Partly as a bit of fun, but mostly as an opportunity to vent...
Employee: "So what's my motivation for getting up at 5am to be on site for 7am?"
What I wanted to say: "Keeping your f-ing job? The fact that we pay you a salary far in excess of what your meagre skillset, dubious intelligence and questionable competence deserves?"
What I actually said: "Your professional pride in the delivery of an excellent service that our clients appreciate."
Most of the comments on this thread so far refer to perceptions of 'performance'. In these cases, HR would not obstruct what managers feel is in the best interests of their teams or the business as a whole. But we know from these forums that sometimes those who work in HR are put in questionable (i.e. unethical) situations. That's when decisions need to be made.
On the somewhat more serious subject of HR's position and responsibilities: We do not "represent" anyone. We are paid by the company to "serve" its interests. The significant difference being that if those managing the company, or any one of them, seek to have the company follow a course of action we know to be unlawful or unethical, we are duty bound to oppose that course, knowing that it is against the company's interests. We thus cannot "represent" the company in its breach of statute or obligation, but must, rather, defend it against itself (or, more particularly, those (mis)guiding it).
For example, if the Managing Director, backed by the rest of the Board, decides that we are hiring too many disabled employees and wishes us to create a procedural mechanism to prevent this, we cannot do so. We cannot "represent" that unlawful policy through use of our professional skill.
Similarly, we cannot concur with a line-manager's decision to unfairly dismiss an employee as an "unreasonable" response to a trivial misdemeanour, because they find them annoying, or don't like their Scottish accent, or for any other personal bias (or other flawed rationale).
The "collateral" effect might appear to benefit employees or employment candidates (or some of them), but our sole contractual objective is to prevent harm to the company, by keeping it from incurring sanction and loss of repute in Court or Tribunal.
If, in a misguided attempt at compromise (or self-preservation) we permit ourselves to draft the required procedure, we will indeed then be "representing" the wishes of those "running" the company, but will be doing so against its interests and might also find ourselves held to be responsible, both at law and before our professional peers, for "representing" its malfeasance.
Paradoxical as it may seem, we must remember that the company exists as an entity, separate from those directing it: It is that entity that hires us (in whatever capacity), and to whom we therefore owe allegiance: Not its Directors, not its employees, not the company cat, but the business as a whole. (This is true even if the business is wholly owned proprietorially and not a Ltd. Company or PLC). Our contracts do not excuse us "representing" the business through any unlawful act (contract cannot ever override statute), even though it is the Owner/CEO/MD, and every other person employed (remembering that all Managers and Directors are also employees) who wishes us to "represent" their wishes and intentions.
The reason being that those wishes etc. will themselves be against the company's interests (by making it break the law!)
We "serve" the Company, we do not "represent" it, unless specifically delegated to do so, and must then only do so lawfully, or it is us who commits the crime, betrays the trust required of us by failing to protect the company's legitimate interests through our practice, and also betray our professional Code of Conduct.
Which means that sometimes we need to make some hard choices in relation to our personal interests and/or our popularity with the Board and other managers.
But that's what we get paid for.
P
That's a very negative and self-defeating view for the organisation (and its employees) to have, Kellorna, although it is where the old "personnel" function often used to lie.
....and workplace discipline is not there (or indeed permitted) to "punish". The objective of disciplinary procedures is to correct wilfully wayward behaviour. We can do this only by offering warnings that if the behaviour is not rectified then employment will be terminated, and eventually (if not) then "fairly" considering the contract breached by the employee, permitting their dismissal.
Unless agreed contractually as a separate (civil) issue, there is nothing in statute that permits us to "punish" employees through impositions of fines, limitations of statutory rights or freedoms, diminution of status, or other "painful" outcomes, or the causing of any detriment beyond those inherent and coincidental with their (ultimate) loss of employment; for instance the ability to pay the rent or buy the new car they wanted.
HR is most certainly not the company's "enforcer" and has no "big stick" to bash employees (including other managers) with!
