> HR is there to make sure the company doesn't get into any hot legal waters.
Yes, this I totally agree with. In these situations, HR is there to minimize risk for the company.
> Most of the time the easiest way to do that is to just suppress any wrongdoing and sideline whoever is being wronged.
This, however, I totally disagree with. I see a lot of comments saying that you can't trust HR because they are only there to protect the company, but that's why in cases like this you usually can trust HR, because their incentives (which are "don't expose the company to lawsuits") line up with yours.
I'm sure other HR people are reading this blog post in complete horror, because Uber's HR org did basically everything you DON'T do in a professional HR org, and in the process have exposed the company to what could be a slam dunk lawsuit, not to mention horrible press. If even an iota of what Susan Fowler described was accurate, everyone up the chain in the HR org should be fired.
Yes, this I totally agree with. In these situations, HR is there to minimize risk for the company.
> Most of the time the easiest way to do that is to just suppress any wrongdoing and sideline whoever is being wronged.
This, however, I totally disagree with. I see a lot of comments saying that you can't trust HR because they are only there to protect the company, but that's why in cases like this you usually can trust HR, because their incentives (which are "don't expose the company to lawsuits") line up with yours.
I'm sure other HR people are reading this blog post in complete horror, because Uber's HR org did basically everything you DON'T do in a professional HR org, and in the process have exposed the company to what could be a slam dunk lawsuit, not to mention horrible press. If even an iota of what Susan Fowler described was accurate, everyone up the chain in the HR org should be fired.