> But if you know of any stories like those reported, I want you to escalate to HR. You can also email me directly at jeff@amazon.com. Even if it’s rare or isolated, our tolerance for any such lack of empathy needs to be zero.
I say don't escalate to HR but leave to work at another place. HR is not your advocate, it is not there to help you. You are just a "resource" just like it says in the name.
There have been many cases I've heard (personally and from HN comments) where someone would go to HR, complain about harassment by their manager, get assurance of confidentiality, and the next thing you know the manager is told right away. Or the person who complained gets punished instead.
Now you can try to go public and force its hand to basically realign HR's interest (protect the company) with yours (you get heard and the problem is fixed). But that won't be forgotten in the long term.
There is book a called Corporate Confidential [1], written by a former HR person. One of most significant ideas there is that HR is (from the perspective of an employee) not your friend, but rather an enemy. They exist to protect the company, not you. Basically, going to HR is a quick way to get fired (for legal reasons, mind you) or kill your career.
Whole book is highly depressing, but very useful if you want to try to climb up the ladder.
Totally agree- the primary purpose of HR is to protect a company from lawsuits brought by its own employees.
By establishing that they have policies against sexual harassment, discrimination, etc. etc. the company can say that there's no "systemic problem", and any particular incidents therefore must be the fault of the individual employees concerned and not the company itself.
They need HR to exist in so far as it allows them to tell this story to a judge if it ever does turn into a lawsuit.
It's simply not worth approaching HR. Talk to a lawyer before you talk to HR. You would only want to talk to HR if you were willing to sue your employer, which itself is only worthwhile doing if the amount of money you could win is sufficient that you won't need to work again (because in any public case, other employers are also going to avoid employing someone who has a history of suing their employer... as much as they legally can).
For anything more trivial than that, the best defense against an abusive employer is to be employable elsewhere. If you are willing and able to walk away and into another job, you'll be treated much better, regardless of any specific HR policies.
P.S. it made me laugh to see that the book hyper link is to amazon.com - how's that for irony!
Not because the people there are assholes. They are really nice and want to employ everybody forever. But they just can't.
Often the leadership of HR is the problem.
In civil service, the HR bosses were all about getting their friends and family a job. In the free marked, they wanted to minimize costs and legal obligations to the employees. The rest of the HR-workforce just has to suck it up and they often don't like it...
I always thought HR was there to manage the resources the humans need, e.g. teabags. That and justifying their existence by making more resources for the humans. It really does strike me a non-job that requires a lot of work to keep in existence
That's about the only dealings I have with them. I guess that's a benefit of working at a small company :)
On a serious note though, you're right, HR is not your friend, it's there for the companies sack, not yours. I personally have more faith in my immediate manager that HR, at least you have contact with them, vs the nameless/faceless myth that is HR
There are other things as well that are pretty important: Recruiting, performance reviews, and visa sponsorships.
I personally would hate to setup interview loops, having to manage calendars and book rooms, and the amount of paperwork required to hire a candidate that is not a US Resident, boy that would suck too.
I think a lot people have had very different experience as to what HR does. It can range from the above, to "very little." Its this nebulousness that really accounts for the variety of opinions.
There's another book that's good book called Secrets to Winning at Office Politics[1], it basically says that no one likes a complainer so keep it to a minimum. It also saids that perception is what matters.
The book, like the one you mention, is a little depressing but if you're stuck in a corporate environment and want to avoid being depressed it pays off to pay attention to what the book says.
I find it Amazing that we managed to get Amazon product links into a story badmouthing Amazon :) Here are some alternate links pulled from a quick google search.
Back on topic, I too well understand these things, having had a few painful incidents with HR myself. I ended up coming out on top, more or less, in the end, but you have to know that if you have a complaint about someone, you probably will have to confront that person and prove it. I managed to do that, but I would probably have had to leave the company if I hadn't, honestly.
HR was mostly worried about lawsuit potential. My immediate boss was, at least, humane. He even made a point of sitting on 'my side' during the meeting so that I wasn't alone there.
Sure, but that doesn't mean that they can't be on your side. If you report that your boss is doing something which is against company policy and hurts the company, it's quite possible for HR to be simultaneously on your side and on the company's side.
They can that's was my second point when their interests can temporarily align with yours.
Or actually the actions that stem from their interests also end up benefiting you as a side-effect. Say going public with the story. Well now they are forced to protect the PR image so they will actually do something to fix the problem (move the manager to a different location), give you more money to keep quiet, etc. But they are not doing this for your they are doing it for the company's sake.
