One thing that I had to learn the hard way years ago is that there's no equivalent to "doctor-patient privilege" for HR people. They can and will use what you say against you, and they will likely relay what you say to other people.
It's admittedly pretty cynical, but at this point I treat HR meetings more like police interrogations, and keep my answer short, minimal, and utilitarian, knowing what I say can and will be used against me. It's not fair to the HR people, most of them are perfectly nice, but they're in a position that's often inherently antagonistic towards workers, since they're generally only called when you're in trouble.
Precisely. I had HR literally acknowledge that my manager had objectively done NONE of the things they pledged to do, and that I had done EACH of them...
... and that they were standing by the manager's decision.
(I didn't expect any different, to be honest. I'm not that naive. But it was straight up acknowledged that the manager had been dishonest with both me, and HR, but because of their larger investment in him, that was the way they were going to go.)
I think by the time any complaint goes to HR the decisions have generally been made, or at least nearly so. HR is (I think) largely there to gather information they can use for disciplinary action and/or termination.
One place I left, medium global multinational, HR person who I thought their job was to just to be my point of contact for wrapping up & coordinating paperwork stuff like my retirement acct, return shipping company property, etc, spent a couple weeks of emails & phone calls trying both directly and indirectly to get me to say things that could possibly be used against me. It was super transparent so it was easy to just not play along without being uncivil, and only uncooperative to the unspoken parts.
So it was pointless and not stressful, but the way they kept trying became kind of interesting to just observe. Was it not obvious to them that it was obvious to me?
You have to wonder what that person's job is actually like. Do they actually care if this huge multinational, which is surely treating them even worse than me, saves a few $k on a rando employee they have no personal interaction with?
Are their own metrics impacted by the details of the people they process?
Or is it more like general unspoken manager pressure where it's a manager who is incentivised by their overall numbers and they in turn just get those numbers out of their staff.
I can imagine in many cases there may be nothing like any overt instruction like "try to get them to incriminate themselves", just formality forms with questions that actually sound constructive like "What could we do better?", etc.
But this was more than that. This person had a goal. I can understand the company having that goal, but I can't understand the person having that goal.
Oh nothing crazy like framing for a scandal or crime or anything like that.
Just low level trying to collect anything that could possibly be used to get out of paying a little, like if I didn't answer an email one day maybe that means I didn't work that day and they only have to pay me one day less on my last paycheck? Or less likely but worth a shot, anything that could be possible to turn into termination for cause, though I don't even know what they would get out of that? Does it even change anything about what they have to pay for things like unemployment insurance? I never did nor ever intended to even apply for unemployment but even if I did does that even affect them? If you quit amicably for your own reasons isn't that the best of all possible ways for an employee to leave for them? Maybe they were just trying to make sure that I wasn't going to try to say something about them afterwards and just trying to arm themselves in case I did? Actually that sounds the most likely now that I think about it, because it fits in a few different ways in their particular case.
The details will be different in each case, and in my case I don't know how to translate them to equivalent generic examples, and the actual details would get more detailed than I want to get from a non-anonymous account. Not because I have anything to hide, because I think I am actually still subject to a no-disparagement clause even though I am in no contract with them since years ago. I do know that I don't want to get into a lawyer dick-waving contest with them.
So about that clause, remember above when I said maybe they were just preparing in case I was planning to badmouth them? Let's just say there is a reason they have that clause, and so a reason they might worry about that at every termination.
Anyway, in general, no longer talking about the wonderful nameless company that I am not at all disparaging, when I say obvious I don't just mean obvious to me because I'm a perceptive genius or a wizened old vet that's seen it all. (hey I'm both but beside the point ;)
Some questions or remarks would be obviously adversarial, like asking why you took so many days off or whatever (it wasn't that). Whether you choose to engage and defend or not, either way you know the question was not for example aimed at making sure you didn't lose out on some extra days you might be entitled to. It's possible but there is no reason to operate from that assumption as most likely.
Others are indirect and less obvious, like the example I did give like if they ask why are you leaving, or even what could we do better? etc.
Those kinds of things that could be legit sincere feedback, are also merely sources of material that can be used for any purpose, not just good or sincere or constructive purposes.
You don't need to think of any particular example of a nefarious intention and then see if it is convincing or likely, or fail to. The intended purpose of the answer to any question doesn't matter. All that matters is that it is material you supply and then they have forever, in their own private files, which you are no longer in the room to weigh in on whenever someone wants to look at that file and use the material as part of whatever story they want to tell for whatever reason. So the rule for how to handle that is simple, you simply volunteer nothing in the first place, regardless, as a formality, nothing personal, etc.
