I have been working in commerce and industry for the past 40 years.

Early in that time frame I concluded employing people in an HR function was a complete waste of space.

My professional view is HR is a function which is inherent in the job role of a line manager, not some off-at-the-side staff manager.

Only a line manager should make employment decisions for all of those who will report to him.

The only remaining “functional” purpose is someone to advise on employment law(s) and this can be done pretty expediently by subscription to a internet service.

I recall many years ago a troublesome employee who wanted a different outcome to the one I had prescribed, complaining to the HR department who came as saw my boss and were told it was me who ran the department and me who would make any decisions… good old line support from my boss.

I further recall about 13 years ago doing a job for one of the big four banks and observed the different state line managers had almost given up accepting any responsibility for their staff or their staff KPIs (eg staff turnover rates.. which were huge, promotion policy and staff conditions of employment, which were rigid) because of the burgeoning amount of interference imposed upon then, in terms of staff selection, promotion and dismissal, by an empirical HR function obsessed with its own glory and existence well above and beyond its commercial value.

HR functions are a bit like a lot of corporate IT functions; they simply think the purpose of the enterprise is to employ them, instead of them making a contribution to the value of the business.

HR stands for Human Remains. Many people working in HR don't even like humans, of this I am convinced.

Having worked in large organisations both in Australia and in the UK, I've found the range of services offered by HR departments to be pretty much the same. They are there to ensure that policies protect the interests of the business and are compliant with all relevant legislation. They may assist with job roles and descriptions, but frequently will tell you want you can't do and not what you can.

Most of the time, the HR department will not promote the interests of the employee, but it will protect them. There is a subtle difference there, because not all bosses are effective people managers and need help. Sometimes, HR does not support the employer and frequently, if one has a staff member that is not performing, its suddenly very difficult to get rid of them.

HR, however is all about maintaining the status quo, normally HR's. I find it fascinating, that in a time of job-cuts, the only department to grow in my previous company is HR. Funny that.

It would be wonderful if line managers would take responsibility for their own HRM. What's stopping them? Anyone would think HR staff had taken over organisations at the point of a gun, or been imposed by government legislation.

HR departments evolved from personnel departments because line managers were either not capable of managing people or couldn't be bothered trying. They preferred to delegate it, a preference that continues to this day. As soon as that changes, HR departments will wither away like the dodo, but I don't expect it to happen any time soon. Managing people is hard work; most line managers prefer to spend time with a spreadsheet or having endless meetings about fantasies for the future.

HR is a broad church and is more than just recruitment as Pericles pointed out.

I can understand the author's anger as there are many problems with the private recruitment agency sector. They do seem to be a law unto themselves despite the fallback position of acting on behalf of employers. There are many keen opportunties to advocate on behalf of candidates which they miss in pursuit of a a quick dollar.

Perhaps we cannot blame them entirely, but the system that has encouraged the idea of humans merely as resources and outsourcing mania particularly within the public sector.

Still, HR covers a number of important functions in both the public and private sector including OH&S, workers compensation, payroll, training, orientation and induction, recruitment, governance, personnel administration, disability, counselling, performance review, industrial relations and public relations (like school career talks).

The author is clearly a recruiter. He's using HR as a generic. Blind freddy can see that.

One of the problems I have is that HR people aren't all that smart. They're the deltas of the workforce who are allowed to wear pens in the pockets of their shirts.

Like rats, who will give electric shocks to other rats over and over again if food is delivered, I doubt HR people know what right actions are. Sack 20 casuals! Buzz. Hire only people in their 20s. Buzz! Buzz!

What is curious is King is a rat who has turned. Why has he left the comfy fold? Moral hazard?

There are two broad groups of HR. Those in the public and private sectors that generally do a good job maintaining the core functions that keep their organisations operating; and external contractors that are hired to add something extra to a company or organisation. It's to the second lot that I think Malcolm's criticism is valid.

Nine times out of ten, they know very little about the organisation they are representing and put on some generic course or presentation. This was particularly rife in the PS during the Howard government, which seemed to be more interested in giving industry a leg-up than in getting them add any value to the PS. The then government, via John Fahey, hired a US company (whith a pompous sounding name like a law firm) that was paid millions to advise and set up the IT "cluster" outsourcing model that ultimately had to be canned because the model just didn't fit the PS. While this example was related to IT and not HR, it's the same the-grass-is-greener management attitude which is susceptible to industry marketing spin that was responsible for the waste of public funds.