Ulvain @ Ulvain @sh.itjust.works

Posts

2

Comments

244

Joined

2 yr. ago

I get your point, but just playing Devil's advocate here: don't work in real estate because it's fraud and landlords are thieves, don't work for McDonald's because your work make people fat and unhealthy, don't work retail or manufacturing because your work encourages capitalism and all its evils...? I mean.. don't like 90% of all jobs require you to do shitty things?

Most people in HR went in the field with pretty decent intentions. They have debts and families to feed and the job they landed is sometimes for a shitty employer.

If you want to hate someone, don't hate the HR person who's dealing with their own shitty problems, blame the uber rich, that maintain everyone else in a constant state of infighting while they lobby or buy lawmakers to ensure the poor get poorer so they get richer. There the ones maintaining a hyper capitalistic society and making sure executives are ordering the cuts (often ending with cutting the HR folks after they finish the layoffs)

Please allow me to offer a nuance on the topic of HR. I see a lot of hate about HR on this thread and quite a bit is founded... But on the other hand, two things:

1. the HR folks themselves are not to blame for the fact that the company overhired, are cutting people, or even to some extent some shitty strategies like pretending people are fire for cause instead of laid off. It's decided by executives ans the CEO, and HR operationalizes. I'll fully grant though that they sometimes (often) operationalize shittily.
2. and more importantly, HR is shitty in a shitty company, and pretty decent in a (quite rare) decent company. Fundamentally HR's job is to help manage humans as a resource, and among other tasks it means to protect the company against human-related risks. There are different fundamental beliefs and philosophies companies can have around how to avoid that risk - and their HR strategy is set accordingly.

Some decent (rare) employers believe that to avoid risks like being sued or unionizing, the best strategy is to provide employees with a healthy work environment, competitive pay and to remove toxic managers and executives quickly. In these companies HR plays a very strong policing role ensuring that managers don't cause human related risk by abusing workers. I know it sounds idealistic and I'll 100% grant that it applies unfortunately to a very small sample of employers, but it's true.

Of course way more common are companies with the philosophy that to avoid these risks you need to squash people, back your managers at all cost, never admit a fault, etc - and that's the shitty strategy operationalized by shitty a HR department.

Lastly the governmental labour laws framework of a country plays a big role too - in some countries where those laws are super weak like the US, particularly if your employer is your only way to access half decent healthcare, you can't afford to change employer - and the shitty strategy becomes a much lower cost than the decent one (found a bit more often in Canada, way more in Europe and even more in Scandinavian countries)

Sorry for the walltext rambling

100% on the recording, fair pt.

On the letter: that'd be good - go ahead and give me written evidence...

She did really good! Almost drove it home, she was so close... As a former manager in HR, here are my two cents. Note that I'm from canada, might not apply as I have it in mind in the US. If they're trying to frame a layoff as a firing for cause and poor performance, her first way of handling it is excellent. Ask pointed specific questions on what about your performance was lacking and more importantly can you demonstrate to me that I've been communicated clear quantifiable and Timely objectives that I've been communicated means and ways to be coached and trained to meet those objectives and that I've been communicated milestones of me not meeting objectives, with proper corrective measures and coaching to then change course before a firing for poor performance.

If you can't communicate any of these to me, the objectives, my performance against his objectives, the milestones, and the coaching I received to meet objectives when I did not, then this is not a poor performance related firing. If you're missing any of these information then I am not yet terminated and I am at your employment until a subsequent meeting where you can come back with that information. On the other hand if what you meant to say is that this is a layoff because you have hired too many people, and that this letting Go has nothing to do with my performance, okay no problem, let's talk, but in this case it will be with X months of severance and a glowing recommendation letter.

Lastly I want to make you aware that I've recorded this conversation, in which it's now clearly documented that you have no clear tangible indication of any notion of documented poor performance about me, and thus I am still at the employed of my employer until you either provide those, or provide me with coaching that I then fail to put into practice to meet objectives, or until you come back with the severance package for a layoff that has nothing to do with my performance.

Something along those lines...

Idk, have you ever put your hand out the window of the car, going 60k/h? That's just 50 sq.cm of air resistance... Imagine a whole body's worth

And by the power of the sauce, the cheese, and the Holy meatballs.

He who claims His finely powdered Romano cheese smells like feet, may he be stricken.

He who splashes His the holiest of rosé sauce on a white tablecloth, may he be stricken.

He who cuts His holy fettuccine instead of twirling them with a spoon, as the chosen have done, as their forefathers before them, may he be stricken.

R'amen.

0.01$ super salty fries, 80% ice 1500% overpriced drinks FTW

No, robot family from before the invention of batteries

US police force:

Man... Article from 2018 and they still thought we'd eventually have another ice age.. how the times change fast...

The Khan Academy is absolutely phenomenal for Math

I played the one, all the way to the big fight at the end, failed it and got too exhausted to reload and redo it... But it was a really good game though , it's true! Is the 2 as good/better?

I think you're right, but it'll cause just so much abominable misery to so many for so long before that, and take so many decades to undo afterwards, it's disheartening.

Want to share a couple of random facts about your Hometown only locals could?

In other news, study reveals stuff gets wet when splashed with water. More at 11.

Today, in "you're lucky they didn't turn out to be a murderous psychotic couple" news..

I finished Baldur's Gate 3, so i fell in the post-great-game melancholy. I reinstalled Hades and Stardew Valley, but ya know

Yeah, get a car, op!

I could imagine, yes, that 44% of aggressive men would stop dead in their tracks if shouted "SMELL MY TEARS! SNIFF'EM, GEORGE!" mid fight

That's a very capitalistic or even libertarian view - i don't like it but what horrifies me is that in the current US political climate it sounds more feasible than making the police, you know... Not kill people (sigh)