That is why a last alternative is to suggest you might go public, it forces their hand because now "cost of incident" can be rather high. As it is PR damage all across the board for the company. Of course, it might fix things in the short term but it won't be forgotten in the long term.
I don't think that an unknown Amazon employee going public could add much to the damage that the current media coverage has already inflicted. HR would probably just shrug it off. Also, taking a dispute with your employer public might cause other companies to think twice about hiring you in the future (your publicity will show up if they Google you). If you're down to your last alternative, it's probably time to find a new job.
It is hard to say. HN makes the development world pretty small. It is like a smaller provincial town where everyone kind of can find out stuff even if they don't know you personally. Damaging the image of a tech company on HN could be serious, it could impact ability to hire in the future.
But you are right, it is the nuclear option. After that even if problem is solved immediately, a stab in the back in the future is expected.
As for future employability, you are right as well. However, I can see a small start-up actually seeking out self-reliant people who have a sense of justice doing what is right. So the quality could also be appealing.
That book is golden - it explains clearly the incentives of the players in the corporate world with concise examples. It should be compulsory reading for every corporate employee, not just ones in pathological environments, so everyone would understand what the true rules of the game are.
Going to HR is indeed the end. I had one boss suggest that some incredibly minor conflict be solved by HR. Immediately, I knew it was time to change jobs. A few weeks later, when I handed in my resignation, my boss was surprised and tried to get me to stay. I offered them about a 15% increase in pay, but left as they weren't interested. I still don't understand why he'd be surprised. I suppose some people, even after many years in the corporate world, have no idea how it works. So I've come up with something to help me remember:
I guess that this is just applicable to Corporate America context and the outlook is not as dire as you portray it for other corporate cultures around the world.
Always take it to your union rep first. Your union is your advocate, and is there to help you.
They can advise you on the most appropriate next step for your particular workplace.
They can take it to HR, anonymously (depending on context), for you.
They can ask their members if anyone else has similar issues, in order to add weight to your complaint and ensure that HR take corrective action to fix the source of the problem, rather than sweeping individual complaints under the carpet.
They can advise you on presenting appropriate evidence so that HR see your complaint as valid, rather than as a whinge.
What he didn't learn first hand at Crocker National Bank and Pacific Bell was forwarded to him by others. As Wikipedia puts it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Adams#Office_worker): "Adams attributes his success to his idea of including his e-mail address in the panels, thus facilitating feedback from readers."
+1. The few times I've seen HR involved in a workplace kerfuffle, it's never been an improvement. More like the Spanish Inquisition, where they don't care if you're guilty and they're just arguing over what tools to use.
Never piss off a co-worker who happens to be the girlfriend of someone in the management chain above you. That . . . did not go well.
When I worked at a multinational with hundreds of locations, HR turning up at site was sign that somebody was going to get it in the neck - HR didn't bother with small stuff so if they were about you knew it was serious for someone.
[Edit: Made me think about how ghastly it must be to work in HR for a large company]
This whole notion of "HR isn't your friend" is nonsensical. No department at the company is your friend. You stop performing at your job, you will probably be fired--or promoted.
Even your real friends won't be your friends for very long if their own self-interests are always in contention against your own.
HR is fulfills a specific sets of roles for the company and they exist to look out for the best interest of the company, the same way pretty much any other department operates.
Even executives have to operate in such a manner or be in breach of their fiduciary duties.
If your work environment is toxic, find a better environment---if you have that luxury as some do not. If you think the problem isn't pervasive, try to change it with the help of HR--clearly it's in the companies best interest not to have toxic work environments.
Of course not, except not many disguise themselves as your friend, that was the point.
Nobody thinks the finance department is there to make your life easy as a developer or to somehow take your side vis-a-vis an argument with the higher-ups.
But somehow the image of "HR" working for the employees and advocating for them persists.
Just read Jeff's email as an example. "Take it up with HR". In other words, don't worry, we'll fix it for ya.
> But somehow the image of "HR" working for the employees and advocating for them persists.
One of the most important techniques HR departments have in maximizing the extracted value to extraction cost ratio for the company's "human resources" is to convince those resources that the HR department is their advocate within the company rather than the company's office responsible for the aforementioned cost/benefit optimization.
(OTOH, there are good reasons for a well-run HR department to be an employee advocate within the company on issues in many cases, since often the cost effective way to keep employees productive is to address their needs and desires; but its important to understand why that may sometimes be the case, and why it is not universally the case.)
