Comparisons between HR in Australia and the USA

[PatriciaS]

Hi Mark,

Looks like I've struck a nerve. I have just responded to posts and voiced my opinions, because they aren't in sync with yours now I am a troll.

Anyhow the discussion was an eyeopener. Thanks for the interesting discussion.

[Mark D]

Hi Mark,

Looks like I've struck a nerve. I have just responded to posts and voiced my opinions, because they aren't in sync with yours now I am a troll.

Anyhow the discussion was an eyeopener. Thanks for the interesting discussion.

Well, when you grossly generalise and run your "US HR is better than Oz HR" mantra at us on multiple occasions in more than one topic on the forum it certainly smells like trolling. You should be happy now, you've got reactions from a few people. In case you've forgotten, here's your message .....

Considering that HR in the US is far more advanced than what is being practised in Australia

Australia is far behind this practice

Frankly, US HR practices are 10 years ahead of what's happening in Australia

HR – most incompetent profession in Australia? I have to agree with this article for many reasons. I have seen it one too many times.

HR practice in this country - it is behind what is being practised in the US

For example, if I went to a US handgun forum and started to bag US gun laws, I'd be a troll too. See what I mean?

[michaelakassar]

Hi Patricia,

I must say I do have to agree with Mark's opinion that it is important for HR (along with everyone else of course) to help our employers to make money. Money is not only needed to cover your current and future costs, but there are also costs that come with providing good conditions and other benefits for workers. If there is not enough income then everyone will suffer, including your customers. Here is an example of how the 'don't make money' attitude can negatively impact an organisation.

I currently work in a small not for profit care org, which employs around 100 staff. Only about 12 of us work in the office. The rest are supporting clients. This org is funded by the government, using a case based funding system, which severely retards the way we can do things (too hard to go into it here). If clients leave, they take their money with them. When we take on a new client, it takes about 6 months before they decide they want to use our services.

Prior to employing our new CEO about 18 months ago, the former one, along with most of the managers and staff, made negative comments about accepting charity/donations from big business, expecting and preferring that the government puts us up, and therefore ran the org that way. This meant we had no money to provide decent wages and conditions for staff, not to mention the office staff being overworked, and too much use of paper based systems, reducing productivity. The structure of the agency, along with many primative and long winded business processes were also terrible. Our clients, while getting their needs met, don't get the quality of life they deserve due to lack of funds. Additionally, we could not employ enough people in the office to make HR strategic and not just transactional. In early 2008, our cash reserves stood around $100,000k......

We lost a few clients this financial year due to safety risks, therefore our income fell.....

Even though we now have a good CEO, the above mess we inherited has crippled our ability to generate income in addition to government funding as we do not have sufficient resources right now. The CEO and I, along with maybe 1 or 2 others are strategically focused, our organisation's next strategy is being delayed as we are still getting our basic sorting stuff out in some area (although there has been some positive changes).

We have been eating into cash reserves for a few months now (I don't know where it currently stands), and I've not been advised that a new client will be starting with us in the next 5 minutes, therefore we are not making money. This now means that several positions in the office, including my own, may be made redundant in the next few months to save cash. I also feel (don't know if CEO agrees) that because all our manpower is taken up getting day to day jobs done, there is no one to now undertake the intended task of reviewing the organisation's processes, restructuring etc ( I don't think the poor thing can do it on his own, as it is a job in itself). I was hoping to do this task, but the CEO wanted me to continue in HR role to sort out basic stuff).

Sorry for the long response, but I feel it's important for HR people to do their bit to ensure the businesses we work in can be sustainable now and in the future. We cannot look after employees or customers if we are broke.



Cheers
Michaela

[PatriciaS]

[QUOTE=Mark D;10079]Well, when you grossly generalise and run your "US HR is better than Oz HR" mantra at us on multiple occasions in more than one topic on the forum it certainly smells like trolling. You should be happy now, you've got reactions from a few people. In case you've forgotten, here's your message .....


Brilliant. It's nice to be stalked in a forum. Mark, I stand by what I have said and the fact is HR practices here are behind what is being practised in North America. I suggest you do some valuable research as to why this is the case. If you did indeed work in the US you would know this yourself. As for trolling, no offence, but if I were to troll, I wouldn't use my profession as a subject but I'm certainly glad you can smell a troll, just like I can smell a liar for instance.

Anyhow, it's time to move on as this is counterproductive to the discussion.

[Moz]

I stand by what I have said and the fact is HR practices here are behind what is being practised in North America. I suggest you do some valuable research as to why this is the case.

Patricia, you don't seem to get it, you're addressing a predominantly Australian audience and you're saying repeatedly, in numerous threads, that Australian HR practices are inferior to US HR practices. But you don't seem to offer any evidence to support your assertions, so it's no wonder you are being accused of trying to wind people up (commonly known as 'trolling' for some reason).

How about presenting some meaningful arguments to support your theory which we naive Aussie HR people can take on board and learn from?

[Mark D]

Anyhow, it's time to move on

Good move. I believe Qantas fly direct to the US several times a week.

[kevinh]

Play nice people

Any further posts which the Admins consider to be personal sniping will be deleted.

Let's keep the discussion factual.

[Mark D]

Sorry Kevin. I checked the facts and the Qantas schedule is actually 14 times a week :-)

[Moz]

Let's look at this objectively.

Clearly one cannot look at policy and say whether a HR practice or policy itself is good or bad, what needs to be looked at is the outcome, the effect of the HR practices and policy. In order to make comparisons the outcomes need to be measurable.

The first one that comes to mind for me is employee engagement, (or disengagement and active disengagement). Looking at employee engagement surveys that have been done in recent years, the US and Australia have very similar levels, as are the costs of employee disengagement on a pro rata basis. I haven't had time to look at the UK surveys but I would be very much surprised if they are any different.

What other quantifiable HR outcomes can we compare between different countries?