Wow. This is the most astonishing hogwash based rant I've read in a long time. And that's not just because I work in HR/Payroll, but simply because generalising invariably means that the rant is wrong.

Yes, there are dud HR departments out there, just as there are dud accountants, public servants, garbos, labourers, journalists etc. No one is going to argue this.

However, if you've ever been in an organisation where the executive group have bought into HR management then you'll see the benefits. You'll see remuneration policies that match the way that the business works, you'll see an organisation that's reasonably on top of OH&S, recruitment functions that are reasonably efficient, payroll that's reasonably accurate etc. The reason for using the word 'reasonably' so often there is because we're dealing with humans who don't always get things right, especially where they need to make a judgment call on priorities.

Contrast that with one where you have poor HR management/exec buy-in, you'll get poor bonus pools, overcomplicated processes and managers and employees who are irritated at how things that should be simple aren't.

Generalise like this and you're setting yourself up to fail. The author had a bad experience - fine. Deal with it and get over it. Contact AHRI (http://www.ahri.com.au) and find out who the good employers are and try with them before ranting with generalisations like this.

Well, I certainly won’t be seeking help from Republic Resumes or Republic Media.

Having written that, the author is right to rail against the tide of HR as a growing force. Back in the late 70’s, organisations were full of Personnel Managers. As we entered the dreadful Labor government inspired years, these Personnel Managers were thankfully set adrift as business streamlined itself to cope with the inevitable belt tightening that comes along with every incompetent government.

This time again, just like the time before, and the time before that, a Labor government is overseeing a decline in our economic performance, making our labour force less flexible, imposing ridiculous restraints on workforce participation but doing it all in the misguided belief that none of the hardship is due to them – its all magic or voodoo or something. This time it’s the Global Economic meltdown/crisis/crunch, last time it was the recession we had to have and before that all I remember is Khemlani and loans.

On the bright side, we can only hope to see the HR industry shrink and responsibility (a very un-Labor word) for looking after people given back to line management. It is true that the HR industry constantly tries to baffle brains with bull#*$t. The conga lines of blindfolded fools following a ‘leader’ peeping incessantly on a whistle, while meandering across the playing field outside my office attest to the irrelevance of their core competencies. I’m sure when they finish this politically correct team bonding that they will all be better team players as they retreat to their ergonomically designed cube-farms.

My experience with HR is that in the public sector they are a phenomenal drain on productivity living in an un-costed fools paradise; as long as the process is right the outcome is irrelevant. In the Private Sector they are a little more focused on outcomes rather than process but they’re well overdue for a cleanout.

This article hits the nail on the head time and time again - and from an insider too. This is about the most damning article I've read on HR - Horrid Realities. It reads as a researched piece in to recruitment practices looking by King's profile.

He should have gone in harder and named names. What a waste of space these people are. Sure, there are good people in the 'profession' but if you read the HR newsletters such as Recruiter Daily and the waffle that is printed in the dailies as 'career advice', you'll realise that HR, as the author says, is a value subtract.

They are a useless link in the recruitment supply chain.

I couldn't agree more with the author of this article. Okay, I've only had one experience lately with an executive recruitment firm (I was the employer) and it was woeful!

I was most disappointed with the administrative aspects. The advertisement was not properly researched and even the name of the organisation I was representing was branded incorrectly in the newspapers. Our employees were none too pleased.

Most of the long list of candidates for the position did not even know they were on our list for consideration. That might be reasonable for a database starting point, but a majority of them did not have the skills or the experience we were looking for and had advertised for. As it turned out, the successful candidate applied for the position by answering the advertisement.

Mmmm - I'll need a lot of convincing to use another recruitment agency in the near future. The overall cost of the exercise was phenomenal, but I have to admit that their Boardroom was a rather pleasant place to conduct the interviews.

Is OLO trying to become the Fox News of the Australian blogosphere? Lately it specialises in uninformed ill-considered sprays like this one.

In most organisations, HR managers are comparatively junior executives doing what senior management instructs them to. To the extent that they engage in poor practices, it is because they are permitted/encouraged to do so by top management. Describing HRM as 'an incompetent profession' is plain silly, not to say meaningless.

The truth is that many senior managers are besotted with the promise they see in HRM. Getting staff to be highly motivated and hard-working because they love their jobs and have faith in the organisation's 'mission' is the holy grail of management: a final solution to the labour problem at minimal cost.

I think I understand why the author was unsuccessful in his many job applications. The whole post is ridiculous.

BTW anyone equating HRM with commercial recruitment agencies does not understand what HRM is.