I'm the guy who asked how to deal with adversarial HR department in tech. I had some mixed results soliciting advice last night, but did get some good advice - generally shut up, collect money, save, get out.
Upon some reconnoitering, it's a little more fucked up than before -- after asking around about the past QA people who were "so awful," I found out they're working at a household name .com. My company has an employee directory hasn't been updated in some time, so I called their personal cell phone number.
I found out they went through the same bullshit and left quietly. The twist? The HR director started cold-calling and emailing his CURRENT employers trying to get him fired THERE. He forwarded some emails; it's incredible.
Have you ever dealt with HR that crazy? What does /g/ recommend? Near as I can tell, this person didn't list Company A anywhere in his resume and HR tracked him down anyway.
For reference, the thread last night was archived.
>>51729083
PS - HR from hell continues to be pretty bad, what do?
>>51744130
Nigga they don't care about what you did or didn't do, some one wants to give your place to a friend or a family member, that's all. Probably someone from the upper management.
Get another job or fight back and probably get black listed like those people you called.
>>51744290
That's a good perspective, though from what I can tell, he didn't fight back. He left at the first brush with HR and she's still trying to end him.
I've looked at his work. It's better than most of the staff here.
I'm increasingly convinced I just need to leave now, regardless of whether I have another job lined up.
>>51744130
He should sue her for defamation.
>>51744348
>he didn't fight back. He left at the first brush with HR and she's still trying to end him.
If he didn't fight back then she probably had a grudge with him, he's not gonna tell a stranger the full story anyways.
>>51744441
Life lesson: never stick your dick in HR.
>>51744405
He's been advised it would be way too expensive to bother. His current employer loves him and opted to block this HR person.
Now I know why she had to send someone else to a conference. It's one this .com sponsors. Someone recognized her name from the 'do not respond' list when she tried signing up.
>>51744441
That's true, too.
I'd ask for a little more from coworkers, but most of the department is mysteriously newer than this HR person's arrival, and just after Person X left.
Upper management is almost wholly absent. This person has a nursery full of babies to shake at her leisure.
This is getting nuts. Definitely boning up on interview questions and considering projects or certifications to do during a gap between jobs.
>>51744130
>Have you ever dealt with HR that crazy?
There's nothing but crazy in HR. These are people who can't cut it anywhere else.
>>51744556
>but most of the department is mysteriously newer than this HR person's arrival, and just after Person X left.
How big is your department anyways? I've never heard about a department having their own HR unit.
Every big place i've worked in had the HR department too busy and they didn't have time for grudge crap, some of the guys there were total bros with me since we were both getting exploited as fuck.
Usually having an HR unit inside another department or a small workplace is a waste of money and time, most usually outsource it to a competent HR and logistics company like Deloitte or KPMG.
>>51744720
It's an exceptionally ambitious small company. She oversees HR company-wide. I was just making reference to the fact so many positions on my team were swapped around within weeks of her hiring three years ago. It's also true for QA (the whipping boy of the company culture).
It's interesting so many people who were "so terrible" are now working for major cloud solution companies with glowing references, but all the people still here spend so much time making Seinfeld jokes and getting catty about someone's Christmas sweater.
>>51744792
>It's interesting so many people who were "so terrible" are now working for major cloud solution companies with glowing references, but all the people still here spend so much time making Seinfeld jokes and getting catty about someone's Christmas sweater.
IMHO they probably fired them cause they wanted cheaper devs after the initial deployment had already been done.
Happens all the time, they also run them out in order to not having to pay a bonus for blatantly firing them.
>>51744864
On the whole you're right, but since it's not a released product they didn't have a previous team to replace, just devs to constantly flush out to avoid ever paying a raise. I don't see a single review or know of someone getting more than a 1.8% raise. Ever.
Damn, if she hadn't suddenly had it out for me, I could have stalled my career. This really is a blessing in disguise.
I guess I'm wondering how to carefully suggest to future employers to never, ever accept contact from this HR person.
>>51744997
You bring it up a few months in and mention that someone else you know is being harassed and that you might get targeted too.
>>51744997
>just devs to constantly flush out to avoid ever paying a raise. I don't see a single review or know of someone getting more than a 1.8% raise. Ever.
Then i'd say they're running low on cash and the shareholders are strangling them to cut costs and finally deliver the product. I think you're taking the right choice, they won't end up well if they're not close to delivering.
>>51745033
That's a pretty good rule of thumb.
As pointed out in previous threads, most companies only give reference someone worked for them, yes or no. I just can't trust she's going to tell the truth or not fly off the damn handle. She's likely the only person who'll pick up the phone. I'm just worried about the first few months.
I'm surprised this didn't devolve into "you fucking Millennial" again.
>>51746216
THAT CAN BE ARRANGED.
