Double standards
-
This post did not contain any content.
-
This post did not contain any content.
HR is employed by the company to protect the company/capital.
A regulatory watchdog (so not on company's payroll) would be the one to protect the workers. Even a union could to a certain degree.
-
HR is employed by the company to protect the company/capital.
A regulatory watchdog (so not on company's payroll) would be the one to protect the workers. Even a union could to a certain degree.
This is just a tawdry /r/antiwork meme borne of McDonalds burger flipper level reasoning.
Sure, companies maximise profits and hire HR to assist them in that objective.
However, your own interests are often aligned with theirs.
If you want to sue your employer, then obviously HR is not there to help you do that.
However, if your supervisor is an ass who makes witty comments about how many cup cakes you ate, your interests are aligned with HR's - he needs to stop creating fodder for your bullying claim.
-
This is just a tawdry /r/antiwork meme borne of McDonalds burger flipper level reasoning.
Sure, companies maximise profits and hire HR to assist them in that objective.
However, your own interests are often aligned with theirs.
If you want to sue your employer, then obviously HR is not there to help you do that.
However, if your supervisor is an ass who makes witty comments about how many cup cakes you ate, your interests are aligned with HR's - he needs to stop creating fodder for your bullying claim.
That doesn't mean HR is staffed with intelligent people who will back up the smaller paycheck.
-
That doesn't mean HR is staffed with intelligent people who will back up the smaller paycheck.
Are you saying HR will side with the guy making cup cake comments?
That's antithetical to the comment I replied to. It can't be both.
-
Are you saying HR will side with the guy making cup cake comments?
That's antithetical to the comment I replied to. It can't be both.
They literally did. Why are you disregarding her account and acting like this is some kind of hypothetical?
-
They literally did. Why are you disregarding her account and acting like this is some kind of hypothetical?
That's not what her account said at all. You're making up a narrative that doesn't exist.
-
That's not what her account said at all. You're making up a narrative that doesn't exist.
No, that's literally what she said. Get some reading comprehension ffs. HR talked to her instead of the boss who made the rude comment. Read it as many times as you need...
-
No, that's literally what she said. Get some reading comprehension ffs. HR talked to her instead of the boss who made the rude comment. Read it as many times as you need...
Sorry mate all the comments in this thread are asserting different things.
The screen cap says HR spoke to her.
You're saying that means that they've taken the supervisors side.
That would expose the company to a legal claim, which is the antithesis of what every other comment here says HR is supposed to do.
-
Sorry mate all the comments in this thread are asserting different things.
The screen cap says HR spoke to her.
You're saying that means that they've taken the supervisors side.
That would expose the company to a legal claim, which is the antithesis of what every other comment here says HR is supposed to do.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]No, they clearly did take the company's side, and no, that does not open them up to a legal claim. That case would get dismissed so damn fast it's not even funny.
