How did HR get to be so well paid?

n0minus1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119006220#Comment_119006220

The overuse of the word "Talent" in HR annoys me no end. It does a disservice to those who have spent time actively and continually upskilling in their career

Cluedo Monopoly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119010934#Comment_119010934

Ok but I have had 8 employers over the last 26 years and I have never seen it or heard of HR attending performance reviews. A couple of US multinationals in there too. I know people working in multinationals in Galway and I have never come across this practice. I have been doing quarterly reviews for over 4 years now too. What industry are you seeing HR help people managers with performance reviews? Do they just sit there saying nothing?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119011796#Comment_119011796

Oh, we're comparing resumes? I'm not going to bother competing with you, but for reference, I've worked mostly abroad (Ireland, Germany, Australia, then Asia) originally in Finance (roughly a decade), then moving into management (5 years), and later training/development. Now, I'm primarily a lecturer in Business Management but do consulting work sometimes. I'm not based in Ireland, and spend most of my time in Asia.

Now, I realise you seem to think that all businesses operate the same way.. but they don't. Not getting into an argument over this, as I know it'll go circular and end up nowhere. You have different experiences. Grand. I understand that companies are organised, managed, and operate in different ways.. I'm sure your experience bears out there. Mine is simply different.

Strumms

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119006779#Comment_119006779

why would I need to DM you ?:)

they are there to protect the company but they ‘market’ themselves as impartial and that they hold their paymasters to the same legal, ethical and company policy standards as anyone else, from experience all be it thankfully limited, that’s not the case.

Cluedo Monopoly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119012199#Comment_119012199

I was just questioning the practice. I'll leave you to it. I hope I never come across that performance review methodology because it's counter productive to a trusting environment.

Cluedo Monopoly

I think Dirty Harry summed it up well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvG3R-xOMzE

Floppybits

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119006220#Comment_119006220

Use to call them the "Arts and Crafts" department as all they seem to do was stick up posters of leaflets on events for morale boosting such as department quiz or halloween fancy dress or some other such party and the odd time on policy.

They do have an important role in that they are the ones that will set the policies that will define the behaviour and culture within in a company, which are usually common sense things like don't be late, appearance and dress code and then down to other things like desk policy's and stuff like that. Now most folks in their working life will not have many interactions with HR except for interviewing, joining or leaving a company and redundancy. Only folks I seen who had any interaction with the HR department outside of management are those folks that can't seen do the most common sense of things like being hygenic. I wouldn't begrudge them having to pull in smelly pete or mary and have to tell them to clean up their act. :)

cloudatlas

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119010854#Comment_119010854

Guess what the easiest module is to do at Smurfit, it begins with a H. Also the title of the thread says it all, they are the ones setting the pay grades in my organisation so they are always well paid. Every year there is an award ceremony in my company and guess who always gets and award because they are a big team and they all nominate each other, you guessed it! I don't really care how people in hr feel, they enable the management to treat staff like ****, they don't send out important timely emails to staff because they don't think we are important so we miss out on benefits, they don't understand employment law they are mere go betweens who are overpaid. I'd advise you to resign.

BattleCorp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119016308#Comment_119016308

You'd advise me to resign? Why is that? I don't work in HR and never have done. Nor would I want to. I've worked out of a large open plan office where HR were based and I saw the sh1t that they have to go through on a day-to-day basis.

Sky King

When I think of HR I think of a clique of wide-arsed women in an office having long boring conversations about childcare and Penney's.

Christine Neville

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119011350#Comment_119011350

Well to be fair, they don't consider themselves the 'talent'. They're claiming they can spot the talent... presumably by looking out for certain skill sets listed on people's LinkedIn profiles. They can really talk the talk. I remember being on to them about job criteria back when I didn't really know what HR was, and they'd be all talk about what's needn't for the job (HPLC or whatever) up until the point that I'd start asking them questions and they'd say (in their own way) "oh I know nothing".

Christine Neville

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119018028#Comment_119018028

Wide arsed? Some of them are in quite good shape and quite attractive. Attractive women probably have that nack for finding the easy way to get what they want anyway... whether it be by accidentally dropping their purse next to the the newly self made millionaire, or going for the easy well paid job.

 

FlubberJones

Use HR all the time and value their input, they stop me saying things that will cause issues for me, the team or the company. And if they get paid well for it, good for them.

Jim2007

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058244073/how-did-hr-get-to-be-so-well-paid

Labour is the most expensive cost element in most companies so it would be rather stupid to leave it unmanaged... that is why HR earns the big bucks and that is why they have significant power. And regardless what you may think their companies see the value in having them around.

