I know I'm preaching to the choir here and nothing I'm about to say is new or insightful, but holy shit there's nothing more draining than listening to some HR bitch yap as she wastes the time of people with real jobs. Look lady, I know you have to pretend that you aren't a parasite and that your adult daycare job is important, but those of us who create the excess productivity for you to leech off of have shit to do. I hear these cunts are a real joy in the dating market too, but I've been spared any first hand experience on that front.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (77)
sorted by:
Hr is a government compliance job, the people are no different than government employees because that is the actual basis of the role. However if you have a feminist HR it speaks volumes about the company leadership and whether or not you should have one foot out the door.
I wouldn't be shocked if this bitch is a feminist, but outside of the usual inclusivity sops I haven't seen anything awful on that front. My major complaint is that these clowns get paid to socialize and they insist on forcing productive people to participate to the detriment of things they were hired to do.
It is well-researched how to break unions and sow discord among a workforce, and found that encouraging that in the workforce raised division and hatred and general antipathy, while only having a negligible effect on actual output. In any environment where collective action or unionization is even a fleeting fever dream of possibility, it is good to go all "inclusivity" because it makes people angrier and more distrustful of each-other.
VERY well-researched. There's a LOT of money in this. The particular HR person you dislike may have no idea of the sheer volumes of text that have gone into it, but they do follow the standard manual: Promote inclusivity in order to actually demote inclusivity and suppress wages.
This. Logically I would fight tooth & nail to defend an inefficient & unfair merit system rather than join any union demanded by jeets, feminists, commies, fags, or nogs.
One gives me a chance of raise / promotion; the other doesn’t.
I think the point was that sowing distrust among a group of workers makes them less likely to unionize, thereby making it easier to keep wages low. Essentially, fight each other instead of the ones in control.
It's a classic strategy.
But I do agree that most unions only benefit corrupt or lazy people.
You never actually here Compliance people get bitched out over DEI nonsense because, unlike HR, they actually need to be competent enough to understand byzantine regulations, and constantly get different opinions from the agencies themselves when asked.