|
|
Post by Really Red on Sept 1, 2022 12:40:30 GMT
It's the new terminology for a person. "We lost a resource today," or "We need more resources in our department."
I hate it because I think it dehumanizes who we are and what we bring to the table. I feel that it's one more way for the companies not to think about the person, rather the role.
This resource is worn out.
|
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Sept 1, 2022 12:45:32 GMT
Agreed!! I am a person..
|
|
|
|
Post by librarylady on Sept 1, 2022 13:23:31 GMT
Eeewwweeuuuuuu
How degrading and dehumanizing. I'm glad I have not heard the term used for a worker until this post.
|
|
SweetieBsMom
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,926 
|
Post by SweetieBsMom on Sept 1, 2022 13:26:09 GMT
I hear that all the time at work: "We need more resources"
|
|
|
|
Post by jeremysgirl on Sept 1, 2022 13:32:05 GMT
The only way I've heard it used is like "to utilize your resources" which can refer to a person who holds a chunk of information you need. I'm not sure if that's what you were getting at. In the case where you are learning a new job, like I am right now, I need to reach out to as many people as I can to glean nuggets of information to help me do my job. And I do refer to them as informational resources.
|
|
lindas
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,488
|
Post by lindas on Sept 1, 2022 13:41:00 GMT
I’m a resource for information. Beyond that I’m a person and would hope that my employer thought of me that way.
|
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Sept 1, 2022 13:43:54 GMT
It's the new terminology for a person. "We lost a resource today," or "We need more resources in our department." I hate it because I think it dehumanizes who we are and what we bring to the table. the last couple companies I've worked for have all used terminology like that. Terms like that make it seem like workers are easily-replaceable widgets, and I think discounts the skills needed and the time it takes to actually *TRAIN* them to do their jobs. (the last company I worked for employed a lot of temps, and had a very high turnover rate... go figure, huh?  ) |
|
craftykitten
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,304
Jun 26, 2014 7:39:32 GMT
|
Post by craftykitten on Sept 1, 2022 13:47:20 GMT
That’s why it’s Human Resources and not Personnel any more  |
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Sept 1, 2022 13:56:14 GMT
I frequently overhear my husband talking about allocating senior resources vs other resources in work calls. I’ve never heard that term used in education - my district likes to call us “talent.” 🙄
|
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Sept 1, 2022 14:00:32 GMT
my district likes to call us “talent.” same thing, but I guess it's a better term? At least it's acknowledging that you ARE talented. But to me, 'talent' makes it sound like you should all get headshots taken for auditions, or something! lol. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 19:46:06 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2022 14:04:58 GMT
It reminds me of a 1960s futuristic society...
Similar to "boots on the ground."
|
|
|
|
Post by busy on Sept 1, 2022 14:20:59 GMT
That’s why it’s Human Resources and not Personnel any more Human Resources is phasing out many places in favor of People team. |
|
|
|
Post by busy on Sept 1, 2022 14:23:45 GMT
I think it depends on how it’s used. Sometimes it can be dehumanizing but sometimes it’s just a generic placeholder term because the task that needs to be performed might be subcontracted out, or automated, or completed in a variety of different ways and we need to determine the best solution. If it has to be a person on our internal team, we say that.
|
|
|
|
Post by scraphollie27 on Sept 1, 2022 15:03:43 GMT
I don’t mind the term because I am a resource. I don’t feel it negates the other things I am at work too: friend, lender of coffee cream, water jug changer, vent listener, etc. I wasn’t hired to be those latter things but I was hired to be a resource.
|
|
|
|
Post by ~summer~ on Sept 1, 2022 15:06:31 GMT
The term doesn’t bother me because I feel I am a resource.
