Apr 102014

In my last post, it was no surprise that a part of the feminist war on tech startups was their lack of a HR (Human Resources) Department.  It turns out that it isn’t just startups that want to get rid of HR.  The Wall Street Journal had an article about companies that want to get rid of HR.  The WSJ article notices the same things we talked about:


The article had some direct quotes from company executives:

Ruppert Landscape Inc., an 11-year-old landscaping company with 900 employees, has never had a traditional HR department. Instead, managers must balance renewing contracts and ensuring that a client’s grass is cut to the proper height with hunting down talent at college recruiting sessions and teaching employees about the company’s 401(k) plan.


“I just have a hard time understanding how somebody in an office two or four states away can do a better job of solving an employee problem than someone who has a vested interest in the employee,” Mr. Ruppert said.

There were similar sentiments in the comments to the WSJ article:



An HR department can turn an entrepreneurial, venture-backed success story into a Soviet-style Gulag almost overnight. I saw this firsthand early in my career.

HR departments in this country can be renamed in “Political Correctness Departments”.

Think about it. The main thing HR does is to make sure you run your company the way the government wants it run — from payroll withholding, to leave policies, harrassment training and anti-discrimination rules. It would be great if HR actually helped recruit talent, but that is rarely the case. Instead, they are the Voice of the State — like the Party functionaries who could be found in every work brigade in the old Soviet system.

Bob Townsend espoused a limited HR function in his book, Up the Organization, more than 35 years ago. Apparently, it’s still a revolutionary idea to some people.

That last quote is important.  People have been trying to get rid of or scale down HR for at least 35 years.  Many corporate executives see the problems with HR.  Many HR functions can now be done with software.  Given all this, why can’t companies seem to get rid of HR?

Both the article and various comments said that HR is needed to deal with lawsuits.  One comment used the term “liability bombs”.  They’re getting close to the problem, but they can’t quite name the problem.  The problem is women.  At any particular company, most of the women are in unproductive roles (like HR ironically) and are “liability bombs”  To deal with female “liability bombs” more people have to be added to HR.  Since most people added to HR will be women, this becomes a never ending cycle of of hiring women to deal with the problems of hiring women.

One reason tech startups are so feared by women and manginas is because they have not started the cycle of hiring women to deal with the problems of hiring women.  Since startups aren’t hiring women due to the lack of women actually capable of doing tech work, they don’t need to hire HR women to deal with them.  As tech startups grow, they have the potential to escape this cycle.  If enough startups avoid this cycle while growing into larger businesses, they will show the way how to get rid of HR and all of the women who are employed to it or employed as a result of it.  Women and manginas are afraid of this outcome.

  11 Responses to “Companies Want To Get Rid Of HR. Why Can’t They?”

  1. But, but, without HR managers would actually have to manage! They’d have to supervise the people they nominally supervise, to actually act as bosses, negotiate salaries, decide who does what, hire and fire on the basis of who gets the work done. Is the world really ready for such an extreme upending of the way a workplace is supposed to function?

  2. I seem to recall reading in “The Woman Racket” by Steve Moxon that once the HR dept is headed by a woman, the rest of the dept becomes female within a short time, then the rest of the company. Women are biologically sexist and prefer to surround themselves with other women regardless of the corporate consequences. Only handsome alpha males have a chance of being hired.

    Get rid of femnazis in a company and you lower the risk of a lawsuit by 99%. HR departments only increase the risk of lawsuits because without the risk of lawsuits, there would be no need of HR departments.

    They are identical to a union-controlled public sector department: incompetent, useless and malicious.


      It’s called in-group preference.

  3. I used to believe that feminism gained a justified victory by allowing women into the workforce with men.

    USED to.

  4. Great article.

    Your last paragraph nails it.

    And even if growing businesses can’t keep out HR there’s always the option of selling the business and starting anew elsewhere (taking your best talent with you as you go).

    A sustainable way to keep ‘diversity’ out of your business and your life.

    There also might be a way to kill two birds with one stone here.

    Don’t hire your talent from universities.

    Instead hire only from vocational/tech type outfits.

    They will probably have very little problem with that as most universities are pretty dumbed down these days anyway (and getting worse all the time).

    But adopting such a policy would act to marginalize universities.

    What high school grad looking to go into tech is going to even consider college if it becomes common knowledge that companies never hire out of them?

    And that, in turn, puts a serious crimp in the tuition money pipeline that those communist re education camps need to stay aloft!

    • Selling your company and starting anew is already part of tech startup culture. The “Paypal Mafia” is a good example.

      Another possibility for avoiding HR is some sort of reverse merger/acquisition where at least on paper the startup acquires the larger company or pieces of the larger company. HR simply ends up being one of the pieces not acquired. I’m not sure how that would work since a startup wouldn’t be able to buy out large companies under normal circumstances. I’m sure some finance guys can figure it out. In fact, anyone who can use this idea is welcome to it.

  5. “I used to believe that feminism gained a justified victory by allowing women into the workforce with men.

    USED to.”

    Women have always been allowed into the workplace. It is just women chose to avoid the dangerous jobs. Soon as the workplace is made say women come barring in. They manipulate men by pretending to be victims by pretending to be excluded from the workplace.

  6. Yes, the HR department is nothing more than Feminism and Diversity in action – it’s pure shit and dead weight. Let’s get rid of all women in the workplace- you think that sounds radical? It’s no where near how RADICAL they will pervert your company. Women are to a company what sugar is to your gas tank. You are one of the very few people on the entire internet talking about women in the workplace. Which I find utterly baffling because they are such a CANCER inside of a business. You can tolerate one or two and at that number can actually be beneficial, but after that, it’s a guaranteed formula for failure.

  7. I just don’t see how the US can compete on a global scale when other nations won’t force their companies to hire useless women. The only thing keeping the US strong is a giant military, but even that is getting feminized and eventually a few other countries will band together to test the US. And if the tests show weakness, all bets are off. That’s how Rome fell too, feminism destroyed it.

    • The only reason the US can compete right now is because the competition is so weak. If a country ever got its act together and was able to hold the line against female demands, the US would be in serious trouble.


Translate »
%d bloggers like this: