I’ve noted before how I can’t grasp why Employment Law is not a required course to obtain the CHRP designation which is supposed to indicate to employers and the public that a person is an expert in all things related to the HR profession. Every HR person I have spoken to agrees that the absence of a law course requirement is inexplicable. I can’t count how many Masters of HRM students have expressed surprise that the law course in the MHRM at York is not a mandatoryrequirement to obtain the MHRM degree. Yet, students in my Employment Law courses who intend to go on to careers in HR still receive no credit towards their designation for completing the course. Knowledge of law is not considered important enough to warrant inclusion in the list of skills HR managers are expected to be well-versed in.
This year’s HRPA Conference, as always, is chalk full of law sessions. A quick count of sessions taught by or about law-related subjects puts the number near 25! You can’t swing a dead horse without hitting a lawyer at this conference. So law is crucial enough to the HR profession to take up a large segment of the annual confernence of the professional, yet not important enough to warrant any formal education in the subject matter to become a designated HR professional.
Is the idea that while law is important, it is something that should be left to hired lawyers to deal with? If so, perhaps the purpose of legal education for HR people is not to teach them legal rules, but to give them just enough information that they know to call a lawyer.
Is that what is happening? What do you think?