4 ms·

I disagree. To me a resource is something the company controls, e.g. money, materials or, yes, a headcount. But no, the company does not control an individual p

I disagree. To me a resource is something the company controls, e.g. money, materials or, yes, a headcount. But no, the company does not control an individual person. Employees are free to leave and the police will not help you bring them back. Thus I think it’s sloppy to think of or refer to engineers as resources in most context, unless of course you are capable of replacing them with someone else at a moment’s notice.

s1artibartfast 4y ago
Interesting position. I think of resources simply as inputs needed to make a product. You might need electricity, material, or labor. The company doesn't control the worker anymore than they control the supplier of their electricity or materials. If you have sold your time and labor to accompany it is their resource until you decide to stop supplying it. I don't think anyone on either side is under the misconception that the police will hunt down Rogue workers. Who is concerned about this confusion and why? There are lots of resources that are difficult to obtain more of and or replace. On the other hand, I don't think calling workers people instead of resources does anything to address a belief that they are fungible, if in fact they are not.
- bjornsing 4y ago
  > I think of resources simply as inputs needed to make a product. You might need electricity, material, or labor. Sure, if that's a fair description of the situation then I don't have any problem with the word resource. But the word implies that this is a fair description of the situation. I think most people who do take offence with the word would also consider that description of their work degrading and incorrect. You can't write a great novel just because you have enough labor, and you can't write any innovative or interesting software either.

4 ms·

I disagree. To me a resource is something the company controls, e.g. money, materials or, yes, a headcount. But no, the company does not control an individual p

by bjornsing 4y ago

s1artibartfast 4y ago
Interesting position. I think of resources simply as inputs needed to make a product. You might need electricity, material, or labor. The company doesn't control the worker anymore than they control the supplier of their electricity or materials. If you have sold your time and labor to accompany it is their resource until you decide to stop supplying it. I don't think anyone on either side is under the misconception that the police will hunt down Rogue workers. Who is concerned about this confusion and why? There are lots of resources that are difficult to obtain more of and or replace. On the other hand, I don't think calling workers people instead of resources does anything to address a belief that they are fungible, if in fact they are not.
- bjornsing 4y ago
  > I think of resources simply as inputs needed to make a product. You might need electricity, material, or labor. Sure, if that's a fair description of the situation then I don't have any problem with the word resource. But the word implies that this is a fair description of the situation. I think most people who do take offence with the word would also consider that description of their work degrading and incorrect. You can't write a great novel just because you have enough labor, and you can't write any innovative or interesting software either.