Please Read Before Taking a Job with ERAC

[Core767]

Originally Posted by gp65:(

I'm not so sure ERAC's HR is there to "protect the employees"....I think they are there to "document everything" so ERAC "doesn't get sued"...

That was my point! You should have read my post a little more carefully.

Originally Posted by Core767

Exactly..."Human resources exists to protect the company." I could not have said it better myself. And having repeated what you said, I should point out that, while the rest of what you say has merit - it is not absolute. The fact of the matter is that companies, large and small, do fire employees for unjustifiable reasons. Employees have been fired for taking leave due to illness, pregnancy, or a personal crisis such as a death in the family. Employees have even been fired due to the fact that they are members of the armed forces and from time to time need to take leave to fulfill their military obligations. Why have they been fired?? Because the companies see these types of circumstances as cutting into company profits and they would rather risk the chance of getting sued for firing the person, than hurting profits. Why? Because, in many cases, it is difficult for a fired employee to afford legal representation, especially good legal representation that will equally match or be superior to that of the employers legal representation - as you so politely put it:"ERAC has deep pockets." So I believe this is where you argument falls apart. It is because a company, such as ERAC, has deep pockets that the company would be more likely to fire the employee and risk a law suit than continue having that employee be an "expense". The company simply has a better chance of firing them and nothing happening than continuing the employees tenure and lose money. And HR would go along with the ride, following suit with what the company wants - not being a "champion" of employee rights!

I am not saying that ERAC openly engages in this practice, though I don't doubt they do as I know this practice is used in other large companies. But you can't tell me that ERAC is a sweet little angel championing the rights of its workers. They are far from it!!

I think you misinterpreted what I wrote. I was not defending ERAC. I stated that h/r will protect the company, that's why that division exists. A company that has deep pockets and would rather pay one person's salary than settle a lawsuit out of court or go to trial where the big judgments are handed out. I did not say that companies don't fire for unsubstantiated reasons...I said it wouldn't happen while an employee was on leave...when they got back is a different story. While on leave, they are protected and it would be far too costly to a company. People will get pushed out, that's business, that's life. But it is not likely to happen while they are on leave. Who do you think determines what the company wants in these situations? It is HR. Andy is not out there deciding which employees stay or go. Local HR decides what will be most advantageous for the company and runs with it.

Originally Posted by Core767

HR simply does what it is instructed to do by the head of the company, and if someone in HR objected then the hammer from above would simply come down hard on that individual. Intimidation is a common practice to keep employee's mouths shut if something shady is going on in that company. For bleedgreen to suggest that HR is some sort of checks and balances mechanism in a company that is for the benefit of employees is just absurd. After all, bleedgreen said it best and completely obliterated the rest of his/her argument by saying "Human resources exists to protect the company". But protect the company from whom? Itself? Ha! I think not! HR exists to protect the company from outside forces that are there waiting to pounce on it. In other words, when shit hits the fan HR is there to help circle the wagons - not be a mother telling its son "you've been a naughty boy" - but rather sit there and say "Not me! I didn't do it! I don't know what you possibly could be talking about!"

Okay I am done ranting now.

now I know for a fact you misread what I wrote. that was my point. I never once said hr was checks and balances, the opposite, it's there to protect the company. I NEVER said it was there for employees. please reread my post. Just because I use the name "bleedgreen" doesn't mean I'm defending the company...maybe you interpreted it that way due to preconceived notions based on that user name.

[FailingEnterpriseAdmin]

Originally Posted by gp65:(

I'm not so sure ERAC's HR is there to "protect the employees"....I think they are there to "document everything" so ERAC "doesn't get sued"...

This is the way I've always observed it: HR wants the employees to believe they're acting in the employee's best interest and serving as a check and balance on management. This is partially to encourage you to tell them everything. In reality, they're there for "risk management", to keep from getting sued for one of a hundred different ways that companies can get sued today due to employment law.

Get it straight: HR works for management, but that's not what they'll lead you to believe.