Seriously though, I wonder why humans tolerate the hierarchical structures so much. I am proponent of direct democracy and worker cooperatives but curiously enough, to many people the idea seems wrong.
Flat structures work great for smaller organizations, but don't scale up with size.
That said, a bigger organization could still be structured like a federation of relatively independent businesses/departments, with clearly defined interactions (interfaces) between them, rather than a monolith.
Modular design benefits business as much as it does software architecture.
Perhaps better would be if I said "authoritarian" rather than "hierarchical". I don't think democracy requires lack of hierarchy. Or take the development of Linux kernel - although hierarchical, everybody has the same power.
And it can scale quite well. Switzerland and Mondragon are good examples.
Just about every human endeavor out there tends toward hierarchal structures - ones that do not are statistical outliers, and even then it's questioned whether all that's happened is that the hierarchy is implicit rather than explicit.
> Just about every human endeavor out there tends toward hierarchal structures
I agree, but why? It doesn't make much sense to me. Although I should have said "authoritarian" rather than "hierarchical".
> it's questioned whether all that's happened is that the hierarchy is implicit rather than explicit
In democracy, you can have hierarchy but it's not a big deal, because you have a formal rule that everybody has the same power (one vote). It is certainly different (although for some reason many people do not feel that way) than when there is no such rule.
Agree with all the other folks on the importance not to seek help from HR. Am working in an MNC in Singapore. HR's chief objective is to protect the company. The only time it helps the employees is when something will hinder productivity or/and morale. Period. Whether you are happy, achieving work-life balance, fulfilled, etc. It doesn't give a fuck on all those. If an Amazonian approaches HR now to report an issue covered by NYT, that person very likely will be grilled and interrogated to see if he/she spoke to NYT.
So Jeff is right. If you are not happy, dust off books and study on your own on skills needed for interviews, shut up and move out.
All the HR people I've met in large companies are nice people who care, but when push comes to shove they side with the company/CEO as HR is a CEO support function - sadly.
Yeah, the moment he said that, everyone with a brain realized he was being disingenuous.
He would need to make public clear, explicit instructions stating HR would take a zero tolerance for a lack of empathy and that confidentiality would be guaranteed as well as providing a copy of a memo to the entire HR department to that effect.
A single line in a PR puff piece isn't a shield you can rely on.
From all that's come out over the weekend, it sounds like former Amazon employees are quite welcome over at Facebook. Plus, like Bezos says in his all-hands e-mail, these people are recruited every day. If they are in a situation like that, escalating to HR won't make it better, changing jobs will.
Only if you work in a very poor workplace. If your workplace HR has this attitude you should have not joined the company in the first place. You should escalate to the next higher up if the manager in question is not being correctly handled by HR.
Or a standard workplace with shit legal protection of employees (which applies to pretty much every non-union US shop). The purpose of HR is to minimise company liability, when the best and simplest way to minimise company liability is to fire employees making waves stat, that's what they do, because that what they're employed to do.
I want to realign HR under a "Chief Productivity Officer" who is also responsible for IT. The CPO's goal and metric is maximization of workforce productivity by getting employees working smart, working hard, retaining good people and getting rid of the bad, improving management skills, and leveraging technology.
HR is never your friend. Aside from the job they're required to do, HR usually attracts people with despicable morals and class. They wont hesitate on lying to you, set you up on to something, threaten you, whatever it takes to get what they (personally) want. Stay clear of HR, that is true for 99% of jobs.
Aren't people with "despicable morals and class" in every profession? Some of us are actually in HR because we like thinking critically & creatively behind the scenes to make others successful. I totally get why that might not describe the HR teams you've encountered, but I don't think we can all be characterized with such a broad brush.
Honestly, I haven't met one decent guy in HR in a loooong time. Quite the contrary, I have plenty of bad experiences with HR that made me believe those things. I'll give you my favorite examples:
I once got fired because I told some bitch (she was really a bitch, and that's not just my opinion, the whole workplace thought of that) to mind her own business. I was on a break and reading a magazine when she came in and started lecturing me on to "why I'm not doing other stuff? why do I read those kinds of magazines? (It was a gossip magazine, but who cares it was what it was nearby) I'm a little old for that." Politely but firmly told her something like "This is my break. Fuck off, you can't tell me what to do on my break and I read whatever I want to". She left. Three months later got called to get fired, turns out she was secretly raising reports about me that were small stuff (and completely fake) like "... was asked to do X and refused", "... yelled at a client", "... reads magazines while at work (of course)". When I had like 10 or so of them she fired me because of a "bad overall attitude" and those were her (fake) proofs. That's the kind of shit HR LOVES to do man.
