HR: there to prevent employment tribunals, not support workers

[DonaldTrumpsTwitterFeed]

As it says!

AIBU to think that most HR functions provide more support to those causing problems than those on the recording end? I’m talking everything from poor-performance to bullying. Mostly it seems to be aimed at avoiding employment tribunals and unfair dismissal claims!

Of course HR is there to protect the company and not the workers. Thats why companies pay them. HR is not your friend.

They are supposed to ensure things are done legally but ultimately their job is to protect the company not individual employees.

HR is there to do so much more than that, but of course avoidance of tribunals is key - how that’s done depends on the company. A decent company will be avoiding tribunals but providing decent manager training and enduring that all processes and policies are fair. That helps both sides of a dispute.

How is this news? Did you think they were people your employer paid to support you out of the goodness of their hearts?

HR person here. Yes, I'd agree that we are often there to mitigate legal risk for the employer. The role/ function is much broader than that though.

If you want support as an employee, join a union.

Yes, isn’t it obvious. They are employed by the employer to protect them.

And there’s nothing wrong with that either.

If you want representation for your best interests at a meeting as a worker you bring a trade union representative where possible. HR are there for the interests of the business they support so no I wouldn't be relying on a HR person to fight my case for me.

In the days when I was an employee we had a Personnel Department, usually called the Anti-Personnel Department :-) You were happiest when you didn't hear from them and they seemed to be run by a scary middle-aged secretary.

It's the law that protects the employee. By making sure that the employer obeys the law, they're indirectly protecting employees to some extent. But if you're being bullied, just run. For things like that, where it'll be hard to prove either way, it's easier for them to make out the employee is in the wrong. That's my experience anyway

Of course that’s the purpose of HR. But as a senior HR professional I have found that a great deal of this involves telling senior managers that they can’t treat employees how they’d like and that they need to adhere to the law. IME treating employees fairly is by far the best way to mitigate the threat of ETs.

Same. I expect my union to fight my corner.

Well, yes, that’s what they are paid to do. Why would you think otherwise?

Twice, when I had said I wasn't happy in a role and had considered resigning, HR were quick to email me to talk me out of it. Both times, it was due to SLT being bullies. All they wanted was a paper trail that they had protected my interests, when it was only their own, they cared about.

The way to protect an organisation from ETs is by ensuring employees are supported.

If you as an employee want direct support or representation, join a union.

And no, HR isn't your "friend", but neither is any other business function. I don't know why it's expected that HR would be. That being said, I can assure you I've spent far more time in my career ensuring employees are treated properly by their managers than I have cooking up ways to upset or get rid of them. Contrary to popular belief it seems.

Exactly this! I work in HR and I get tired of hearing things like the op. Of course, the best way to avoid tribunals is to treat staff fairly, so the two things are one and the same.

If someone resigns as a reaction to a situation/ in haste it's best practice to send a cooling off letter. Most of the time we are praying you'll continue with your resignation, as it will take more time to deap with a grievance. Really it's just an ass covering move.

@devildeepbluesea thats exactly my point.

Except in all the cases I’m thinking of, they haven’t. They’ve offered no support to those impacted but gone above and beyond for the ‘problem.’ I’d go as far an to say ‘they’ve protected the problem.’ And, because of that, it probably is going to end in some sort of tribunal, only it’ll be the person who was ‘effected’ running with it.

Yanbu to think that. Yabu if you ever thought otherwise.

Thanks for your honesty, and for proving my mistrust wasn't misplaced! I'm so glad I took early retirement, to be out of all that shit.

That's an organisation issue rather than an HR issue. Believe me, I know who the problem managers are in my organisation. Can I do anything about it? No. All I can do is escalate my concerns to their manager and advise performance management or disciplinary action depending on what I'm concerned about. Their manager and the organisation has to have the appetite to then do something about them.

There's so much that goes on behind the scenes in HR that supports employees. But ultimately we're very rarely the decision maker and managers love to use the phrase "HR have told me I've got to..." because they're too weak to own their decision.

There are way too many managers, in organisations, who don't deserve their positions. I've seen plenty of promotions, where advertising internally only, is just a way of getting their mates in posts. It's all wrong.

I agree with this but it's worth bearing in mind that one of the best ways to protect the company is to make sure employees are well supported and treated properly. No HR professional wants to stand in front of a tribunal when the claimant has not been.

I couldn't agree more. Too many layers of management and too many of them that have been over promoted into roles above their level of ability.

I've experienced some awful HR professionals, including the woman who told me she thought legal entitlements for maternity had gone too far, grilled me about pregnancy as soon as I got married and questioned the family planning of a female candidate (who I chose to hire because she was bloody excellent).

I'm candid about this with my current HR, because we discuss the privacy implications of their EDI policies and the experiences people will have had with their previous HR.

Culture, policy and wellbeing should prevent things getting to tribunal.

If you are losing employment tribunals, fair enough, However, if you have someone who is not doing their job adequately or is guilty of misconduct, why fear a tribunal?