[fazza99]

I've worked at a couple organisations where there was a mantra of 'No HR'. In all cases I saw mistakes and abuses that would / should have been picked up by a sensible HR person. I don't buy it. Granted you don't need entire departments of people but when you get to be a billion-pound company, there will be a need for some expertise.

[watwut]

How does HR "picks up" abuses? I work in company that has HR, but I don't see them as a place to solve actual issues - basically any of them. They do routine administration just fine, they are useful for that, but that is it.

If you actually think that something bad is going on, talking up actual hierarchy (complaining to higher ups) or leaving are only two sensible options. And if complaining to higher ups, then you put your resignation to HR.

But none of my interactions with HR made me think that these would be people capable to solve issues. They don't have processes to even realize problems are happening. They don't have trust of employees either.

[mbg721]

At a company I once worked for, HR talked to us prior to interviewing candidates for an open position, with suggested lines of questioning for soft-skills, a framework for the decision process, and reminders of things to avoid for legal reasons. It may have been largely intended to cover the company's backside, but I would say it was useful at heading off some potential problems.

[donnythecroc]

Agree with this 100% people never seem to realise HR is there to protect the company ONLY. Literally they are a compliance function to stop company getting sued.