Recruitment, payroll, holidays and discipline are the areas where you are likely to come in contact with HR, so it is not surprising that you have a rather limited view of the skills and responsibilities involved. In many cases companies outsource payroll/holiday entitlement and recruiting, so clearly there is a lot more going on than you think.

HR are charged with ensuring that the company has and will continue to have the workforce it needs to achieve it's business objectives. That means that there are a lot of things in HR that have much higher priority than your payroll and disciplinary matters for example. It means resource planning - what kind of workforce will you need going forward, who can be unskilled to fill those roles, who won't make it... having succession plans for the replacement for team leads and managers, having target lists of people who could be headhunted in order to fill senior positions in the even someone leaves and needs to be replaced and so on.

I have never worked in HR, but I have designed various systems for HR departments over the years and non of them had anything to do with the usual gripes people have about HR.

Jim2007

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119007441#Comment_119007441

There is no reason why a review should be 1-2-1...

You interact with several people in the workplace to get the job done, so a rounded view of your performance should not depend on one person:

• If you are expected to work as part of team, then a selection of your colleagues should be involved
• If you interact with senior management, some feedback is required
• Likewise if you interact with other parts of the business
• Even customers/clients of occassion
• Your manager or team lead
• Your functional manager if you work in a matrix type environment

I have experienced a lot of review that have done down this road.

Cluedo Monopoly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119019391#Comment_119019391

We were talking about the actual performance review meeting. The face-to-face feedback meeting and goal setting meeting. Obviously the manager would solicit feedback from the rest of the team (and customers) before the performance review meeting. I think some companies call that '360 feedback'. My point is that HR should not sit in on the performance review meeting. I have never heard of HR sitting in on a performance review meeting.

touts

In my experience of a production environment the hierarchy of best to worst jobs in a company goes like this.

Marketing (Well paid to play on Instagram and Canva all day. And google does all the work for them in the background)

HR (Well paid and cushy as hell. They are mainly planning fun events and for disciplinary events they follow a step by step process)

Accounting (Very well paid but with more stress at month end, year end etc)

IT (Well paid and no one knows what the **** they do and are terrified of them so leave them alone)

Project Management & Consultants (Seriously well paid to basically hold meetings once a week and tell people how they could do the job more efficently if they followed this Gantt chart. Would be higher but they generally get booted out after a few months when senior management realize they are chancers. And then they move onto their next client)

Facilities (Basically well paid plumbers/electricians etc without the uncertainty of the building trade etc)

Training (would be higher but they are dealing with stupid questions from new staff or idiots sent back for "retraining".)

Purchasing (can be stressful and officially not well paid but every supplier to the place "remembers" them at Christmas)

New Product Development (Average pay and have to figure out how to make what sales promised the customer)

Sales (well paid but the stress and targets can be cruel)

Quality (pay isn't great and they are always dealing with stupid mistakes made by others)

Operations/Factory Floor (pay generally not great (but there are exceptions) and physically demanding but unionised 9-5 and zero stress)

Engineering (Have to find technical solutions to the impossible products sales asked New Product development to come up with. Plus all your classmates from college are making double working for an actual engineering company sometimes in exotic locations while you are stuck in Thurles trying to work out a way to defy the laws of physics on a tiny budget)

Payroll (usually not the best paid job and the only time people deal with them is when they are pissed off over something. Plus they see everyone else getting paid more than them. That must be a killer)

Reception/Personal Assistant. (pay is poor and they are expected to be the happy face of the company no matter what. And if they are also a PA which they often are for the CEO etc then they are usually working for an arrogant prick)

Warehouse & Logistics (rubbish pay and physically demanding. Similar to Factory Floor but are generally being shouted at by the factory floor a lot. And one of the worst is in a frozen warehouse. 8 hour shifts in sub zero temperatures. It takes a special breed of lunatic to do that job)

Production Planning (You couldn't pay me enough to do that job. Heart attack central. Stress levels through the roof. Long hours in the office and on call 7 days a week 24 hours a day. And the pay is generally poor by all accounts as most people don't last/live long enough to get well paid)

Jim2007

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119020080#Comment_119020080

Aren't we lucky so many people don't agree with you.

gladvimpaker

Back in the mid 90's HR was about looking after the staff, then slowly but surely it flipped to the other side of the pendulum and it was about looking out for the company.

Back in time some human resources were so good you wouldn't even need a union to sort out problems in the work place. The basically kept management, supervisor's and line leaders in check.... now they're keeping the company in cheque and looking for way's to get rid of people or find loopholes in order for management to screw over staff without getting sued or in trouble.

