The open war on HR: useless filter or scapegoat?

The open war on HR: useless filter or scapegoat?

A trucker switches companies with a single phone call; his experience and word of mouth are worth more than any hiring process. At the other end of the spectrum, a university graduate goes through interview after interview with recruiters who barely understand the role. The gap between these two worlds is fueling growing resentment toward HR departments, seen by many as just another bureaucratic obstacle rather than a source of support.

What is a hiring process actually for?

In professions with labor shortages —transport, construction, manual trades— hiring is settled with a direct conversation and references. The HR department is conspicuously absent. In sectors with an abundance of candidates, however, the funnel of filters becomes a barrier that breeds frustration. It is not uncommon to hear that recruiters apply standardized criteria that ignore real talent.

From discontent to violent hyperbole

Workplace complaints have escalated into a language of symbolic violence that is hard to ignore. Expressions like "HR people should be killed" circulate in forums and conversations, reflecting a disaffection that goes beyond anecdote. Behind the hyperbole lies a specific criticism: the perception that hiring processes are arbitrary, slow and out of touch with the actual needs of the job.

The figure that upends the argument

While the narrative that HR is a useless filter gains ground, companies that outsource recruitment to specialized agencies or consultancies keep paying hefty commissions. In saturated markets, the middleman takes a cut that could go toward the worker's salary. The paradox is that the stronger the candidate's profile, the more dispensable the recruiter becomes. And yet, HR headcount keeps growing.