H.R. is Friends with the CEO

My question involves labor and employment law for the state of: California

Hello everyone, I work for a company in california and recently we had a little issue in the office. Long story short the CEO came in our office yelled at everyone and said somethings in particular to a supervisor. My supervisor was very offended by the way he talked and the things mentioned and emailed HR shortly after to discuss the situation. Shortly after HR received the email she called the CEO in her office and told him about the email she just got which made him very angry. After they talked in the office, the supervisor was then pulled in and told by HR (ceo was no longer in the room) that he is the owner of the company he can do what he wants and she can deal with it or leave the company.

Was curious if this is legal as other people are concerned about their jobs and are afraid to say anything to any of the managers and are now afraid to talk to HR. The high up managers, HR, and CEO are all family friends and know if they say anything they will get in trouble.

Of course it's legal. With very, very few exceptions, none of which appear to apply here, no one owes you any duty of confidentiality.

It really astonishes me how many people seem to think that HR can fix all their problems without ever talking to the people involved in those problems. Magic wands that can be waved and made to fix everything without any discussion don't even exist in Harry Potter.

And unless the CEO is violating any laws, it is true that it's his company and he can do what he wants.

Quote:

---

Quoting spikezone2004

---

After they talked in the office, the supervisor was then pulled in and told by HR (ceo was no longer in the room) that he is the owner of the company he can do what he wants and she can deal with it or leave the company.

---

The CEO (owner of the company) pays HR's salary. HR's allegiance is to the CEO. Can't imagine any worker not knowing and understanding that.

I used to tell my employees to feel free to be offended as long as they do what I assign them and they remember it is my system allowing them to earn an additional $5 per hour in bonus. I also told them if they ever thought I was wrong to call coworkers at other locations to see what they were averaging per hour at that time.

Note that HR represents the company NOT the employees. Except for certain limited circumstances they have NO duty to you at all.

This is a fine line distinction and I don't expect many people to understand the difference, but I'm frankly getting a little tired of the misrepresentations of HR by people who don't. So this is my semi-annual attempt to make HR's role clear.

The reason more people don't understand Jack's point is that Jack is wrong. Ron has gotten it right, although whether by accident or design I'm not prepared to state. HR does not represent the CEO any more than it represents the employees. HR's role is to make sure the employer is in compliance with employment law. That does NOT mean rubber-stamping anything the employer wants to do; if the employer is violating the law it is HR's job to tell him so. If the employee has no legal leg to stand on, (while it should be the manager) HR gets the job of telling him that, too. But HR's job is not to be the company police. If there is no employment law involved, HR has no stake in the game. If the CEO is not violating any employment laws, HR does not have a dog in the fight and has no obligation to interfere. Many managers like to use HR, or the threat of HR, as a way to keep employees in line and avoid actually managing, but if there are no employment laws in play, it's none of HR's business unless the employer or employee makes it so.

It should also be noted that the law has not granted HR any regulatory authority. HR can tell the CEO he is wrong, or even that he is in violation of the law, until the cows come home and if the CEO chooses to ignore HR, there is little HR can do about it. I don't say nothing, because depending on what law is being violated HR might have an option or two, but for the most part the CEO is going to do what the CEO wants to do. And if no laws are being violated, HR has other things to do. Like benefits, workers comp claims, mandatory compliance reports, compensation, overseeing performance reviews...the list goes on. (My then-boss once asked me to put together a list of everything I did - the bulleted list, in ten-point font, went well into its third page.) They can't spend ALL their time making employees play nice in the sandbox together.

I like having cbg in the same sandbox, though I am not sure the feelings are mutual. :)

As long as there are no Tootsie Rolls found in the sandbox, it's all good.

Quote:

---

Quoting Disagreeable

---

I like having cbg in the same sandbox, though I am not sure the feelings are mutual. :)

---

Most of the time I do, Dis, but there are days....:)

Quote:

---

Quoting cbg

---

This is a fine line distinction and I don't expect many people to understand the difference, but I'm frankly getting a little tired of the misrepresentations of HR by people who don't. So this is my semi-annual attempt to make HR's role clear.

HR's role is to make sure the employer is in compliance with employment law. That does NOT mean rubber-stamping anything the employer wants to do; if the employer is violating the law it is HR's job to tell him so. If the employee has no legal leg to stand on, (while it should be the manager) HR gets the job of telling him that, too. But HR's job is not to be the company police. If there is no employment law involved, HR has no stake in the game.

---

In a well run company, I agree with you. But not all firms are so well run (and I’ve seen some of those poorly run organizations). The HR function in the end does what the company has told the HR people they are supposed to do, just like any other employees in the firm do what the company instructs them to do. Those that don’t get fired, demoted, transferred, etc. The notion that HR is somehow independent of the CEO and the board (if it is a corporation), as you seem to imply in your defense of HR, is not an accurate one in my view. There is not, for example, a law in any state I’m familiar with that makes HR an independent organization in the company answerable to no one higher up in the organization. I do not mean to denigrate HR professionals and lump them all in the category of shills for management; in many organizations HR personnel will indeed step up and tell management when they are violating the law or even tell management that what they are doing is simply poor personnel practice. But that’s in a corporate environment that allows for that. Not all organizations understand and value proper legal compliance. That’s true not just when it comes to employment law, by the way. I’ve seen problems with poorly organized tax departments, legal departments, etc, too.