> but the hiring at that company was a whole other song and dance that took very little input from anyone about the hiring process.

That doesn't sound healthy to me.

For sure, seem like they will treat lots of other things the same. What about comp? Promotions?

The company was large and paid well, outside of very few situations HR didn't actually decide what people got paid, they just clogged up the recruiting, interview, and actually finalizing the OK to hire someone process.

Sadly that is my experience with HR at most any mid to large size company.

That’s not how it works at all.

First of all interviews are a two way interview. Your company will be judged based on it.

Also people come in touch with hr later, and usually in high pressure situations. If HR was difficult during the interview that’s a big red flag for later on in case you have to deal with them.

That's totally how it can work, if it should or not is another story.

I don't doubt people judged the company based on their interactions with HR, but that's HR's responsibility IMO. I gave my feedback on a few occasions, but they didn't take any action based on it. At that point their failures are 'not my job'.

As for any other HR interactions most folks interacted with them as little as possible. At big companies (and many others..) I find HR is there for the company to manage risk, not help, I expect very little from that kind of department.

Sure HR is there to manage risk. If they already are shown to be like this in the interview I would not be safe if they decided to "manage risk" with me later on. I luckily never had to deal with HR, but it can happen to anyone.