3 ms·
Human Resources should really be named Employer Resources as it exists to protect the company from liability for their employees.
by sys_64738 1y ago
Human Resources should really be named Employer Resources as it exists to protect the company from liability for their employees.
- itsoktocry 1y agoIs this supposed to be witty or something? Employees are human resources.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- sokoloff 1y agoNever forget that “human” is an adjective in that phrase, rather than a noun.
- s1artibartfast 1y agoI literally don't understand how it could be a noun.
- sokoloff 1y ago“Human” is almost always a noun, but isn’t here. The point of that quip is that Human Resources does not focus on the humans as nouns, meaning as humans.
- s1artibartfast 1y agoI guess I never saw it that way and struggle to think of example usage as a noun. Human technology, human race, human rights, human error, human nature, human history, human power. Always an adjective. I still cant think of a common noun usage, let alone an alternative noun reading for human resources. People don't say "hello human". It is weird to see comments talking about "HR" as some euphemism or double speak. Maybe I'm the outlier, but I don't understand any other meaning besides managing the resource that is humans. That covers lots of things- managing the liability, procurement, retention, firing, of the workforce. Do people really think "HR" is the resource?
- sokoloff 1y ago“Dog” is a noun, despite readily recallable “dog trainer”, “dog food”, “dog park”, etc.
- jbverschoor 1y agoAI isn’t human, and the work done by them might be taxed as employment in the future
- sathomasga 1y agoI dunno, it kind of accurately reflects the view that in capitalist firms employees are resources, e.g. to be exploited. I'd vote for the old terminology: Personnel Department.
- lotsofpulp 1y agoI am a resource for my kids, my spouse, and the rest of my friends and family. I am also a resource to my employer and other customers. In any organization, a resource can vary from things such as land, chemicals, machines, humans, books, etc. The term Human Resources seems accurate to a refer to a group of people that deal with the humans in the organization. I do not see why “resources” is seen as having a negative connotation in this context. Of course, just like a family can mistreat a resourceful family member, so can any organization mistreat a human resource.
- lelanthran 1y ago> I dunno, it kind of accurately reflects the view that in capitalist firms employees are resources, e.g. to be exploited. Not that accurate, in my view: a resource is something that's a positive thing to be exploited. "Human resources" in most companies are not there primarily to exploit the employee to their full potential/productivity/burnout level. They're there to protect the company from the employees!
- bartread 1y agoThat’s true but also a bit reductionist. And even in that regard, what they federally do is assist managers. So, for example, if a manager has an underperforming team member HR will ensure that manager follows process in applying performance management so that the manager follows process and doesn’t expose the company to liability. Beyond this they’re also often key players in recruitment marketing, employer branding, hiring and selection, understanding the broader employment market to ensure pay and benefits are inline with desired industry norms, health and wellbeing, and the list goes on. None of this is ever perfect and, of course, we can all think of companies where it’s been highly dysfunctional. But, nonetheless, claiming all they do is protect the company from employees is still too reductive.
- AbstractH24 1y agoWhen you read the words “Human Resources” in the most literal sense you kind of wonder why we ever expected anything rose from the department A con almost on par with the term “global warming” and “climate change.”
- whack 1y agoI'll bite. What's wrong with the terms "global warming" and "climate change"?
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]