Another one. I once knew (but not as in "a friend told me", I saw it) of a place where all the candidates that got hired were because they were laying down with the girl that ran the interviews. Later when they got the job, they started to get fired when that girl found them not sexually appealing anymore. Yup.
I think there has to be something psychological behind that, because other while other teammates may be assholes your job does not depend direclty on them or you are pretty much at the same level. Since HR is above you and can fire you at will there is a lot of power bestowed to only one side of the parts involved. I think it may be some kind of Stanford Prison stuff right there. Sorry to call it mate but your field is a rotten one.
What's frustrating is that it, of course, doesn't have to be rotten. We can take one baby step by abolishing terms like "human resources" and "human capital" because labels do matter.
I also wonder if part of the problem is that HR leaders have (broadly speaking) traditionally been 'town planners' when you really need a mix of 'pioneers' and 'settlers' in there too. E.g. don't put a town planner in charge of culture & retention, and don't put a settler in charge of healthcare & benefits compliance.
In that one line I think there's two issues you might want to think about.
First of all, you're passing judgement apparently without empathising with where she's coming from. If you try to empathise with people rather than letting your amygdala control your response then you'll find life gets much easier.
Secondly, that language crosses the line of acceptability, both in the workplace and on HN. It's fine in a bar or wherever, but in the workplace it makes your audience percieve immaturity and poorly-controlled anger (whether it's there or not), and will make people in your workplace uncomfortable.
Both of those issues raise flags in my mind as things an HR person should pay serious attention to. Ideally they'd be looking to solve the problem first, but getting people to change is hard and company cultures can be fragile.
Rich, you know what dignity is? Dignity is being the same person disregarding the situation where you're currently involved.
I see you standing here as a person who is always polite and correct, with a perfect vocabulary and behavior for even the most adverse situations in life. I really, really hope your life crosses path with a woman like that one and you end up in a situation like mine. I would like to see you handle the same situation with the morals you claim to have. Until that moment you will know, for yourself, if you really are the person you claim to be on real life or if the intention behind your comment was just to impress a bunch of people in an anonymous forum.
Your story makes you sound abrasive and unpleasant. If the story played out the way you tell it, she obviously was a bad actor and did something terrible. (And yes, there are definitely some people who will play control games with any little bit of power they gain.) It's difficult to sympathize with you, though, when even your telling of the story makes you sound difficult to work with.
If you're presenting yourself this way in a work environment (or anywhere, really), you will create negative interactions.
I didn't miss the word. I just don't believe it's accurate. If the intended message was "fuck off", there's no polite way to deliver that. You might deliver it without literally saying the words, but if the meaning is intact, you're not being polite.
I also don't believe a politely delivered message can result in a 3-month plot filled with false reports, culminating in job termination. How does that play out? "Wow, he's so polite all the time! I'll fuck him over anyway because I'm pure evil! And I've got nothing better to do, so I'll keep at it for months!"
My developer friend had to work with a program/product manager from hell. They hated each other's guts from the minute they met. He was tasked by the CTO with implementing new software and kept asking her for definitive requirements. She never came up with them and told him to propose something based on some loose, very high-level requirements.
When he did, she critiqued the solutions in a meeting attended by many people. He never said it, but made it clear (not in the meeting) that she was incompetent/lazy, which she was, in many co-worker's eyes. She tried to get him fired several times (unsuccessfully, my friend was really good and the CTO would not do it).
Not one impolite word was ever spoken (I know for sure, I was there in most meetings).
Sure. Bad chemistry happens. And in that instance, it sounds like bad chemistry with a bad person. But if your friend had been "politely" telling this woman to fuck off, then I'd have to say that he was at least contributing to the bad relationship.
I feel like anotherangrydev is more likely than not "contributing to the bad relationship" in his (or her) work environments. When someone has multiple bad interactions with HR, at multiple companies, it starts to look like they're the problem and not HR. Why are they having so many interactions with HR at all? Or was there just one bad experience that they're extrapolating to "99%" of HR employees?
Sure - it takes two to tango.
My friend from the story above definitely does not suffer fools gladly :-)
But there is quite a bit of politics/plain stupidity in (bigger) corporations. Should reasonable people just keep quiet and suffer abuse?
[my friend WAS reasonable wrt work- he tried his best to get the job done]
OMG, the level of bad faith in your comments is astounding. Do you know 'anotherangrydev' personally? Or do you have a link to some resource which is objective and makes his "contributing to the bad relationship" more probable?
