HR is not there to be your friend. It’s there to protect the company
November 9, 2017

When Susan Fowler found herself on the receiving end of inappropriate chats from her male manager, she documented the exchange and reported him to the company’s human resource department. Fowler, who was at the time an engineer at Uber, thought they would handle the situation. Instead, she was told to either find another team or remain in her current position and risk getting a negative performance review from that manager later on.


This was the first in a series of disappointing interactions that Fowler had with the company’s human resource department. After she left the company, Fowler wrote a widely shared blog about her experience, which triggered an internal investigation and eventually led to the firing of more than 20 employees. It also raised important questions about the way that human resources departments deal with issues like sexual harassment and discrimination. What role should HR play at a company? And why did Uber’s HR department do nothing to protect Fowler?


Turns out, the role of HR was never to protect employees. Their number one priority was always to protect the company. It just so happens that sometimes the two align.


From keeping unions out to being compliance cop

Human resources departments started in the early 1900s when companies were trying to figure out how to reduce turnover and maximize performance through new compensation systems. The HR staff would conduct exit interviews and collect grievances about issues that caused companies to lose employees or led to unionization efforts.


"By the 1930s human resources started to become and be seen as advocates for employees and the reason for that, frankly, was because companies were trying to keep unions out,” explained Peter Cappelli, professor of management at The Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania and director of the Center for Human Resources. “The idea of being able to tell people at the top of the company: ‘Hey, the workers are unhappy about this’ really mattered because they cared whether workers were unhappy because they thought they might unionize otherwise. In that period, HR developed this kind of reputation as being the workers' advocate and that's probably true up to 1970.”


Then in the 1980s, union membership began to drop off and companies no longer wanted to hear about what people wanted. They had other things to worry about — like making sure that they were complying with all of the new worker protection laws that were being passed.


"By that period, HR's mandate kind of shifted to protecting the company,” said Cappelli. The main task for HR was — how do we stay out of trouble with the government? “In those periods, we started to see HR becoming much more of the compliance cop and trying to make people behave on issues of sexual harassment, discrimination, those sort of things," he explained.


And while the main mandate was to protect the company, sometimes that also meant protecting employees — like if they were being discriminated against by their line manager or harassed. In this case, HR would want to interfere to protect the employee from their manager in order to prevent a potential lawsuit.


This is also why a lot of the sexual harassment claims in the workplace end up being settled, instead of going to court. Typically, such settlements come with a non-disclosure agreement, which ends up protecting the company’s reputation.


Should you trust HR?

While employees should not think of HR as an employee advocate, there should be an expectation that HR would take employee complaints seriously, according to Cappelli.


“When someone is breaking the law, the expectation should be that they are not going to blow you off,” he said. "They are the company's representative. They are protecting the company. In some cases that means taking what you say really seriously."


However, not everyone trusts HR to handle these types of situations — especially not if they have had an experience similar to Fowler’s.


“I desperately wanted to not have to interact with HR ever again,” Fowler wrote in her blog.


While 61 percent of employees believe that trust between employees and management is important, just 33 percent are actually satisfied with their relationship, according to the 2017 survey conducted by the Society for Human Resource Management.


Uber does not deny that its HR department failed in its handling of Fowler’s complaints.


“As I dug into several issues in Susan's blog, it was very clear to me that she wasn't well-served by the HR team,” Liane Hornsey, who joined Uber as chief human resources officer just weeks before Fowler’s blog was published, told the Associated Press.


Afterwards, Uber held 200 listening sessions with its employees. Yet most complaints that echoed Fowler’s did not come up during those. Instead, they were submitted over the anonymous “integrity” hotline set-up by the company.


Investors want robust HR ... to protect their investment

Hornsey told the AP that the HR team at Uber was “inadequate numerically” and that junior employees were “given too much to do without enough guidance.”


“What happens is in a startup that is super successful, that is absolutely the business end just growing, growing. Often the processes and the support functions get left behind,” she said.


Uber is an example of how not to do things when it comes to HR, said Raffaella Sadun, a professor at Harvard Business School who focuses on strategy, management and organizational change. According to her, many founders think they can do everything themselves and have a tendency not to delegate even as the company grows.


"Making that shift is not easy because it goes against the primal instinct of the founders, in majority of the cases," explained Sadun.