Thank you Admin. That is exactly the point I was trying to make...that for some reason got muddled when someone read it.

[Core767]

Originally Posted by bleedgreen

I think you misinterpreted what I wrote. I was not defending ERAC. I stated that h/r will protect the company, that's why that division exists. A company that has deep pockets and would rather pay one person's salary than settle a lawsuit out of court or go to trial where the big judgments are handed out. I did not say that companies don't fire for unsubstantiated reasons...I said it wouldn't happen while an employee was on leave...when they got back is a different story. While on leave, they are protected and it would be far too costly to a company. People will get pushed out, that's business, that's life. But it is not likely to happen while they are on leave. Who do you think determines what the company wants in these situations? It is HR. Andy is not out there deciding which employees stay or go. Local HR decides what will be most advantageous for the company and runs with it.

No, I know exactly what you were saying. I know that ERAC or any company would not fire an employee while that person was on leave - to do so would open a pandora's box. What I was saying coincides with your statement of taking action after the employee returns. Hell! Some companies may even terminate individuals before their leave occurs. Either way, the company takes a risk in doing so and HR is there to help the company cover their butt as best they can. Getting fired because your pregnant or you had to take a leave for x,y.z reasons is not "getting pushed out". It is not business and it is not life. It is simply illegal. For a company to engage in such a practice is a PR nightmare waiting to happen and can severely damage the company's creditability in business, period. It is simply unethical. For you to even discuss such an idea as not a problem, just business, is appalling and I hope to never do business with you. And it shows just how unethical ERAC and other companies are when it comes to doing business. Like I said HR's duty is to circle the wagons when someone is fired - particularly when the firing is based on something other that performance. To put it another way, HR is the excuse maker of the company when someone gets canned.

[Core767]

Originally Posted by bleedgreen

now I know for a fact you misread what I wrote. that was my point. I never once said hr was checks and balances, the opposite, it's there to protect the company. I NEVER said it was there for employees. please reread my post. Just because I use the name "bleedgreen" doesn't mean I'm defending the company...maybe you interpreted it that way due to preconceived notions based on that user name.

Sorry, I was making other points as well. I know exactly what you were saying, and if I did read anything wrong, then I admit my mistake.

[Core767]

Originally Posted by FailingEnterpriseAdmin

This is the way I've always observed it: HR wants the employees to believe they're acting in the employee's best interest and serving as a check and balance on management. This is partially to encourage you to tell them everything. In reality, they're there for "risk management", to keep from getting sued for one of a hundred different ways that companies can get sued today due to employment law.

Get it straight: HR works for management, but that's not what they'll lead you to believe.

Thank you Admin for clarifying both points.

[Core767]

Originally Posted by bleedgreen

now I know for a fact you misread what I wrote. that was my point. I never once said hr was checks and balances, the opposite, it's there to protect the company. I NEVER said it was there for employees. please reread my post. Just because I use the name "bleedgreen" doesn't mean I'm defending the company...maybe you interpreted it that way due to preconceived notions based on that user name.

No I didn't interpret it based on your name. But the way you had written it, had implied that it was also a safety net for employees. Either way it doesn't matter anymore. Admin has helped clarify the position and I know what your true intent in the message was.

a little venom in that one...that hurts.

I didn't defend firing people for pregnancy. Please cite where I did.

people get pushed out for multiple reasons, and guess what, sometimes pregnant people suck too. Just because you're pregnant doesn't make you exemplify a great worker. If you have an exceeds requirement review and you were mvp last quarter/month and you get pregnant and get fired with no other personnel issues in your file...you have a damn good lawsuit. If you're a mediocre employee with some issues in the past, you are bitter, you can't produce what is needed, you're dragging down morale, and then you happen to get pregnant and get pushed out when you get back...such is life. I have no remorse for a mediocre employee that can't get the job done with no motivation that eventually gets managed out. THAT is life, THAT is business. If you that doesn't fit your idea of a perfect world, don't be surprised if you never run a business. Realism is a bitter pill sometimes.