Not OP but I had an experience like this recently. A toxic manager hated me and other employees, and wanted to fire me in the quickest way possible. He started to give me tasks that were clearly illegal, like sending the passwords of the company by email to random people (contractors included which made it more obvious).
I refused for two weeks while providing alternative solutions but this sociopath still was not happy. HR got involved somehow, but instead of siding with me, they told me in the nicest way that I would be a good employee if I obeyed and sent private data by email.
It was obvious this time that they were building a case against me, because I knew what they were capable of. But younger me would have happily complied and break the law because, after all, HR is good for the employees and are not talking to the managers behind your back, right?
So, the red flag is "when HR is nice to you." Never forget that they also obey the orders of the managers.
Also they will happily forge emails to fire you. I’ve seen that more than once, and they’ll pretend it never happened. That’s why you must keep traces of email conversations if you feel something is wrong.
Really re-proves the advice: Save everything. Volunteer nothing. And do both with neither emotion nor apology. It's just basic formality everyone should always do at this point.
HR works closely with and is sometimes positioned organizationally with the Legal department for obvious reasons. Their main purpose is to protect the company (first) and employees (via laws they have to follow).
Laws that protect employees are there not because companies were thinking of employees and they advocated for them.
HR people can be some of the chattiest, rumor spreading types, so expect whatever you tell one of them, all of them will know and maybe some of their office buddies. They also have some hilarious stories.
Nope, it's not cynical. Everyone needs to know that HR is there to protect and benefit the company, not the individual. There is a truckload of rules and laws that a company needs to comply with in order to not get fined or sued. Additionally, the company must coordinate the human capital which is why the department exists. Helping the employee is a side effect. It's not its primary role. Always keep in mind that you are not paying the HR employee's salary. It's the company. Therefore you are not the department's primary client.
They are generally very friendly, and they give an aura of "we're just here to help". I don't think people will fall for this more than once, but it's pretty easy for me to see why someone would think they're "on your side".
It's right there in the name: "human resources". Employees are the resource, and HR exists to help maximize the benefit the company extracts from that resource.
Are you really not sure why anyone would think that way? Do you really believe every single person is (or should be) utterly cynical?
In a lot of orgs, an HR rep is the first person a new hire will interact with and IME they're usually very helpful, and kind -- at that point. It's not hard to see why someone unfamiliar with corporate politics or structure would see HR favorably if that's their only experience.
I think my point is, HR reps can be rather deceptive, and in some extreme cases, deliberately so. So I understand your point from a logical perspective, but thankfully, the reality is logic doesn't drive everyone.
There's a certain portion of the population who isn't skeptical of kindness, and accepts it at face value.
Chalk it up to naivety or youthful/willful ignorance, if you must. Whatever the reason there are folks who choose to see the good in people, and not constantly question their motives.
As a reformed cynic, I'd really recommend giving it a try. I personally find it less depressing way to walk though the world.
I do generally try and assume the best out of people. Most people aren't assholes, they're perfectly nice, and they probably aren't out to rob you or ruin your day.
Corporations are not people. A corporation is basically a superorganism made up of people, but functions differently. The HR person is probably a genuinely decent human, but fundamentally they still have to do their job, which is (like basically all of us) dictated by their higher-ups. Their job isn't to be your best friend, it's to make the company more money.
Ideally, it is by resolving the problem. Sometimes they need to fire someone, and in order to fire someone without the risk of a lawsuit (in a lot of jurisdictions) they kind of have to substantiate the case. Usually they and the manager will put you into some kind of "performance improvement plan" or some kind of "attitude coaching" so that they can pretend that they tried to work with you, but they will also just try and look for you to slip up and mention when you did something unkosher.
Generally by the time HR is called, it's too late, they've already decided to fire you and they're just going through the motions.
I'm sure most of the HR people are lovely humans, but that's just orthogonal to the point.
There is nothing cynical or about "corporate politics", or about any moral judgement including kindness in my previous comment.
It was purely factual and about duties (as in duties of an employee).
I think it is when people mix up all the moral concept you mention with facts and legal duties that people indeed get indeed confused.
HR may absolutely appear friendly and helpful, and they can really be so because it is their job to help you succeed as an employee, that is to say to deliver value for the company. It is not their job to help you act against the company. In fact it is their job, as it is for all employees, to work in the company's best interests (that's called fiduciary duty).