My company doesn’t really use it though - I think we say workforce and headcount or just “position”. My team lost 2 headcount in the past 6 months.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy4scraps on Sept 1, 2022 15:08:51 GMT
Yes I am, although I’m not referred to in that way. I used to be more of a resource to my friends than anything. Various ones would always call me up to ask things that Google could just as easily answer like, “Do you remember where I got those paper bags in bulk from?” “Who sold those (fill in the blank)?” “What is the phone number for ____?” 🙄 I don’t get that so much now anymore because some of those people I have since unfriended IRL, some moved away and others died, so yeah. I’ve kind of become obsolete LOL.
|
|
|
|
Post by stingfan on Sept 1, 2022 15:25:32 GMT
I write resumes and I'll have clients tell me something like they secured resources for a project. That always leads me to ask, do you mean people, time, money, equipment, and/or something else? So I don't think it's as clear as it needs to be. I do see a move towards people/talent. At least in that case I know exactly what it means.
|
|
scrappinmama
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,672
Jun 26, 2014 12:54:09 GMT
|
Post by scrappinmama on Sept 1, 2022 15:59:47 GMT
I have not heard that term used in my work place and if I do, I will respectfully call out whoever uses it. One of the reasons why people are leaving their current employer for other positions is because they don't feel like they are valued. Calling a human being a resource does nothing to show that you value them.
|
|
|
|
Post by katlady on Sept 1, 2022 16:05:34 GMT
We have an HR department, but I’ve never heard them use the term “resources” for the employees. We do use the term “headcount” a lot, especially in our planning reports.
|
|
anniebeth24
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,033
|
Post by anniebeth24 on Sept 1, 2022 16:09:25 GMT
I guess it's better than the term my former boss used - bodies. As in, "We just don't have enough bodies to do that" or "I keep asking them for more bodies!"
|
|
|
|
Post by scrapmaven on Sept 1, 2022 16:16:33 GMT
I am not a resource. I'm a human being. My pronouns don't include thing!
|
|
pinklady
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,653
|
Post by pinklady on Sept 1, 2022 16:20:51 GMT
Some people will find anything to bitch about. Someone thinking I'm a good resource for information or expertise is not dehumanizing. |
|
|
|
Post by needmysanity on Sept 1, 2022 16:37:42 GMT
I don't like that phrase at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by papersilly on Sept 1, 2022 16:43:36 GMT
i'd rather be referred to as a resource than a liability.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverlining on Sept 1, 2022 16:47:59 GMT
Some people will find anything to bitch about. Someone thinking I'm a good resource for information or expertise is not dehumanizing. I thought that's what she meant at first, too. But for me, her examples don't have that positive quality. I agree the term resources is too general because it could be money, equipment, software, etc. It doesn't differentiate people from things which is an important distinction in language in general. It reminds me of the baseball writers who use the word "piece" to mean a player. It just sort of rubs the wrong way. |
|
|
|
Post by pantsonfire on Sept 1, 2022 16:52:10 GMT
Doesn't bother me. I am titled as a "resource for our community" with 2 local Autism groups, a disabled persons group, school special services, and a parental rights group.
Doesn't mean I am not a person but is a title that let's people know I am able to help with specific situational needs and can help them navigate the rocky roads of parenting a child with disabilities.
Dh is a resource for new teachers in his district. He is fine with that title. Part of his district position.
|
|
|
|
Post by pantsonfire on Sept 1, 2022 16:54:16 GMT
It's the new terminology for a person. "We lost a resource today," or "We need more resources in our department." I hate it because I think it dehumanizes who we are and what we bring to the table. I feel that it's one more way for the companies not to think about the person, rather the role. This resource is worn out. Would it have been better if they said "we lost a person with x resources today" ? When a person is specialized in a specific area you do loose a resource resource they retire or quit. I see that it has taken the person connection away from it. Is that what you would like to remain? |
|
|
|
Post by Lexica on Sept 1, 2022 16:55:29 GMT
Yeah, that would bother me a great deal. When working for a very large company, I felt invisible when outside of my smaller department. To be referred to as a "resource" instead of even an employee would just reaffirm that feeling.
|
|
snyder
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,493
Location: Colorado
|
Post by snyder on Sept 1, 2022 17:16:30 GMT
I would not relate it to a person, but a position. We lost a position/resource today. We called them FTEs. Full Time Equivalents.
They are spaces a person fills, so I wouldn't take it personally.
|
|
Gem Girl
Pearl Clutcher
......
Posts: 2,686
Jun 29, 2014 19:29:52 GMT
|
Post by Gem Girl on Sept 1, 2022 18:58:52 GMT
I'm guessing these are the same brilliant business strategists who, last vogue-go-round, were "leveraging human capital." Buzzwords like these make me roll my eyes, because they tend to come across as, "Look how I keep up!" IMO.
|
|
)
Refupea #1142
