Fact or Fiction - What Is HR's Job? (owner, company, insurance)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am involved in 0% in the hiring decisions, I generally only ask questions of the hiring manager to ensure they have made a thoughtful decision. The hiring manager meets with their recruiter and tells the recruiter what to look for, NO ONE in HR is calling the shots. Our company does not use selection software, we hire the long term unemployed and we (HR) are strongly opposed to any type of personality assessment. I will say that we do have some business units who use it (assessments) and at every turn that we try to get it discontinued the business unit becomes unhinged. I am just as opposed to everything you have mentioned, I don't practice any of these things and frankly most in my profession don't. As for credit, we are required by law however we DO NOT review score or credit worthiness, we only review cases of poor financial mismanagement excluding, marital problems, medical or unemployment.
This myth has been busted.
I don't think your post is serious.
Last edited by eastcoastguyz; 12-14-2015 at 12:34 AM..
I agree with much of what is written here. HR advocates for employees more often than most people think. Part of representing management is making sure they don't do anything stupid - and to enforce laws that are designed to ensure employees are treated fairly.
HR is there to protect the Company, not the employees.
Almost forgot! I don't give references either. Lie all you want to your next employer for all I care, I'll never tell. We, as well as most companies provide a vendor contact that will only provide title, dates of employment and income but only if YOU authorize it. I am not involved at all. Another myth busted that "HR gave me a bad reference".
They don't call HR for that, they ask for the name and phone number of the employee's supervisor. It is asked for on every job application. That supervisor knows how to burn an employee without getting in trouble doing so. Information such as job title and dates of employment is out-sourced to a company which has this information, most places don't call HR anymore.
HR is there to protect the Company, not the employees.
I don't know why this is such a difficult concept. Protecting the company often means advocating for employees (i.e. advising management against certain actions, advocating for various quality of work life initiatives, or enforcing employment laws that protect employees).
HR sucks in recruiting for technical jobs. Most HR reps are liberal arts, soft business graduates with no understanding of technical scientific or engineering jobs. So they just kind of name techniques, machines, and software languages in the ads and (probably) randomly ask for minimum experience on each. Unfortunately, they screen most of the resumes before the hiring manager gets them and disqualify tons of competent employees because they dont understand what would make a good employee for the position.
Theres allegedly stories of programming jobs at big tech companies having thousands of peoplw applying and claiming noone is qualified.
I don't know why this is such a difficult concept. Protecting the company often means advocating for employees (i.e. advising management against certain actions, advocating for various quality of work life initiatives, or enforcing employment laws that protect employees).
How to they "enforce" the employment law, rather than simply "know" the law? I ask because these are vastly different things, and the idea of HR taking any kind of adversarial stance towards their own company boggles the mind - it makes more sense that they would take an adversarial role towards the unwanted intrusion of Federal regulations that are getting in the way of the C-suite doing what it wants.
HR sucks in recruiting for technical jobs. Most HR reps are liberal arts, soft business graduates with no understanding of technical scientific or engineering jobs. So they just kind of name techniques, machines, and software languages in the ads and (probably) randomly ask for minimum experience on each. Unfortunately, they screen most of the resumes before the hiring manager gets them and disqualify tons of competent employees because they dont understand what would make a good employee for the position.
Theres allegedly stories of programming jobs at big tech companies having thousands of peoplw applying and claiming noone is qualified.
If that's the case that's on the company. I wouldn't want HR writing job descriptions at all. If the hiring manager can't take enough time to review the job description and make sure the qualifications on the description are up to date and accurate, not really sure you can blame that on recruiting. Qualifications, should be set by the business, not HR. It sounds like people either apply to absolutely horrendous companies or they are mad at HR for something the business is too lazy to review.
Where I work all recruiting does is meet with the hiring manager, find out what the hiring manager is looking for, sort through the resumes based on what the hiring manager is looking for, call qualified applicants to ensure they are still interested, ask them to verify work history, and salary expectations. They then give the responses to the hiring manager and help the hiring manager set up an interview if they are still interested in the applicant. If the recruiter is making decisions I'd blame that on leadership of the company, not HR. We just hired someone a few months ago and even with a recruiter we had access to all the resumes. I read through them even with a recruiter and the recruiter we had did a very good job of picking the candidates that best matched what we were looking for.
That is not what he is saying. He has said these things over and over again in multiple threads. He was very clear in saying that he does not respect the field of psychology, especially organizational psychology. He also bragged about never taking a psychology course. How does that have anything to do with the millions of people in HR who have MBAs and degrees in HR? Even if most HR professionals had advanced degrees in psychology, he would not respect them because he does not respect psychology even though he has admitted that he knows nothing about it. The validity of the field of psychology shouldn't have even been brought up because it is irrelevant to this thread.
Thank you and let's not forget that many in HR like myself and others have business backgrounds. We're not here to diagnose anyone so I don;t see how the psychology piece is relevant.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
