No HR

[Iwonder?]

What is the name of your state Ca.
I just wanted to know if an employer of over 50 employees by law needs to have a human resource person on site. We have the Insurance people tell us at the renew date what is available. Medical/Dental/Vision and all. But that is all. No one really to go to at work to handle disputes. The leads, the managers and the CEOs sure we could go to them. However they are all connected to the employees on a..how should I say it...a personal or attached level.
Look they all work so close with each other that they are jaded per se by having this "close relationship" so if you needed to put in a complaint on someone... they are having lunch with them that day.

We have nowhere to go for an unpredjudiced view that will mediate. I do not want to sue anyone. I just would like to have an HR rep. Someone like cbg or Beth to , Shoot I do not know let me get some things fixed? So I googled and I guess I am not reading the laws correctly.

Does an employer of over 50 employees need to supply Human Resources?

Thanks

 

[cbg]

There is no law in any state that requires an employer of any size to have an HR person on site. It is entirely up to the employer; it is not mandated by law.

Generally, 50 employees is not really enough to support a full time HR person.

I know it's not the same thing, but Beth and I will always be willing to help when we can.

 

[Iwonder?]

thanks

You are my guru cbg exept for beth who I also respect. I was just wondering. It is so inbred where I work but I accept your answer. I just sucks. If I have a minor complaint about a co-worker or even my boss. They go to lunch and talk cheese about me. Oh well In this climate I cannot complain about having a job... nor can I complain about body odor or too much cologne/perfume... or stealing my lunch. but at least we have jobs thank you for responding cbg.You are the only reason I came back for advice.

 

[Iwonder?]

Again thanks

You and Beth are keeping this site real. You go HR!

 

[Beth3]

Wow. Thanks.

cbg is correct of course. An employer can have 10,000 employees and still isn't obligated to have a human resources person.