Human resources

[knitware]

HR, what's the point? In all my years of working all they have done is fk things up, no knowledge of what anyone does, limited business acumen but always manage to screw you over. Last year I'm found inside IR35 because HR thought I should be, no other engineer on my project is. Bah...

This week, HR haven't upset knitware for a while, let's suggest he takes a PAYE role and not renew his contract, 'what does he do again...?'

What is the role, point, of HR, anyone know?

[Countdown]

knitware said:

What is the role, point, of HR, anyone know?

Recruitment, processing starters, leavers, salaries, pensions, disciplinaries, grievances, training, development, policies and procedures.

Some of them can have a "Computer says No" approach. However they do tend to be staffed by a high percentage of posh yummy mummies so y'know.....

[Mr Penguin]

A good HR person can help you hire the right person (and stay on the right side of the law), keep your good staff motivated while getting rid of the bad ones.

Unfortunately most of them are oxygen thieves.

[Ken P]

Human Remains?

Total waste of space.

[abzmike]

HR used to be a force for good. Now as many processes have been automated or outsourced, they are largely there to protect the employer from litigation.

[55palfers]

Countdown said:

Recruitment, processing starters, leavers, salaries, pensions, disciplinaries, grievances, training, development, policies and procedures.

Some of them can have a "Computer says No" approach. However they do tend to be staffed by a high percentage of posh yummy mummies so y'know.....

Didn't all this used to be done by "Personnel"?

[Countdown]

55palfers said:

Countdown said:

Recruitment, processing starters, leavers, salaries, pensions, disciplinaries, grievances, training, development, policies and procedures.

Some of them can have a "Computer says No" approach. However they do tend to be staffed by a high percentage of posh yummy mummies so y'know.....

Didn't all this used to be done by "Personnel"?

Same thing.

[db10]

its very rare to find an HR person that actually "supports" the business like they are supposed to

I have worked in all the big 4 accounting firms and the HC function is consistently terrible. We interview someone to join, agree their pay etc and yet it still takes HR weeks to send the formal offer out (all they are doing is inserting the persons name, address, role level and salary into a pro forma template). Its absolutely nuts and isnt helped by everyone "offshoring" stuff to India and other random places on different time zones.

The worst part of it all is that they all protect each other. If you ask where the hold up is in getting the offer out they will always refer to a team and will refuse to give the specific name of anyone so you can call them directly

One of the motivations for the EY split of the business is to cut lots of internal costs - im hoping a lot of it will be in HC to be honest.

[Pit Pony]

knitware said:

HR, what's the point? In all my years of working all they have done is fk things up, no knowledge of what anyone does, limited business acumen but always manage to screw you over. Last year I'm found inside IR35 because HR thought I should be, no other engineer on my project is. Bah...

This week, HR haven't upset knitware for a while, let's suggest he takes a PAYE role and not renew his contract, 'what does he do again...?'

What is the role, point, of HR, anyone know?

Don't understand why HR would be involved in the procurement process.
If you are truly outside IR35, you are no different to the firm that is employed to fix the roof, or to provide The Security guards.
Why isn't the project manager dealing with this like any other contract ?
And I say this respectfully as someone who spent 12 years working outside IR35, before recently going Permie.
If you were in business you'd give them a sales brochure and not a CV, right ?
I've had one client and only one, that dealt with contractors, via a contracts manager. The rest off shore on boarding ste.

[Jasandjules]

They are a source of income for me........... I tell them how to do their jobs and charge them for it, or if they have done something without checking with me first, then I charge them to try to correct their errors.......

[smn159]

abzmike said:

they are largely there to protect the employer from litigation.

This is the right answer.

They remain busy, given the surprising difficulty that many managers have with following internal processes

[R56Cooper]

Jasandjules said:

They are a source of income for me........... I tell them how to do their jobs and charge them for it, or if they have done something without checking with me first, then I charge them to try to correct their errors.......

Lol, I think you and I have the same job! Majority of "HR Managers" I deal with are utter gash and have no clue about basic employment law. Keeps me in a job though!

[hidetheelephants]

db10 said:

its very rare to find an HR person that actually "supports" the business like they are supposed to

I have worked in all the big 4 accounting firms and the HC function is consistently terrible. We interview someone to join, agree their pay etc and yet it still takes HR weeks to send the formal offer out (all they are doing is inserting the persons name, address, role level and salary into a pro forma template). Its absolutely nuts and isnt helped by everyone "offshoring" stuff to India and other random places on different time zones.

The worst part of it all is that they all protect each other. If you ask where the hold up is in getting the offer out they will always refer to a team and will refuse to give the specific name of anyone so you can call them directly

One of the motivations for the EY split of the business is to cut lots of internal costs - im hoping a lot of it will be in HC to be honest.

Is this parody? Simultaneously bemoaning the consequences of costcutting/outsourcing of HR and hoping that it will happen?

[FNG]

smn159 said:

abzmike said:

they are largely there to protect the employer from litigation.

This is the right answer.

They remain busy, given the surprising difficulty that many managers have with following internal processes

Be better off streamlining their processes so that they were simple to follow, wouldn't they?

However that's beyond any one of them that I've ever met.

[Sporky]

Our HR is ace. Hugely supportive with recruitment, dispute resolution, and just organising things so they work.

[smn159]

FNG said:

smn159 said:

abzmike said:

they are largely there to protect the employer from litigation.

This is the right answer.

They remain busy, given the surprising difficulty that many managers have with following internal processes

Be better off streamlining their processes so that they were simple to follow, wouldn't they?

However that's beyond any one of them that I've ever met.

I don't work in HR but I do get involved in grievance cases from time to time. The processes are largely designed to ensure that the company complies with relevant legislation / deals fairly with employees such that cases either don't go to tribunal or are won when they do

Which bits are you suggesting should be streamlined?

[Hoofy]

knitware said:

What is the role, point, of HR, anyone know?

To look after the business's interests.

[Sporky]

Hoofy said:

knitware said:

What is the role, point, of HR, anyone know?

To look after the business's interests.

Though the smart businesses realise that looking after employees looks after the business too.

[Hoofy]

Sporky said:

Hoofy said:

knitware said:

What is the role, point, of HR, anyone know?

To look after the business's interests.

Though the smart businesses realise that looking after employees looks after the business too.

Sure, as long as it benefits the business.

[Mr Penguin]

R56Cooper said:

Lol, I think you and I have the same job! Majority of "HR Managers" I deal with are utter gash and have no clue about basic employment law. Keeps me in a job though!

I used to work with one who hired someone who was obviously pregnant at interview, then was obviously pregnant at hire and said "I wouldn't have hired her if I'd known she was going to go on maternity leave". I don't know if not noticing someone is 6 months pregnant or saying that you want to break basic employment law out loud is more incompetent, but in the end she was sacked for incompetence on other things.