Deliberately vague
There’s just so much daftery in Luke Easley’s replies at the tribunal.
In other words the head of HR at this economics research institution “had a problem” with renewing Maya’s contract because he thought she might possibly “misgender” someone even though she had told him she would not. Apart from anything else it’s just so tiny and childish.
“There was risk.” What risk? That a grown woman might refer to a grown man as “he.” What kind of “risk” is that?
Then there’s an interesting exchange about a report which was deliberately vague but not, you know, deliberately vague as in hiding anything from Maya. Just…you know…that other kind of deliberately vague.
Why…that sounds as if they were hiding something.
And this is the HR guy, remember. It’s his job to make sure Maya is treated fairly…but instead he appears to have decided to his own satisfaction that she was a threat and must be bundled out without a chance to defend herself. HR guy for some but not others.
‘“There was risk.” What risk? That a grown woman might refer to a grown man as “he.” What kind of “risk” is that?’
I continue to be floored that the potential that a woman might possibly hurt a man’s feelings is the subject of this, and other, court cases. Can you even IMAGINE taking up this much time and money assessing the risk that someone might say something mean about a woman?
Clearly the only reason to take up this much time is to punish a woman for something.
Well, I accept that the woman was a grownup but the man? Sounds more like a juvenile having a tantrum because someone looked at him the wrong way.
I can’t stop laughing at “I think we have understood as much as we can here”
I read a book a few years ago called Corporate Confidential that said contrary to popular belief HR’s only real job is to protect the company, not to protect the employees. If you have a conflict with 3 other people, they don’t care if you’re right and they’re wrong, you’re the disruptive one, so you’ll be the one to end up without a job.
The only reason they seem to help employees is to protect the company from getting sued. If you go to them and say your boss is sexually harassing you and you have proof, to protect the company they’ll go after your boss. If you just don’t get along with your boss, they’re going to side with your boss, who is more valuable to the company.
Shortly after reading this I got to see it in action as a friend of ours had a boss that was being a real jerk but not doing anything illegal. She went to HR to complain. They listened to all her issues, took notes, seemed understanding. They called her back for a second meeting, which she assumed would be discussing a plan to improve how she was being treated. Instead it was to offer her a generous severance package in exchange for her leaving quietly and signing an agreement to not sue the company.
Skeletor, that is exactly my understanding of HR as well. They are a tool of management and will only act against management when (a) absolutely required to by law and (b) with the support of a higher level of management or the Board. Even then sometimes not. More frequently they act to get the employee out of the company as cheaply and quietly as possible.