I have no idea why would you accuse GP of lying. You don't know him. Do you routinely judge if a person tells the truth based on some words he used?
Also, you confuse the GP's feelings about the situation right now with his attitude back then. Back when it happened, he didn't know of a 3 months long plot against him. Now he does know. He was shown the (obscenity censored because it would apparently alter the meaning of my post) documents, he read it black on white. Just before getting fired, too. It's nothing strange that his wording now is emotional and blunt, it says nothing about how he was back then.
Lastly, of course, there are polite ways of telling people to censored, you know why off politely. It's what assertiveness is all about. There are people, however, who don't really care about the form: they just can't stand others disagreeing with them. I don't think it's that rare a trait. How about that line of thinking:
"He's too polite, he's trying to hide something. And he dared to disagree with me, his superior. More than once! I don't have the time to deal with a time-bomb like him, which can blow up behind my back at any time. I need an army of easily controlled people to help me further my career. Yeah, it would be safer to spend a few minutes more and slip a couple of lies when working on his evaluations."
Preparing reports which are not true, yet are not outright lies, and which make some person look really bad doesn't really take much time. Especially if one does it for a living.
> I have no idea why would you accuse GP of lying.
He claims that he "politely" told someone to "fuck off". It's not really a question of lying, but a question of possibility. You can't politely tell someone to fuck off. Either you didn't tell them to fuck off or you didn't do it politely. "Fuck off" is not polite. It's not supposed to be polite. If you politely ask someone to leave you alone, you're not telling them to fuck off.
> Do you routinely judge if a person tells the truth based on some words he used?
Not that it's really relevant, but yes. How else would you judge a person's truthfulness except through the words they use? Your words matching the facts is basically the definition of truth.
Do you routinely assume that everything anyone claims is accurate?
> Also, you confuse the GP's feelings about the situation right now with his attitude back then.
No, I'm reading his description of what happened. He gives two versions, one of which (fuck off) is intrinsically unpolite. The other (mind your own business) is pretty rude, too. Given his descriptions in general, it's hard to imagine that this was actually a polite exchange.
It's also difficult to believe that his politeness was rewarded by months of revenge plotting and spite. It would be easier to believe this if he presented this as an isolated story. Instead he presents this as an example of how terrible "99%" of HR employees are. So either 99% of HR employees are actually pointlessly spiteful and terrible, or he's intentionally lying, or he has had so many bad interactions that he believes it to be true. If it's the last case, I've got to wonder if the problem is really all of HR or if it's the one guy who keeps having problems with HR.
It's been stated by many posters in this thread that HR is not your friend; they are not there to protect you, but to protect the company from you; and avoid going to HR with any problem you may have.
That's it's better to leave, if you can, than go to HR.
Coming from multiple sources, I'd say that's pretty damning to HR.
About Amazon.. I've never worked there. But I know people who have. I believe the NYT article.
> Coming from multiple sources, I'd say that's pretty damning to HR.
I'd say that a thread full of people griping about HR is not very damning at all. People like to gripe. People who have normal interactions with HR generally don't have much to say in this kind of thread. People who have had a bad experience with HR are happy to vent. If multiple sources complaining is damning, then just about every mid to large-size company must be terrible, because just about every company of size has at least a handful of people (consumers or employees, really) who are delighted to tell you about how horrible their experience with the company was.
I agree that HR is not your friend, and their job is to protect the company. That's logically pretty reasonable since they are employed by the company. Likewise, the sales team is there for the company. And so is the customer service team. And so is the executive team. And so is everyone else, because that's who pays them. That doesn't make them evil or rotten, though. Nor are they evil or rotten just because a few bad people are employed there. Some devs are petty assholes, too.
Always had bad experiences with HR, with around 6-7 different companies. Talking with colleagues on the same industry and others found out that my experiences are not isolated incidents, but quite the opposite they've observed pretty similar things. And finally, have a few friends that work themselves into HR and outsourcing (for SAP & Oracle) so I can speak for that environment pretty well, it is a rotten field. And yeah I'm extrapolating from that.
I can tell you something, I probably talked about this subject at least 100 times during my "professional life" with many different people, I have yet to hear a good experience from someone regarding their HR department.
Mind sharing yourself which bucket do you fall into?
