Employees are bypassing HR, sharing on LinkedIn
102 comments
·January 12, 2025ethbr1
>> [Workers] tend to see human resources as an extension of corporate dogma meant to reinforce company policies.
It is.
HR may do other stuff above and beyond, but their first priority will always be compliance.
Consequently, whether or not HR is the appropriate venue to address your problem boils down to -- "Is this a compliance issue for the company? And if so, will resolving it be in my favor?" (E.g. sexual harassment)
If yes/yes, go to HR. If anything else, find another line of redress.
keb_
Great point, this reminded me of this great fasterthanlime video about your relationship with your employer: https://youtu.be/52pdPQHDKho?t=373
mihaaly
I find the name expressive.
Human RESOURCES.
Desks, xerox machine, Vasarely replica in the meeting room, humans, printers, patents and inventions, inventory in the warehouse, etc., all the same. Resources. Buy, sell, replace, act like it worths more than elsewhere. But eventually just items tossed around.
... I had a sceptic smile when one pretended they are better by pinning 'People Manager' designation on the very same person taming this troublesome and risky resource for the very big and famous but utmost caring company that I came across recently. Some seem to feel the weigth of the word (or just trying to pretend ever stronger how caring they are, when the bi-weekly pizza and everyone-is-so-happy-here group photo in company logo t-shirts are just too stale and overused).
RachelF
Interesting that the examples in the article are from Australia.
Perhaps employee protection is better in Australia than in the US?
skissane
Australian law has “unfair dismissal” - if your employer terminates you for “unfair” reasons, then you can take them to court, and if you win you either get reinstated or compensated. Very different from the “at-will employment” which prevails in much of the US. (I put "unfair" in quotes because it is ultimately about what a court concludes is unfair, based on the legislation and case law, which might not be the same as what you or I think is unfair.)
It is worth pointing out it only applies if your annual salary is less than the "high income threshold", which is currently AU$175,000 (approximately US$107,000). They increase that amount every year, and their definition of "income" excludes certain things (such as bonuses). If your income is above that, you can't sue under unfair dismissal law, although you still can sue for common law breach of contract (which is more difficult, however–employers generally try to word employment contracts to maximise their freedom to terminate you, although there is always the chance a court will find the relevant terms of the contract legally invalid, at least as applied to your particular case.)
jimbob45
HR needs to adopt a mantra similar to medicine’s “First, do no harm”. If there was any question over whether doctors would ever knowingly hurt patients, the entire profession would halve its patientload over night.
Likewise, HR departments are by-and-large good places with helpful and supportive people. However, the fact that they have the ability at all to report your conversations to management means no one trusts them and they become ineffective as a result.
atmavatar
The misunderstanding causing confusion here is that for HR, the business is the patient - not the employee.
From HR's perspective, an employee is a body part of the business. If helping the employee (i.e., healing the body part) is best for the business, that's what HR does. If terminating the employee (i.e., amputating the body part) is best for the business, that's what HR does.
disqard
I liked your analogy, and it sparked a thought -- employees are like fingernails: tools to be used, and trimmed/filed down when not needed.
Of course, your analogy is better, because when corporations conduct layoffs to save money to do stock buybacks, that is really much closer to amputating body parts for the sake of a "weight loss" metric.
SOLAR_FIELDS
As long as this is an arm of the company and there is no disinterested third party the incentive will always dictate that HR will place the interest of the company over the employee. As the old adage goes (paraphrased): “It’s difficult to make someone believe something when their salary depends on them not believing it”.
thatcat
I'm not sure the mantra is effective. The 3rd leading cause of death is medical malpractice and yet people are still sick and still go to the doctor.
defrost
That quip is less deep and more complex than you think.
Look back to when the leading cause of death was "any slight infection" closely followed by any number of other accidents and diseases.
Health, saftey, and treatment have now become so effective that death is relatively a great deal rarer in developed countries not at war to the point where people have an expectation of friends and relatives being kept alive and strong tendency to sue when that doesn't happen; leading to many "malpractice" cases being settled and covered by insurance.
Would you rather live in a world with or without modern medicine and doctors?
refulgentis
I get what you're saying, but it's a dizzying problem - the proximate problem to HR in these scenarios isn't that people think HR is bad or worry they'll relay the complaint, it's that HR has no teeth.
At Google, I had an...unusual...de-facto manager for 2 years. After declining their offer to join their team, they spent six months engaging in behavior that violated company policies - though not in obvious ways like sexual harassment or violence.
Going to HR seemed futile. Even assuming they could keep anonymity, their role is simply to investigate and report to management three levels up. Without clear-cut violations, it becomes a credibility contest. Since upper management selected the middle managers, they're inherently biased toward defending their choices.
