Hacker News Reader

Comment by s5300 | Hacker News Reader

>You're not a soulless resource that can be used and tossed whenever your boss pleases.

Hahaha. We Americans have this little term called "Human Capital"

The term "Human Resources" is slowly creeping into German corporate speak. Before that it was called "Personalverwaltung" (employee management) which I think is a way better and more fitting name.

You're a good decade behind - for the better. In Australia the terminology HCM is working it's way into common corporate usage.

Human Capital Management.

Another scale up (down) from where you're moving to.

Next step might be rolling HCM into a function of the Finance Department. (moreso).

Holy hell. "Human Resources" implied that as an employee, you're a resource to be exploited - used up and discarded. "Human Capital" implies your employer owns you.

> Human Capital" implies your employer owns you.

Which goes to show how correct Marx was, at least from a sociological perspective.

Well, Marx will always appear correct from a Sociological perspective. It's at the foundation of that perspective.

This must be some new meaning of the word "sociological" of which I was previously unaware.

I took it as a synonym for sociology.

Not really, though you are probably just making jokes.

"Resources" can surely mean "assets" (note that the relevant resources are selected...), which is not at all diminishing or ghastly, and also honestly means "what is available to fulfil a need". Implication of «expoitation» (or, even farther, "expendability") is not necessary, though "being used" is surely there - but that is the job itself.

"Capital" implies "investment" - what you invest is the principal, "capital", while the additional returns are the secondary part -, not necessarily that «ownership» that implies a loss of freedom: contractually, you allow your employer to make your work part of an investment. Again, it is the job itself. The capital is what you have invested and returns after having brought fruit: again, they are assets.

Terms have broad semantics, it is never a good idea to interpret with partiality. :)

Edit: I am not denying that some employers may de facto as if interpret "resources" and "capital" dishumanly: I am stating that the fault is not in the jargon.

I got a new co-worker (product manager) who seemed like a nice guy, well-spoken, seemed to listen to us techies, fun to have lunch with. The only thing that seemed "off" about him at first was that he unironically referred to people as resources. "We can deploy without a proper review for now since the design resource is on holiday". Like, there was only one "design resource", he was called Andrew and their desks were next to each other! I thought it was weird, but I just brushed it off since other than that he seemed fine.

At first. After a few months, though, he proved himself to be classical politicking a---hole and a horrible bully if you got on his bad side. I take that as a lesson to trust my instincts more.

always when i hear someone calls a fellow colleague a ressource (in corporate context) or device (in sport context) it always proved true that these people were manipulative as hell.

What’s an example of the device usage?

in dance sport calling your partner a sport device ;)

I think the difference is that at the C-level, executives play checkers, where every piece is the same and you can allocate "resources" (aka people) as commodities. Below that we're playing chess and every person is a distinct individual. It's at the transition in either the hierarchy or in this case you're co-working trying to position himself in the former while working in the latter where it gets unpleasant and weird.

I think the R in ERP systems might have contributed to this ghastly habit.

Did everyone knew Andrew and what his role was?

Though I must admit that design resource is hardcore :) I must try that at the office and look at the reactions.

What does "People Management Team" mean? That's what our HR has adopted, I think to sound less scary but to me it comes across like total social control.

Sorry, which term(s) in German is(/are) used for "Human Resources"?

Companies use the term "Human Resources", literally. Without translation. Ridiculous if you ask me.

I noticed the intrusion of that terminology in the German speaking area from a small thing, a joke from Miguel Fernandez:

«Wo is der Azubi?! Sie meinen der Primary Business Solutions Executive Assistant. ...Der is grad kacken.»

I think the trend comes from the globalization of business and trade, so that when parts meet there is no translation of titles but a sort of spontaneous international convention. This avoids questions like "So, what is exactly your job as /Azubi/?".

(Of course, still tongue-in-cheek, it may remain a justified question to ask "What is exactly your job as PBSEA".)

>Companies use the term "Human Resources", literally. Without translation.

Interesting.

When it arose there must not have historically been anything similar commonly seen.

Could be all previous German engineering success has been best accomplished without anything resembling an American-style HR approach.

After all, today's HR designation took root during the belt-tightening of the '80's under Ronald Reagan, and as we have seen has declined in usefulness from there continuously over the decades.

No translation was given back then either, and that was in the USA :)

I like that term. Going to try to slip that into conversations every now and then. Thanks for the inspiration.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com