HR - Harpies Revisited or Helpful Resources

Background:

This article was written a few years ago, before blogs were much more than just the latest thing. I was working at a company who used HR as a hammer to crack nuts. I was still fairly green when it came to what actually happened in a HR department.

The following is probably what most people think HR should be about entering the profession. It is still important not to loose sight of the simplistic mission statement and that is why I am posting it here, to clip it for the future.

Now as a slightly older wiser me, one that has been perhaps sidelined by my own profession, I would find it a lot harder to say what HR should be about.

I have made minor edits along the same message as the original article.

HR - Harpies Revisited or Helpful Resources.

HR is all about strategic partnerships and getting behind the goals of the business. Does this override the rights and freedoms of an employee?

The laws of any country are created to protect the rights of the individual. Often these laws are needed to protect innocent and vulnerable people from aggressive, powerful people and institutions.

In this spirit Employment legislation is drafted to protect the employee from the employer. However, rather than be dictated to by central government in a culture of confrontation and red tape can Human Resources not take the final step and become a just, fair, responsible and ethical profession. A profession that does not need laws to regiment ever last detail and is more self-sufficient and self regulating.

Now I realise I have virtually alienated most of the profession by suggesting that we are as morally reprehensible as dodgy estate agents or ambulance chasing lawyers but what HR lacks to a greater and lesser extent is a universal code of honour. It is important to note that the CIPD which has a professional code of conduct does not cover all people that work in HR.

I want to explore the HR / Employee relationship and set out three fundamental tests of reasonableness that each HR professional should consider.

Three tests of reasonableness:

1. Is it reasonable?

2. Is it consistant?

3. Is it in agreement with or in the spirit of Employment legislation and guidance?

1. Is it reasonable and justifiable?

Any decision should face this test, is it the right thing to do? Would any reasonable person agree with you?

2. Is it consistent?

Take two employees with the same problem one who badgers you every second of the day and the other who sends you a polite letter. Each employee should be treated in the same way and the decision made in both cases should be the same.

Beware of making policy. A consistent decision sets a benchmark for the future, are you happy for that decision to be made on a larger scale for the following employees. Any change in consistency must go back to point one, is it reasonable and justifiable. A succession of incorrect decisions cannot be justified by repetition in the name of consistency.

3. Is it in agreement with or in the spirit of Employment legislation and guidance?

The law cannot cover every eventuality but it is possible to derive a spirit of the law from legislation. All decisions should be made with this in mind.


"The law shall not be broken" should be written on the wall of your HR department. HR professionals should not be put in a position under pressure or encouraged to act against the law by other HR professionals or unscrupulous employers.

However, if the law is broken the rectification and recompense should be evaluated against the three tests of reasonableness.

Employment tribunals will always be with us but should be seen as a last desperate resort after both parties have failed to reach an agreement. An employer would already have done everything possible to reach an amicable agreement including via independent industrial conciliation.