I 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.
I'd vote for the old terminology: Personnel Department.
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.
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!
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.
> But, nonetheless, claiming all they do is protect the company from employees is still too reductive.
I didn't claim that that is all they do; I'm claiming that that is their primary purpose.