I find it odd that you have so many bad experiences with HR at so many different companies, largely because I don't see why you're interacting so much with HR. I've rarely interacted with HR except when I've needed something from them. Why are you, as a dev, crossing paths with HR so often? A bad interaction with HR for me would be someone being rude, or unhelpful, or at worst incompetent. I don't understand why your interactions with HR seem to involve risk to your job. e.g. Why was an HR person even talking to you on your break?
I fall into the bucket that hasn't had bad experiences with HR. They've been helpful when I've needed stuff, which has been minimal. They've been irrelevant the rest of the time. This has been the case at every company I've worked for.
Normally I would steer clear of interjecting in something like this, however, you know that's basically the opposite of what dignity means, right? Dignity is recognizing the formality of a situation and acting respectfully to yourself and others in it.
> I see you standing here as a person who is always polite and correct...
Nope. I've had more than my fair share of disagreements, personal failures, and shameful moments. I've lost friends. I massively fumbled my first management position.
When something happens and your professionalism slips, either you can brush yourself off, accept your mistakes, and try to learn from them, or you can blame others, make excuses, and learn nothing.
So far, your analysis of the situation has loudly blamed the "bitch" and the entire profession of HR, and not once has your critical gaze fallen onto yourself. Apparently they're all wrong, and you are right.
You can try to goad me about my motives for replying and wish me misfortune, but it doesn't change anything.
Having met at least 50+ people in HR who aren't what like you say, i'm going to call complete bullshit on this. I don't think you have anywhere near the kind of data to generalize an entire profession across all industries :)
The vast majority of people i've met who feel like you do are people who were, IMHO fired pretty fairly, but are ashamed to admit that maybe they weren't performing as well as they think, so they blame the system.
>I don't think you have anywhere near the kind of data to generalize an entire profession across all industries :)
>The vast majority of people i've met who feel like you do are people who were, IMHO fired pretty fairly, but are ashamed to admit that maybe they weren't performing as well as they think, so they blame the system.
We're gonna need a source for that too! Or wait, were you discrediting one opinion with another one?
>"Stay clear of HR, that is true for 99% of jobs."
>Having met at least 50+ people in HR who aren't what like you say, i'm going to call complete bullshit on this.
Ever knew of what the '%' sign means? I can get you 50+ people that are in jail and that were later proved to be innocent. Does that mean we should set all of them free?
Waiting for your downvote or a reasonable argument :^)
"We're gonna need a source for that too! Or wait, were you discrediting one opinion with another one?"
I said "i've met". I never claimed it was anything else? Unlike you, who flat out stated 99% of HR ....
You know what, it's not worth having this discussion with you.
Given your responses here and elsewhere, you come off as very abrasive and not a person i'd want to work with.
But please, keep going on through life believing it's everyone else.
HR functions like the lowest level of police forces within a polity, they're there just to snitch on you to their superiors (next level up law enforcement within the corporation) or deal with you directly whether in fines, suspension or exile.
So, yeah I wouldn't trust HR with these matters and it seems to me that Bezos is only interested in cover-ups when he recommended this course of action out of fear that employees may seek friends in the press to expose those practices from now on undermining his plans of non stop exploitation at his sweatshop.
seems like people in the US mistake the Human Resources department with Workers Councils.
in Europe, you go to the Council, never to HR. the Council is job protected, guaranteed pay - hence no way to apply pressure from the company.
HR is not a bad department, they are very important, but they serve the CEO, their role is to keep the whole thing going, avoid waves of any kind and keep a good hiring pipeline.
surprised no union is trying this to break into amazon.
You speak about "Europe" like it's a country with a single set of regulations. It's not-- it's a continent. Even for the European Union, the rules are actually extremely varied:
And even those countries with councils have (as the link also mentions) very varying rules on exactly what the councils do. Please don't say "Europe" when you mean "some European country".
Let's not delude ourselves: in the US, in public non-union orgs, everyone is there to serve the CEO.
Some people in this thread make it sound like every department is actively thwarting senior management and working counter to the company's business—except HR, who are in on the game or something. So, fuck HR, right? They couldn't possibly be one cog, along with every other cog, in a larger machine designed to extract value from workers for owners/shareholders.
I say don't escalate to HR but leave to work at another place. HR is not your advocate, it is not there to help you. You are just a "resource" just like it says in the name.
There have been many cases I've heard (personally and from HN comments) where someone would go to HR, complain about harassment by their manager, get assurance of confidentiality, and the next thing you know the manager is told right away. Or the person who complained gets punished instead.
Now you can try to go public and force its hand to basically realign HR's interest (protect the company) with yours (you get heard and the problem is fixed). But that won't be forgotten in the long term.