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!

Without wanting to sound inflammatory, what is it that you were expecting HR to do about that situation? I agree it's a totally unacceptable thing to have said to you, but HR would rarely be the decision makers for what happened to that individual. Equally, if they were reprimanded in some way, you wouldn't have been informed of that.

I'm in an all female HR team and I can assure you we don't throw our female employees under the bus.

I thought this was common knowledge.

Well, duh?
How do you think the opposite, or even neutrality, would work? You really think companies would pay someone to work against their best interests and support staff in taking them to tribunal?
In an ideal scenario HR can make working conditions better for staff and employers but when shit hits the fan you'd have to be very naive to not realise what aide they are going to be on

I wanted assurance I would be rehired (recurring seasonal contracts) after my mat leave. They refused. They said because I was "choosing" to skip one season I would have to be replaced and they would then give the recurring contracts to my replacement.

I had to go higher and higher. Finally they did give me the contract.

Second time I got pregnant and said I'd have to skip a season, I got a very carefully worded "looking forward to seeing you on your return". I should fucking hope so.

Have you heard of "pregnant then screwed"?

Of course I'm not saying all HR are shit. But if they were all good at supporting women, "pregnant then screwed" would cease to exist, gender pay gaps would be a lot smaller, the list goes on.

Of course HR are there to protect the company. But that’s doesn’t (necessarily) mean they are soulless vampires.
They are there to ensure managers behave properly and follow a fair process (yes- ultimately to avoid tribunals). If you have a legitimate issue with something that isn’t “I don’t like that I don’t have a window seat” and is something more like “I wasn’t given an opportunity to apply for a promotion because I work part time” then HR can very much be your friend.
But no, they don’t care that the vending machine is empty or that someone used all the semi-skimmed milk.
They are there to hold managers accountable for their management decisions and warn them of the risks, but managers sometimes don’t even listen when the risks are pointed out to them and plow on with unfair processes anyway. Imagine how infuriating that is to an HR professional who inevitably gets the blame.
Also, never listen when a manager says something like “I did ask but HR said ‘no’” or “HR said…” they are usually lying and trying to pass the buck of making an unpopular decision onto someone else to paint themselves in a better light to their reports. Almost all decisions ultimately sit with the manager, not HR. HR may not be your friend but they aren’t usually your enemy either.

Ps. Even the fact that you're asking me the question "what did you want hr to do", and questioning whether the situation was even unfair or not, really makes me doubt your final statement.

Anyone else reading your comment is thinking "yep, QED."

I fully support the work of Pregnant then Screwed. I've also been on the receiving end of poor treatment when pregnant/returning from maternity leave.

I wouldn't say it rests solely with HR to sort those issues out. Ultimately, HR are primarily an advisory function. If organisations persist in ignoring that advice and in treating employees poorly, there isn't much the HR team can do about it.

I don't agree with everything my organisation does but I'm not a decision maker. I can advise them on their options and risks, it's up to them what they do with that advice.

HR could have told my manager "dude you cannot tell a pregnant woman to quit just because she's having a baby, that is sex discrimination".

The fact I'm having to actually explain this to someone who claims to be HR that "doesn't throw women under the bus" is...just...I can't even

Cross posted with this. I'm partially reassured that you at least see what was obviously wrong. Well, they didn't advise him. Not yet. Until I kicked up a rather mighty storm then they must have got legal advice and then did a government worthy U turn

HR is there to represent the employer not to protect individual employees. Which is why all.employees should join a Trade Union.

Too many people expect their company to be a combination of their best friend, ever forgiving parent and emotional support dog. HR are there to help run the company not protect you from adulthood

I didn't question whether the situation was fair or not? In fact I agreed it was an unacceptable thing to say to you.

I asked because I'm always genuinely interested to hear what people expect HR to do about things like this. If they're not the decision maker it wouldn't be appropriate or fair for them to guarantee that you'd get a contract when you wanted to return. How would you have felt if they'd told you you'd get a contract and then you'd been told later you wouldn't get one because the hiring manager had decided against it? I would assume behind the scenes they were advising the manager on the risks of not giving you a contract, but I doubt it was a decision for them to make.

Do you know they didn't advise this? Because it's what I'd be advising if I was in that situation.

I work in HR and can't solve slt being bullies anymore than you can. We are supposed to be an advisory/support function for the organisation, if SLT are bullies their managers or whoever sits above them would need to recognise and deal with it and HR would advise that person.

A big part of the problem is people don't understand what HR do and expect us to do the jobs of line managers. I advise managers who then go and repeat what I say word for word when actually I was bouncing ideas around for them to then make the bloody decision!

Because I had several meetings with said manager and HR jointly. HR could have piped up to remind him of the law.

As I say, if HR was universally effective then Pregnant Then Screwed would not exist.

If you're arguing that HR is inherently toothless then... that begs the question what is the point, and we're back to where we started.

You are correct that this is HR's function.
I'm not sure why you seem to be implying that this is objectionable?
Employers avoid tribunals by correctly according worker's rights where they are legally due.
If an employer gives any workers more than their minimum rights, HR's function includes overseeing to ensure there is no direct or indirect discrimination on the basis of one or more protected characteristics in how these are given.
What did you think they should be doing?

I didn't say HR is inherently toothless but the fair treatment of employees does depend on the organisation taking our advice.

Frankly, I sometimes wonder what the point of my role is. Particularly when apparently public opinion is that I'm the devil's handmaiden and totally useless. Perhaps I'd be better off moving into a more popular profession.

Well I'd be more sympathetic if you'd opened with "sorry that happened, but your HR was a bad apple and I'd have advocated for you". But your response was more like "yeah that sucks but what did you expect HR to do".

So... yes I am also wondering what the point of your role is...you have literally prompted me to wonder that by asking your question.

I lost count how many people said join a union - on page 1.
Being in a union didn't help Sandie Peggie, or the Darlington Nurses. In fact their unions have basically told them to fuck off

That’s exactly what they’re there for - to protect the employer and make sure they don’t do anything that can lead to a tribunal.

This is not news!

I didn't say HR is inherently toothless but the fair treatment of employees does depend on the organisation taking our advice.

Isn't that the definition of toothless? "We can ask them to play nicely, but that's it really"

Well, it varies by organisation but HR can cover recruitment and onboarding, managing sickness absence, liaison with payroll (or doing payroll in small organisations), training and development (planning, delivering, recording), ensuring compliance with regulatory bodies, responsible for policies and procedures, some of which may be statutory, systems management and operational things like annual leave, I used to have an operational job and dealt with daily annual leave and system queries, advising on disciplinaries, suspensions, dismissals, grievances (but not decision making) and higher level roles with have influence on culture, pay awards etc. A tiny element is dealing with employees moaning about their specific annoyances 👍