Perhaps another issue is that some, perhaps naive, people do not understand the nature (in the factual and legal sense) of employment.
But can't you see how the distinction between helping you succeed as an employee and a person might be murky for someone less experienced in the corporate world?
For many people, if someone is helping them and being extremely nice, they're not going to question why; they're just gonna sidle up with them and enjoy the time with their new friend.
Depending on company culture HR workflows can exist alongside regular company workflows, especially for topics related to internal recruitment, yearly reviews, performance reviews, retrospectives, new hires, team building, the possibilities are endless.
Right - 90% of my interactions with 'HR' are for interview scheduling. Other 10% are with trouble using benefits.
I'm completely aware of "HR is not your friend", but I've never had a meeting with HR, nor a situation where someone pretty cynical would treat it as a police interrogation.
Only a few times, really only when I've gotten into some kind of trouble. Though I got laid off three times in the last two years, so I have had a lot more experience with HR than I have really wanted.
Absolutely. HR employees are after all just like regular employees. They are getting paid to act according to the requirements of the employer. Meaning that they are incentivized to act in the best interest of the company and not of their coworkers.
That doesn't mean that this is common knowledge. Specially when HR acts like they're your friend. Many employees are deceived even though it's common sense to you
During onboarding, many HR teams say they are the employee’s advocate on a variety of issues. They are most emphatically not.
Most of the people working in HR that I’ve met (and I’ve met hundreds working in the industry) sincerely believe that valuing people and treating them well is the best way for a company to succeed financially. They are advocates within the organization for it, including on difficult issues like DEI and harassment/abuse.
That makes this issue especially pernicious. Sincere, well-intentioned people are very effective gaslighters, especially when they are surprised themselves to find they have been “given orders” when a true crisis occurs.
True! I'm autistic and when I hired on at Amazon, HR told me about all the support and programs Amazon provided for people with autism. When my boss started harassing me over it, though, HR did nothing. The HR representative couldn't even refrain from working on something else during a meeting between me, my boss, and HR.
HR in all companies are crap, but Amazon and its HR department are a special kind of hell. I'm glad I'm out.
I have dealt with HR and I've seen these "well-intentioned" people turn on you so quickly. Sociopathy is the personality trait I would use to describe them.
Clinical sociopathy probably goes too far for most of them, but the outcomes aren't all that different anyway. I'd encourage people who still doubt or think highly of their ability to deal with HR, but who haven't had it tested yet, to actually engage with them on some low-stakes thing and see how it goes. My own main experience was effectively a complaint about several parents randomly bringing their kids in to run amok around the office. Of course HR wants an in person meeting to discuss further and to try and come off as more friendly. When the HR person pointed out how carefully my email was worded and how they shared it around with the other members of the office HR group to see, I was thinking holy crap, these people... And realized that despite me already being in the "not your friend" camp I had still underestimated them and even me being most careful would probably not be enough in any serious conflict.
Now I treat HR situations like a lot of other things: if you're in the situation and dealing with HR about something serious, it's already too late, your mistake was earlier. Optimize towards trying not to make the kinds of mistakes that lead to such situations in the first place, rather than how best to respond while in a bad situation. (Eventually there was a reminder sent out about bringing kids to work outside of any formal bring-them-to-work day being against office policy, as I expected, and for various good reasons some of which I had brought up too, and it stopped. So I got what I wanted out of the exercise, though I got a bit more too with how unsettling it was.)
I fell for it once a couple years ago, and its even more embarrassing since I had already been working in the industry for like nine years.
I don't really want to go into too much detail, but I had to talk to an HR person because of some "concerns" they had about me. The concerns were actually perfectly fair, and the HR rep was very friendly, but when I explained some personal information to the HR person in response, and despite the fact that I told them it was something I wasn't terribly comfortable telling anyone, they felt it prudent to tell my direct manager, and his manager, and his manager's manager that day.
I wasn't at the company much longer, but that wasn't even the reason why.
Friendliness goes a long way towards quelling suspicion. I think it's rather safe to say unassuming kindness can disarm most anyone who isn't a cutthroat, Type A personality.
I'm autistic as hell and I can still see how people would fall for it.
At this point, it really is. It's unfortunate too many people consider companies, their bosses and HR as their "friends". Only your friends are your "friends" and that too, not always.
This is also true of any department within any institution that has a nominal crisis mediation role. Unequivocally, they are there solely to minimize legal exposure for the institution. Their decicisions will reflect that role.
