of management" are what departments do.

It was eye opening to do one of those training exercises about motivation with colleagues once and seeing who put money as their number one priority. Combined with a somewhat secretive culture of bonuses there (some people got them, some didn't, no one knew what they rewarded), it really killed any sense of camaraderie I had with them.