When talking about kindness, start by not referring to people as resources.
If people feel diminished by being compared to money (capitalism yes? but fungible perhaps) or time (clearly the most important thing that any individual can allocate), then I am not sure how to comfort them.
I try to avoid using the word. It's easy enough to do. But I've never understood the objection.
I try to be a resource to the people I work with. I supply knowledge and energies for the benefit of people who are upwards, downwards, and sideways in the org chart.
I count on other people in the same directions to do the same.
This does not minimize them, or pretend that they are interchangeable.
Some resources go dry. Some are redirected. Some expire.
I think those who object to "resource" are adding some connotation to the word that does not need to be there. Resources are good and valuable things. They are not to be wasted or abused or taken for granted.
I think it’s in the meaning of the word plain and simple: it implies a level of control. I think it’s fine if you have that control. But if you don’t then you’re abusing both the word and those of your coworkers that dislike it.
I think it’s also detrimental to the business. In my experience it’s not the average joe or low performer that takes offense.
It just seems fragile and delusional when the basis of the relationship is objective in nature.
I love my spouse and wouldn't want them to objectify me. I don't pretend my employer pays me because of a deep appreciation of my individual character.
But if you boil it down, the resource we're talking about here is an employee's time and energy, which they offer to an employer in freely-chosen and equitable exchange for compensation. Not about the employee as person.
So it's also reasonable for an employer to expect a measure of control over how that time and energy is used.
And if they need more of that time and energy, it's reasonable to think about it as a limited and valuable resource.
Again, the connotations of the word are entirely positive in my opinion. Others think differently, so I avoid the word in the human context. But it's a good word.
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.
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.