For example, take any office within academia that exists to investigate mistreatment.
These offices operate only under the color of problem solving for victims.
Of course, HR is not your friend. What you probably want is a works council (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_council). However, you'd also need the necessary legal power, as in Germany, for example.
HR are on your side when your interest and theirs are congruent and when they recognize that. You'd think that it would be in the company's best interest to avert lawsuits, but that doesn't mean that they act accordingly. My former employer paid ten millions in settlements in the last two years, several lawsuits are being litigated now, and even more suits are coming down the pike.
My experience with HR has changed significantly in the past 10-15 years for the worse at my previous two positions, and the behavior was consistent. They usually left me and reports to fend for ourselves during disputes, and when they did get involve they often made things worse, in some cases violated our own guidelines. They always side with management (which while unsurprising, makes their existence and our employee handbook superfluous) or a favored employee even when demonstrably wrong. They were obsessed with bad progress reports, even suggested I wasn’t doing a very good job as a manager if my progress report didn’t have any negatives, and had no interest in improvements or generally good performance. I’d have a report that was a strong performer, but I make one comment and it gets blown out of proportion and all the sudden they’re talking about PIPs, denied or reduced bonuses and pay increases, or push them up the list for reduction in force. I was stupid enough to believe them about things being told in confidence once or twice and they absolutely used it against me. Meanwhile, they spent a lot of time spamming and hustling employees into meetings to shovel shitty services and products to help offset payroll. They felt like secret police, and we avoided and mistrusted them accordingly.
I wouldn't go quite that far. Going to HR to work out glitches in things like your insurance and other benefits is fine, and often the only way to resolve such problems.
Where I worked, immigration-related paperwork was handled by HR. So I had to contact them way more than anyone would like to, but can’t complain about the experience — I guess as long as you want to work for the company and the company wants to have you, you’re good.
Yes, absolutely. Worker-owned co-ops and unions, including and especially knowledge workers. There are scant few other viable mechanisms to ensure long-term stability in under-regulated democratic societies.
Perhaps if there are multiple frustrated workers, they could get together and pool costs of their own reps... Then if more workers are frustrated they could also join.
American Frustrated Workers™ are so close to discovering unions...
The article does mention unions twice but only obliquely. Definitely feels like a elephant in the room situation - and kind of odd for the Guardian of all places not to highlight.
> As I’ve mentioned before, software engineers will embrace unions once they accidentally reinvent the concept from first principles under a different name.
I would think that FOSS projects, as self-governing autonomous entities, are closer to worker-owned co-ops (which unions aren’t, but are in theory working towards) than they are to faceless corporations governed by diktat with the vast majority of employees holding a pittance of diluted shares.
Negotiate with the organizations behind the FOSS projects if necessary. It's hard to say given the lack of historical precedence, have there been any situations when business operations were stymied by FOSS issues? Besides something like the left-pad fiasco?
OK, sure, negotiate. But there's a lack of two things: Carrot and stick.
Unless the person working on the OSS project is a member of the union, the union isn't doing things for them. He pays no dues, they don't poll him or count his vote. So it's like when companies demand OSS contributors are part of their "supply chain" and therefore must fix bugs on the company's timetable: You can't unilaterally foist an obligation on someone and expect to be taken seriously.
So if a hypothetical union I'm not part of demands I stop working on my hobby, they can neither hurt me nor stop helping me if I don't comply, so I'm not going to.
And given the ability of a single hobbyist, or a small group, to do outsized things in software, that seems like a pretty big hole in the concept of a union having a monopoly on labor in a given field.
Unions don't go far enough because workers would still remain beholden to the whims of owners and unequal profit sharing. Worker-owned co-ops are how to structurally transform conditions and fairness to respect the interests of employees.
The nuclear engineering consultancy I worked at in the 90's was one such example.
In aggregate, American workers are wimps and low information consumers. They don't realize how bad they have it, what the problem is, or how to solve it practically even if they did. Instead, they have been indoctrinated with a red scare and damnatio memoriae about their own history of socialism and organized labor anything that doesn't worship at the alter of corporate profits.
It's admittedly pretty cynical, but at this point I treat HR meetings more like police interrogations, and keep my answer short, minimal, and utilitarian, knowing what I say can and will be used against me. It's not fair to the HR people, most of them are perfectly nice, but they're in a position that's often inherently antagonistic towards workers, since they're generally only called when you're in trouble.