That might be why Uber did not hire its first official head of HR until 2014. By then, the company already had around 500 employees, according to Recode. Uber employees who spoke with Recode said that Travis Kalanick, the founder and then-CEO, believe HR’s job was “largely to recruit talent and also efficiently let go of personnel when needed.”


Kalanick is not the only one to think like this.


While investors are concerned about compliance with anti-discrimination and equal employment opportunity regulations, their main concern is whether the company they are investing in has the right talent to be competitive, said Bill Filip, who advises investors as a co-founder and managing director of Delancey Street Partners.


“If you do not have a strategic and thoughtful HR capability I think you're at much bigger risk of literally being uncompetitive or irrelevant in your market space,” he said. “I honestly think that the companies are winning today are winning because they understand that they have to have the best talent. I know that sounds really trite but it is absolutely true and there's so many great market examples of that.”


Investors should insist on robust HR departments at startups because many modern entrepreneurs have never worked for big companies and as a result “never learned this stuff,” said Cappelli.


"It's fair to say that the kind of people that start companies, typically are people who don't know much about management,” Cappelli said. "Then you start seeing companies like Uber where they think it's perfectly normal to fondle people in the office and do shots as part of company meetings," he added.


https://www.marketplace.org/2017/10/30/business/human-resources-protect-employee-employer

Sign up for our newsletter.

New York Employers Must Update Employee Handbooks for Reproductive Health Rights

February 3, 2025
Overview of the New Ruling New York employers are once again required to provide a notice in their employee handbooks about reproductive health rights following a recent ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The ruling vacated a previous permanent injunction that had blocked the enforcement of the law, meaning employers must now comply with the New York Reproductive Health Bias Law (Labor Law § 203-e). Reproductive Health Bias Law Requirements The Reproductive Health Bias Law was enacted in November 2019 to ensure employees and their dependents can make reproductive health decisions without facing discrimination in the workplace. The law prohibits employers from taking retaliatory actions against employees regarding their reproductive health decisions and requires employers to keep employees' reproductive health information confidential unless there is prior written consent. Under the law, employers must include a notice in their employee handbooks informing employees of their rights and remedies under the Act. This is an essential update that must be made to comply with the law. Impact of the Second Circuit Ruling Religious organizations had challenged the law, arguing that the notice requirement violated their First Amendment rights. However, the Second Circuit disagreed, ruling that the notice requirement was lawful and similar to other workplace disclosure laws. The court noted that while the policy motivating the law may be controversial, the law itself and the obligation for employers to comply are not in question. Action Required for Employers Even though there is no specific penalty for failing to comply with the notice requirement, employers are encouraged to review and update their employee handbooks in light of the court's ruling to ensure they are compliant with the law. For Simco Clients: For clients who utilize Simco’s employee handbook services, rest assured this requirement is already included, and no additional steps are needed.

