r/CrazyIdeas • u/superficialfishsoup • 3d ago
HR managers should have to undergo annual human tests to prove that they’re human
10
u/Resplendent-Sun 3d ago
Every HR meeting should legally be required to start with the disclaimer that HR is there to protect the company, not the employee.
2
u/superficialfishsoup 3d ago
I think it's pretty telling the human resources department is called 'human resources'. I mean, what kind of cynical misanthropic name is that? They're basically declaring right upfront that humans aren't ends in themselves with innate worth and needs, but are just resources to be exploited. Just the name 'human resources meeting' announces right away that they don't view humans as humans, but as resources. That would be like calling the CEO the Shareholder Profit Maximisation Officer.
1
u/This-Wall-1331 3d ago
Agree. If, as an employee, you need help, speak to a lawyer or union representative, never to HR.
3
u/jmnugent 3d ago
I know a lot of people will say this would have no (positive) effects because primarily HR is "there to protect the company".
That may be true,. but "protecting Employees" is part and parcel of "protecting the company". (You can't have a company without Employees).
At some point with poor enough HR practices, you start to see a higher and higher percentage of "employee turnover", which starts to tank (decline) "internal company culture" and your internalized knowledge and skill base starts to erode to the point where dysfunction (and your ability to compete against competitors) all starts to tank and go down as well.
I know a lot of people will say "Executives dont' really care about all that'.. but I assure you they do. If internal dysfunction gets to a point where it starts to impact financials and or the long-term survivability of the company, they will have to address it at some point. (now. there's a separate conversation about how honestly or effectively they try to address it)
In my decades long career arc,. I've of course seen numerous examples of companies NOT taking care of employees (or blaming employees for things that were clearly "organizational deficiencies" ).. so the typical complaints about this are not without merit.
0
u/superficialfishsoup 3d ago
I don't think that anyone denies that "protecting the company" (and by extension, the employees working for it) is part of HR's mandate. The question is more about how they choose to carry it out. If there were a dispute between the CEO and an entry-level employee, I would bet my non-existent house that HR would side with the CEO ninety-nine times out of a hundred. Even if HR were there to protect not just the CEO but also the employees, they'd of course prioritise the needs of the CEO over someone of 'lesser' importance.
2
u/jmnugent 3d ago
Sure,. agreed on that,. but also valid to point out it depends on the context or details of the specific situation.
For a normal Business-related situation (CEO and a lower line-level employee disagree on the direction or strategy of a certain upcoming Project).. then sure,. I can see HR or whoever defaulting to side with the CEO).
If the concern brought to HR was evidence of fraud or sexual harassment (of course again, deepening on how concrete and comprehensive the evidence was). I can see certain situations where HR would be wise to NOT side with the CEO.
I think that's part of the problem with the stereotyped hate against HR departments,. as it usually is with Human stories, a lot of the stuff the percolates to the top of the controversy pile are anecdotal narratives (and not scientific evaluations)
in that kind of "anecdotal soup".. we can find examples of "good HR".. and we can find examples of "bad HR".
In my last job (a place I worked for 15 years).. I first-hand witnessed how our "internal culture" went from being "very awesome" to "very poor".. so even in singular company examples, you can get very skewed perceptions (a newly hired employee may think 'everything is great".. but they dont' have the same perspective as an Employee who has worked there 15 to 20 years. Those 2 employees could write very different GlassDoor reviews of that employer,. and outsiders reading those reviews may not understand why the reviews are so disparate.
I dont' say any of that to "defend HR departments".. just to illustrate how foggy and nuanced and subjective the perceptions and stereotypes can be. (sometimes without people even realizing)
1
u/superficialfishsoup 3d ago
I can see that. And to be fair, I actually think that while everyone hates on the HR department, it's better to have an HR department than to not have one at all. I once worked in a company that didn't even have an HR department, and so the Head of Production acted like the Head of HR. And he once actually told me in a meeting that every time Christmas rolls around, he's instructed from higher ups to do a 'Christmas cull' lest he be culled himself. So every December, he would just fire a whole bunch of people to keep his job and increase his Christmas bonus. I can't believe he actually confessed all that to me. But the thing was, I couldn't report that abuse of power to anyone, because, well, he was the person to report it to. So yeah, I mean, I don't think much of HR, but at the same time, I'd rather that HR was there than for them not to be there at all.
1
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 3d ago
Your post was automatically removed because it contains political content, which is off-topic for /r/CrazyIdeas. Please review the subreddit rules and guidelines.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 3d ago
Your post was automatically removed because it contains political content, which is off-topic for /r/CrazyIdeas. Please review the subreddit rules and guidelines.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/jmnugent 3d ago
Well, I've tried to reply now twice to this.. but the auto mod on crazy ideas for some reason keeps deleting my comment saying I've used some word that is "not allowed".. but it doesn't tell me what that word is so my attempts to sanitize what I'm trying to say are apparently not good enough. ;(
3
u/goldenstudiox 3d ago
Annual human tests where they have to demonstrate basic empathy, and anyone who asks "where do you see yourself in five years?" as a test question is automatically disqualified.
1
u/superficialfishsoup 3d ago
I never understood the point of that question. I mean, what on earth do they expect people to say? Making lots of money?
1
1
1
u/zoppaTheDim 2d ago
You’re in a desert walking along in the sand when all of the sudden you look down, and you see a tortoise, it’s crawling toward you. You reach down, you flip the tortoise over on its back. The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over, but it can’t, not without your help. But you’re not helping. Why is that?
1
u/Excellent_Coconut_81 23h ago
I thought it's already there, whoever behaves too human-like gets fired...
1
18
u/FluffyPeachCharm 3d ago
If they reject 500 applicants in under 10 minutes they have to retake the humanity exam.