Good hr staff usually move around quite a bit as they can't handle working for corrupt companies. The one's that stay a long time are usually doing their bosses bidding...

n0minus1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119019119#Comment_119019119

I think you misunderstood me, I wasn't implying that HR consider themselves the "talent" rather they measure suitability by the term "talent" in itself. That implies a natural aptitude is a deciding factor rather than someone applying themselves by upskilling in an area where "talent" just isn't enough. In my opinion it just goes to show how out of touch HR can be in certain cases.

Ubbquittious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119018028#Comment_119018028

Thats what they are in most cases. They can also get you booted out of a job easily and themselves are isolated from having to do any real work

Strumms

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119030561#Comment_119030561

Because unless the company is that large the HR only have one or two HR personnel on site, so not enough to have a manager overseeing them… last job had no HR on-site. He was based in Croydon in the UK….fly over if there was an issue or if not a walk around twice a year… completely isolated from understanding the challenges and machinations of our employment and worker / management relationships and challenges again ..

anytime there was a problem he gets the managers side first via phone calls and email without experience or context of that individual so employee is behind the 8 ball.

Paul Pogba

If HR were doing their job correctly, unions wouldn’t have so many members

jackboy

The recruitment side of HR is a complete farce. The modern companies strategy for recruitment is completely ineffective and not fit for the purpose of finding the right person for the job. HR may as well pull names out of a hat.

Jim2007

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119030718#Comment_119030718

HR are doing their job - managing to the maximum benefit of the company, don’t mistake HR for some kind of charitable institution!

Jim2007

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119030738#Comment_119030738

So you didn’t get the job then….

If the business management are not getting the personal they need to do the job, HR staff would not survive very long. They might not be your idea of the ‘right person’ but the choice made is good enough to keep the operation going.

squigglestrebor

I wholeheartedly agree with the general HR are shitebags vibe but I dont think the are paid well? In most companies id have thought there average salary per head is the lowest out of any department? Hope im not wrong haha

jackboy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119030866#Comment_119030866

Wrong, recruitment strategy of multiple interviews is completely ineffective and will not determine the best person for the job. Unfortunately, the only way of determining suitability is to give someone a job and then wait for about a year to see if they can do it. Pulling a name out of a hat is as effective as interviews.

I have heard some laughable things from HR after interviewing people. Probably the best was after a company I worked with were interviewing for a scientist. HR rejected some candidates because they came across too intelligent in the interviews and intelligent people are ‘weird’.

Another time a manager was shocked that a new employee was completely useless even though their CV and references ‘proved’ they were an expert in their field.

There are literally companies who you pay to write your CV to deceive HR for interviews and this can be done with incredible ease.

Jim2007

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119030954#Comment_119030954

You are entitled to you opinion, but I'd take it with a very large pinch of salt.

Over the past 30 years I have recruited people at 7 multinationals and not even in one occasion did I encounter anything remotely like you are describing.

HR perform their recruiting activity in conjunction with the hiring manager, they advertise the job, filter the responses based on the agreed criteria of the hiring manager and they present him with say 3 - 5 people. Yes some good people will slip through the net, but is not important to the company, the objective was to identify 3 - 5 people to consider for the position and it has been achieved. It is cheaper to junior filter the resumes rather than tie up a manger to go over say 200 responses.

Taken out of context it is difficult to draw any conclusions on the rejection of an intelligent candidate, but it can be valid. If the the work is below the level for the candidate and there is little prospect of promotion of a move to anther are it is pointless taking on the candidate because they will only exit early and you end up having the cost of doing it all over again. And yes many intelligent people are a bit unique because they have some kind of autistic spectrum disorder and I don't say that lightly because I have recruited and worked with many, including my son. Often they are just not suitable to be let loose on the general public when representing the company.

Any manager that accepts someone on to their staff without checking that they have the technical skills necessary to do the job and just relies on references has only himself to blame. He should have insisted on technical interviews etc... if he did not, then he owns that decision.

Of course there are plenty of companies out there that willing to write a CV for you. But if you have spent any time recruiting in a specific area, it is easy to pick out the delegated resumes. Candidates that are too lazy to write their own resume hire companies that do exactly the same - the sentences and paragraphs repeated over and over in resume after resume.

You seem to think the objective is to get the best candidate for the job, it is not, it is to get an acceptable candidate at a reasonable cost.

Christine Neville

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119030738#Comment_119030738

So how is it you think they manage to get away with it? Is it because multinationals can afford to waste a bit of money on hiring the wrong staff? Is it because HR know exactly how to pull the wool over the eyes of management? Whether HR know a lot about the industry they're recruiting from doesn't matter a whole lot seeing as they are told what criteria to watch out for. They're involved less and less towards the final stages of recruitment.

I remember my dad telling me about how this one lady in HR would be almost sitting on the lap of her boss every time he came over from Belgium. And she'd hold pointless bonding events that all her staff had to go to and she'd get him up on the zoom call to see what's going on.