Pre-Employment Drug Testing: What Job Seekers Need to Know

February 1, 2025
Pre-employment drug testing is a hiring practice that has sparked debate in recent years. While some industries rely on it for safety and compliance, others are rethinking its necessity—especially as marijuana laws evolve. If you're actively job searching, knowing what to expect can help you prepare, avoid surprises, and understand your rights. Who Still Requires Drug Testing? Not all industries conduct pre-employment drug testing, but for certain roles, it's still a non-negotiable requirement. Some of the most common sectors where testing remains standard include: Transportation & Public Safety – Truck drivers, pilots, transit operators, and law enforcement Healthcare & Childcare – Nurses, physicians, pharmacists, and daycare providers Government & Military Contracts – Federal employees, military personnel, and defense contractors Manufacturing & Construction – Heavy equipment operators and industrial workers handling hazardous materials However, policies vary widely even within these industries. Some companies are now loosening restrictions for non-safety-sensitive positions, recognizing that outdated drug testing policies may limit their talent pool. What Substances Are Typically Screened? Most pre-employment drug tests screen for common illicit substances, but the depth of testing can vary. Standard screenings include: Five-Panel Test – Detects marijuana, cocaine, amphetamines, opiates, and PCP Expanded Panel Tests – Can include benzodiazepines, barbiturates, synthetic opioids, and even alcohol Employers may use different types of tests, including urine, saliva, blood, or hair follicle analysis. Hair follicle testing, for example, can detect drug use from months prior—something applicants should be mindful of. The Evolving Landscape of Marijuana Testing One of the most significant changes in pre-employment drug testing involves marijuana. With over half of U.S. states legalizing marijuana in some form, companies are reevaluating their stance. Some states prohibit employers from disqualifying candidates for off-duty marijuana use. Other states still allow testing but require employers to prove impairment, not just presence. Federally regulated positions, such as those in transportation, maintain strict no-tolerance policies. This shift means that while some applicants may no longer face automatic disqualification for marijuana use, it’s still important to know an employer’s policy before assuming it won’t impact hiring decisions. What Happens If You Fail a Pre-Employment Drug Test? The consequences of failing a drug test depend on multiple factors, including company policy, industry regulations, and state laws. In regulated industries (e.g., transportation, healthcare, federal employment), a failed test almost always results in immediate disqualification. Some employers allow re-testing or a waiting period before reapplying, particularly for marijuana use in certain states. If you have a valid prescription for a tested substance (e.g., opioids or ADHD medication), you may need to provide documentation to avoid disqualification. Additionally, some companies offer assistance programs or second-chance policies, especially if an applicant is upfront about past use or addiction recovery. Do Employers Really Benefit from Drug Testing? With the workforce evolving, many companies are questioning whether traditional drug testing policies still serve their intended purpose. Some argue that testing reduces liability, improves workplace safety, and ensures reliable employees. However, others believe that outdated policies exclude qualified candidates, especially in a competitive job market. The Arguments for Drug Testing: Reduces workplace accidents in safety-sensitive roles Ensures compliance with federal and industry regulations Discourages drug use in high-responsibility positions The Arguments Against Drug Testing: May eliminate qualified candidates for non-safety-sensitive roles Does not account for impairment vs. past use (especially with marijuana) Can be costly and time-consuming for employers Companies that still require drug testing must weigh these factors and ensure their policies align with modern workforce expectations. The Future of Pre-Employment Drug Testing The debate over drug testing isn’t going away anytime soon. As laws and attitudes continue shifting, companies may move toward impairment-based testing rather than zero-tolerance screening. This means job seekers should stay informed, especially in industries where testing is likely to remain a requirement. For now, the best approach is to understand employer expectations, know your legal protections, and be prepared for potential screenings as part of the hiring process.

OSHA Form 300A Requirements: Key Deadlines for Employers

January 30, 2025
Workplace Posting for Form 300A Begins February 1 Employers with 11 or more employees at any point in 2024 must display the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Form 300A, Summary of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses, from February 1 to April 30. Even if no recordable incidents occurred in 2024, this posting is mandatory. The form must be certified by a company executive and displayed prominently in each workplace where employee notices are typically posted. Certain businesses are exempt from OSHA’s regular recordkeeping requirements, including this posting, if they employ 10 or fewer people or if their primary business activity is considered low hazard according to OSHA's guidelines. A full list of low-hazard industries, categorized by NAICS codes, is available here . However, even exempt companies must report fatalities or incidents resulting in hospitalization, amputation, or loss of an eye. Electronic Submission of Form 300A Due by March 2 Businesses with 250 or more employees from the previous year, or those with 20-249 employees in high-risk industries, must submit their Form 300A data electronically through OSHA's Injury Tracking Application (ITA) by March 2, 2025. This requirement applies based on the number of employees at a specific location, not the entire company. Employers under State Plans are also required to submit electronically. Exemptions from this electronic submission apply to employers who: Are exempt from OSHA's regular recordkeeping rules. Had fewer than 20 employees in the past year. Had between 20 and 249 employees but aren’t in the designated high-risk industries. Additional resources, FAQs, and access to the ITA are available on OSHA’s ITA page . Submission of Forms 300 and 301 Required by March 2 Employers in high-hazard industries with 100 or more employees are required to submit data from both their Form 300 (Log of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses) and Form 301 (Injury and Illness Incident Report) through the ITA, in addition to their Form 300A submission. Help with Coverage Determination Employers can use OSHA’s ITA Coverage Application to assess whether they need to submit injury and illness data electronically or refer to the State Plan for specific reporting requirements.

Have a question? Get in touch.

Share by: