The Human Resource

[Wanker]

Does the idea of 'Human Resources' disturb anyone? In essence, the idea is implies that we, as people, are now considered a resource like coal or oil or energy. Staffing agencies exist now to "supply" resources to company in the form of human labor. Many agencies cater solely to corporations, referring to themselves as "suppliers."

In his essay, The Question Concerning Technology, Martin Heidegger refers to a progression in human nature where we quantify everything we possibly can into something he calls the 'standing reserve.' Any resource can be unlocked, transformed, stored, distributed and switched about in a way to serve our needs properly.

It has come to the point where we, as humans, are quantifying ourselves--our energy, labors and talents--to a division of the business world called Human Resources, where we are divvied up and sent out to serve/work. I was wondering if this should be cause for alarm to us as a species--sterilizing our humanity to mere tasks and functions... or is Human Resources simply a more efficient means of distributing labor without simultaneously sacrificing our inherent humanity?

[Smokey D]

In the western world at least, humans aren't treated like commodities because we have rights and agency. And terminology doesn't really bother me. It doesn't really matter if we talk about human productivity in terms of units per hour or whatever provided we don't actually dehumanising people.

Although I suppose some Marxists will say that the process of labour product alienation is dehumanising anyway. I don't know if I buy that, though.

[WhoDidTheElf]

I completely disagree with Smokey here. I think the west, America in particular, is a place were people are treated like a commodity. Companies higher and fire people like pieces of machinery. You quantify how big a company is by its assets or number of employees.

That being said, I don't find a problem with it; even if it is ethically a bit questionable.

[Smokey D]

I don't know if I'd qualify that as being treated like a commodity.

[Iskandar]

I don't think so. Humans have skills and they are useful to others. That makes us a resource.
I completely disagree with Smokey here. I think the west, America in particular, is a place were people are treated like a commodity. Companies higher and fire people like pieces of machinery. You quantify how big a company is by its assets or number of employees.Dude American workers have it pretty good. Workers in Cambodia or something are the ones who are treated like commodities.

[StreetlightRock]

I think it's problematic, the attempt to quantify us as simply as resources that feeds into a capitalist system of production without taking into account other measures of value that people may have. The Marxists had the right idea in criticizing it, and I think it's important that they did, but they got it wrong when they assumed that such a value system is inevitability alienating and dehumanizing - such an analysis is premised on the idea that we are alienated from some 'base' state of being, which I don't beleive exists.

Instead, we just need to recognize that such a system of human value is both legitimate and useful, even if it doesn't capture the whole of what 'value' may be - it's simply one measure among a host of others. The danger exists when we begin to ignore other forms of value (say I value my family become of blood ties that have nothing to do with their capacity for work, or even friends for our experiences together) and treat humans as commodities and nothing else. This is probably the biggest issue with capitalism in general, but that doesn't mean that capitalism has not and should not continue to play a vital role is ascribing value to people.

[DBoons Ghost]

I think a lot of people fail to realize who Human Resources represents in the corporate world.

Human Resources means the resources humans need. They cover your health benefits, your 401k, and they assist you in dealing with inter-office conflict.

That is their primary role.

It's hysterical that brainwashing has twisted something as simple as the lingo associated with the resources people need in a company to "people are commodities".

Fail.

[ArmyOfRage]

Everything is some aspect is disposable, if your bike is broke, then you can replace it, just what companies do with people; If they can replace the worker with a better worker, then why not?

Everything is all about improvments and advances and if we as a world are to improve and advance then humans must fit in somewhere with this chain.

[jaredong]

i dont think its a big deal. Though, maybe I'm already socialized to think its no big deal.

Say you're typing this on a computer. Whos going to make a computer? You need resources. One of the resources is labor, in the form of people. If you want to make a bazillion computers in a factory, its impossible to make so many computers while treating a person's work in a more personal fashion. Its not like every morning the boss goes "okae, bob, owens, stanely, brown, you'll screw these bolts todae... if you like." Life and society has got to such a complex level that is a necessary thing i think.

That being said, just because something is quantified does not mean it detracts away from its other values. Because, you cannot quantify everything. You might be a number or 8 hours of work to your company. But it does not stop you from being George Brown, 36, with wife and 2 1/2 kids, when you go home.

Although i get what you mean, i dont think its cause for alarm.

[spitfirejunky]

I think a lot of people fail to realize who Human Resources represents in the corporate world.

Human Resources means the resources humans need. They cover your health benefits, your 401k, and they assist you in dealing with inter-office conflict.

That is their primary role.

It's hysterical that brainwashing has twisted something as simple as the lingo associated with the resources people need in a company to "people are commodities".

Fail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_resources

[mph4ever]

I think a lot of people fail to realize who Human Resources represents in the corporate world.

Human Resources means the resources humans need. They cover your health benefits, your 401k, and they assist you in dealing with inter-office conflict.

That is their primary role.

It's hysterical that brainwashing has twisted something as simple as the lingo associated with the resources people need in a company to "people are commodities".

Fail.

man i worked for and with some of the biggest businesses around. hr are the kgb for the corporations. they represent the companies interests at all times, they police the employees, they are corporate pigs, they use propaganda to make you think you are getting a good deal. no other resource is exploited like people

[McP3000]

i seriously doubt youve been in the business world :lol:

[mph4ever]

i seriously doubt youve been in the business world :lol:

i actually know you haven't got a clue what you are talking about

[McP3000]

you still havent been in the business world

[DBoons Ghost]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_resources

Aww c'mon man. A wikipedia article?

Although it was a great read, HR has never been any of that for me. I guess I never really looked at them like that.

I'm in the same biz 15 years though so maybe I'm biased because my only dealings with HR have been when I need something related to healthcare, which I never use, or my retirement plan, which I never use them for since I have 100% control over all of my 401k plans.

[DBoons Ghost]

man i worked for and with some of the biggest businesses around. hr are the kgb for the corporations. they represent the companies interests at all times, they police the employees, they are corporate pigs, they use propaganda to make you think you are getting a good deal. no other resource is exploited like people

I love ya man but your bias is beyond palpable.

I guess I'm wrong though. Wikipedia says I'm wrong, so I must be.

There are two ways of looking at it though. I guess for me the HR glass is half full.

[misterfitch]

yeah i don't think there's anything wrong with it because there's no other way i can think of for a large inter-connected business world to work efficiently, so it's okay as long as it is always recognized that people have not only value as a worker but inherent worth as human beings and even beyond that there are, like streetlight said, other ways to measure someone's value than in a working environment. as to how this manifests itself in labor laws and actual business practices and stuff, it is a fine line between efficiency and dehumanization that i think some businesses/corporations do cross, but the idea and practice of human resources cannot be completely condemned because of it.

[mph4ever]

you still havent been in the business world
why would you question that? what is this insight you have that makes you so sure?


I love ya man but your bias is beyond palpable.

I guess I'm wrong though. Wikipedia says I'm wrong, so I must be.

There are two ways of looking at it though. I guess for me the HR glass is half full.

sure they provide good services. and there are genuinely good people there that are trying to help. its just these good people don't realise the agenda of their masters. can you remember when they are were called the "personnel group"

[Iskandar]

you still havent been in the business worldJust because he's slightly crazy doesn't mean he hasn't been in the business world.

[misterfitch]

you have never driven a car

[DBoons Ghost]

sure they provide good services. and there are genuinely good people there that are trying to help. its just these good people don't realise the agenda of their masters. can you remember when they are were called the "personnel group"

I do remember when they were called "personnel" and I think the ugly side of HR in a large "Office Space" type corporation is probably exactly along the lines of what you're talking about.

I fail to realize the big picture as much as I accuse others of the very same. As an IT guy we still have no one who "gets" what we do and how we do it.

[mph4ever]

Just because he's slightly crazy doesn't mean he hasn't been in the business world.

i'd just like to know what the definition of business world is in texas. that is where 3k is from, right?

also, i aint crazy, not even slightly

[mph4ever]

I do remember when they were called "personnel" and I think the ugly side of HR in a large "Office Space" type corporation is probably exactly along the lines of what you're talking about.

I fail to realize the big picture as much as I accuse others of the very same. As an IT guy we still have no one who "gets" what we do and how we do it.


i reckon its more down to internal politics than anything. organisations have become so dependent on information technology and management information systems that its easy to blame them when something doesn't go right. "the business is fine, its just the IT guys made a mess of the report"

we placed IT people in the business groups in an effort to better serve our internal customer. inevitably this resulted in the IT rep becoming more and more business aligned and less IT aligned. the result was fail. traditionally IT has reported into finance, another fail, because no one ever knew what to do with it but since they have some serious captial budgets then who better than bean counters to police them. IT should report to the ceo and act as an independent enabling function. IT has moved on. IT used to be that business drove requirements, now innovation drives capability.

that and most day to day IT functions should be outsourced. IT ops is not a core competency of any org except dedicated services

[McP3000]

you have never driven a car
hahahaha

[Iskandar]

i'd just like to know what the definition of business world is in texas. that is where 3k is from, right?

also, i aint crazy, not even slightlyOil, cattle rearing.

You work in telecommunications right? If that isn't the business world what is.
that and most day to day IT functions should be outsourced.
I thought they were already, and that's why I always seem to get transferred to some guy named Sanjip in Mumbai who I spend hours trying to make sense of.

