[tlals]

I worked for a private (venture backed) company that actually had a stellar HR team who seemed to think about the employee's needs first. Or rather, they considered the company's needs first and the company* (ie, the executive team) believed that having an HR department who prioritized employee's needs was the right choice. The most obvious standout example was an employee with health problems who might not be able to return to work. She was kept on the payroll for a full year without working. She never did end up returning to work. This kind of thing paid off in retention, which was wildly high compared to other companies in the market.

But that company was acquired by a massive public company. And now HR is half adversary + half bureaucratic nonsense. Interestingly, the company still offered great benefits. I assume that is because the benefits package is an easy-to-measure piece of compensation, while HR quality is something that is much harder to shop around for.

* caveat, I have no idea how HR would have acted in a situation where an employee brings up concerns that would put the company in legal jeopardy. If I had to guess, they would do the right thing in a "senior harasser vs harassed subordinate" situation. If the the company was clearly in the wrong, I think they would work hard to satisfy the employee to prevent legal jeopardy. If the employee could not be satisfied without a significant hit to the company, I'm pretty sure they would do anything they could to protect the company. And that reflects that at the end of the day, the company comes first. A good HR department can just push much harder for win-wins (and probably only under market conditions that give labor leverage).