The situation came to a head between December 1st and January 1st. My performance rating plummeted from "O" (top 10%) to "MI" (bottom 10%) and a technically separate formal warning. Things came to a head because they were nominally leading work that was a huge political warzone between organizations, and they didn't really want to do anything. After I politely demurred their invitation to transfer, they hired a childhood friend as my replacement - they're still launching "new" features with the code I wrote two years ago.
I documented various incidents over those six months that violated Google's code of conduct. But even in the best-case scenario:
- HR confirms the violations.
- They report findings to my third-level manager.
- My second-level manager (who chose my de-facto manager) blames me.
- The third-level manager (who chose the second-level manager) defers to their choice.
I entered Google wondering how they handled professional disagreements. (I was a young CEO for the 5 years prior) Seven years later, I realized they don't - disagreement itself is seen as inappropriate. This dynamic inevitably hurts those lowest in the hierarchy. It's not malicious; everyone believes they're acting appropriately. But once anyone decides to prioritize comfort over strict policy enforcement (a natural human tendency), standard human politics take over. I honestly, swear to god, saw this in abundance at Google in ways I never saw at a fast food job.
What I once dismissed as complaints from underperformers now seems depressingly accurate.
antod
In companies that aren't completely pathological, HR complaints often will eventually oust a toxic manager. But sadly the key word is 'eventually'. It will usually take sacrificing multiple employees and/or the leaving feedback of many others to build enough of a track record or evidence for them to finally take action.
Complaining to HR probably won't help you, but it could be part of what eventually helps someone. Often not worth it compared to finding another job though.
NuSkooler
Love every bit of this type of stuff that mostly only the younger generations are doing. Maybe someday, our society will move away from slaving away in terrible environments to realistically only raise up a handful of humans.
somethoughts
To be honest - the great thing is that even if a small percentage of people choose the LinkedIn/Social Media shame route, it benefits everyone. Just the threat of this will probably make employers/managers think about the potential consequences of such actions.
That said - it'd be recommended that the employee have a pretty air tight story since there internet can easily turn the other way.
softwaredoug
I don’t think this is “bypassing HR”
These folks are using their negative experiences to become influencers or teach others. I doubt the LinkedIn subtweeting at a boss actually impacts the specific toxic boss.
Some people are horrible to colleagues and peers and can work the system to progress their careers. Some organizations reward this unconsciously (because everyone is such a person!). I don’t think there’s much an individual can do to change such a culture. You just need to leave and find a better one.
mancerayder
LinkedIn is full of PR nonsense. It's hard to believe. It's a medium for expression; the intelligent way to express is to self-promote subtly, the unintelligent is to express your feelings.
I've seen a number of people I used to work with, who are suddenly CTO's, or some C-level position, although I truly doubt it. Someone I used to work who can barely communicate in sentences and has a fairly heavy autism, and never managed anyone, is now listed as 'IT Director' on LinkedIn. I had to laugh.
And let's not forget the recruiters, who are always described like this: "Getter-Doner-of-Things; Enterpreneur; Executive Headhunter; author; Thought Leader; and Father"
Sorry, now it's me expressing my feelings.
stogot
There’s a lot of title inflation. I’ve seen several companies posting assistant jobs as “chief of staff” with low salaries
4ndrewl
HR is the employer's HR dept.
As an employee your HR dept is your union.
ranger207
> Brenecki also notes why it might make sense to go to HR. If you're experiencing harassment, discrimination, or other bad behavior at work, the company likely prefers that you go to HR so it can handle the situation according to state employment laws. If you don't go to HR, the company could later be found legally liable for allowing discrimination or retaliation.
At the point where you have to choose between going to HR and posting on LinkedIn, the company has already allowed discrimination or retaliation, and so should be punished for allowing that. If you go to HR, there's much less chance of the company being actually punished like they should be. You _want_ them to be held legally liable for allowing discrimination or retaliation
codr7
It only takes one disagreement to see the true face of HR.
They are special trained to tear unwanted employees into shreds.
No surprise, really. They are employed by the same company you're disagreeing with.
manosyja
> "HR is often more about protecting the company's interests than supporting employees," Costi says. "Reporting toxic behavior can backfire, labeling you as a 'troublemaker' and potentially putting your job at risk. The sad reality is that many toxic bosses are untouchable, insulated by the very system that's supposed to hold them accountable."
This is exactly the reason tinnitus go to HR. Can confirm.
neilv
I'd talk on HN before LinkedIn.
LinkedIn is 99%+ corporate-slime and self-promoting behavior, and that fact makes me suspect anything someone says there.
HN is far from perfect, but, for example, there's enough people posting pseudonymously, and I think a good percentage of those are saying something because they want to say it or think it should be said. Not because they're posturing for hiring or followers.
yodsanklai
If I had an issue within my company, I assume I'd talk to my representatives within the company, or seek assistance from a lawyer (I suppose most countries have labour courts). Sharing on LinkedIn may backfire. Depending on the issue, you may pass as a trouble maker that companies would rather avoid.
https://archive.ph/rjIbg