The business belongs to the employer typically, they should have far more power over their own business than an average employee does. Inverting that is crazy. I take a job at your 30 year old business that you've run for your entire adult lifetime, now I have more power over it than you do, all because I took a job = perpetual stagnation ala France.
Ok, now do "I took a job at a huge multinational that you've worked at for your entire adult lifetime, now I have more power over your job than you do, all because I graduated with a minor in HR last month".
And? That's the decision of the person who owns the business. Not yours, and not the HR person's.
The person who owns the business has decided that this is the process by which he wants employees vetted because they do not have the time to personally oversee every decision.
See, you've actually moved the goalposts here and you may not have realized it.
I'm not sure if you read the comment I was responding to, but it sounds like if you had, you would agree that it was presenting a totally irrelevant argument.
He was making irrelevant points about the owner having put their whole life into a business for 30 years and an employee being brand new. None of those are relevant to whether an owner should have more power than an employee, unless he'd like to make exceptions for e.g long-term employees and someone who just bought an existing business.