[DBoons Ghost]

i reckon its more down to internal politics than anything. organisations have become so dependent on information technology and management information systems that its easy to blame them when something doesn't go right. "the business is fine, its just the IT guys made a mess of the report"

IT shouldn't be doing stuff like that, but they do because end users suck. We provide the systems and maintain them, but the business end of it should be a function of the business and nothing else.

we placed IT people in the business groups in an effort to better serve our internal customer. inevitably this resulted in the IT rep becoming more and more business aligned and less IT aligned. the result was fail. traditionally IT has reported into finance, another fail, because no one ever knew what to do with it but since they have some serious captial budgets then who better than bean counters to police them. IT should report to the ceo and act as an independent enabling function. IT has moved on. IT used to be that business drove requirements, now innovation drives capability.

that and most day to day IT functions should be outsourced. IT ops is not a core competency of any org except dedicated services

I bolded the part that gave me a career, but I understand what you mean. My ability to learn the business I have to support makes me a better guy than most, but now that I want out of Wall Street I'm a little too specialized to leave and be useful to another area of business.

In Wall Street, IT runs their own section of business. We drive their ability to trade more effectively, and now that Quant is all the rage, it's even better. I have so much more to say on this but I am pressed for time at the moment!

[mph4ever]

Oil, cattle rearing.

and providing idiot presidents

You work in telecommunications right? If that isn't the business world what is.

formal education is telecommunications and radio engineer. now i work develping businesses tha take advantage of technological innovation. leading edge stuff, helping spin business out of academia. it is the time of the technologist and will be until it becomes a real utility like gas or electricity

I thought they were already, and that's why I always seem to get transferred to some guy named Sanjip in Mumbai who I spend hours trying to make sense of.help desk support for third party software is outsourced. there are lots of functions from IT that are outsourced to local partners because they can so easily defined under operational level agreements and service level agreements but these are functions that don't really suit the mumbai model. we still have senior management hanging around that want to be able to walk down the hall and grab the IT guy by the neck to get his information.


IT shouldn't be doing stuff like that, but they do because end users suck. We provide the systems and maintain them, but the business end of it should be a function of the business and nothing else.

end users suck because IT assumes everybody should be IT literate. end users see it as a tool, nothing else. its up to IT to help end users embrace technology, not make them feel stupid.

I bolded the part that gave me a career, but I understand what you mean. My ability to learn the business I have to support makes me a better guy than most, but now that I want out of Wall Street I'm a little too specialized to leave and be useful to another area of business.

that happens all the time and there are lots of good people that have made the transition from IT to business and have been very successful. for any IT person with the ability to manage people then there are limited opportunites within IT itself. there are so many more opportunities within the business side of things. individual contributors tend stay in their chosen discipline, people with management ability tend to be able to move around

In Wall Street, IT runs their own section of business. We drive their ability to trade more effectively, and now that Quant is all the rage, it's even better. I have so much more to say on this but I am pressed for time at the moment!
hey, the thread won't be deleted, we can shoot breeze later sometime

[misterfitch]

good conversation, i enjoyed it very much

[die of starvation]

why would this be troubling
what should a firm treat employees like other than resources

[Iskandar]

Because I'm a human being dammit and I am not a robot!

[mph4ever]

why would this be troubling
what should a firm treat employees like other than resources

government bodies, not for profit organisations, are the only ones that treat employees like people and look how they fail

[die of starvation]

um governments and non profits treat employees like resources too
and they're probably more successful on average than private businesses

[McP3000]

thats funny because ive met a successful business, unlike the former

[misterfitch]

yeah it's possible to treat employees like resources and still like human beings

[die of starvation]

thats funny because ive met a successful business, unlike the former

you've met a successful business
wat

[Light Flantastic]

you can meet nouns

[Iskandar]

thats funny because ive met a successful business, unlike the formerYeah Oxfam, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are abject failures.

But I take it you've never met them.

[Smokey D]

I love ya man but your bias is beyond palpable.

I guess I'm wrong though. Wikipedia says I'm wrong, so I must be.

There are two ways of looking at it though. I guess for me the HR glass is half full.

It's not like the phrase could have two meanings, or anything.

[Noku]

Hasn't the governing bodies and militaries done this for like thousands of years?

[die of starvation]

the 5 year survival rate for business is like 44%

for governments it's like in the high 90s idk im not gonna add it up

[P13]

that's because if the government ones lose money they can just take tax money. a private corporation cannot take money from people unless they give them something back.

[spitfirejunky]

Aww c'mon man. A wikipedia article?

Although it was a great read, HR has never been any of that for me. I guess I never really looked at them like that.

I'm in the same biz 15 years though so maybe I'm biased because my only dealings with HR have been when I need something related to healthcare, which I never use, or my retirement plan, which I never use them for since I have 100% control over all of my 401k plans.

Just putting things in perspective is all. The threadstarter (as I'm sure you've noticed by now) was speaking about human resource from an economic perspective.

[1338 h4x0r]

that's because if the government ones lose money they can just take tax money. a private corporation cannot take money from people unless they give them something back.

Are you a troll

[DBoons Ghost]

Just putting things in perspective is all. The threadstarter (as I'm sure you've noticed by now) was speaking about human resource from an economic perspective.

Yes I now realize this is the case, and as Smokey said it's got more then one meaning.