Regarding your first paragraph: To be fair to the "Human Resources" moniker, the point when it first became chic was to remind the Personnel department that people, too, are important to the organization. We don't abuse computers or desks, we don't waste pens or typewriter ribbons, we ought to treat the human beings too as valuable.
Regarding your second: A change in terminology doesn't by itself fix an underlying problem. "HR" became the new word for "Personnel", but a company, to survive, still has to spend as little as possible and produce as much as possible. And the centralized HR folks can never understand your value as well as your boss can...even if your boss can't. --- Bob Bridges, [email protected], cell 336 382-7313 /* [Infant Sophie is] exploring her environment, as her brain learns to perform the incredibly complex set of functions we call human thought ("Maybe THIS will fit into my mouth! Maybe THIS will fit into my mouth! Maybe THIS will..."). -Dave Barry, 2000-09-17 */ -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Tom Brennan Sent: Monday, June 12, 2023 20:42 When things like the "Project Management Office" became common in maybe the late 1990's where I worked, they called us Resources. I remember writing a note back saying I'm not a lump of coal or even a vein of gold. The real problem though, was like you mentioned, they treated us as a simple headcount. That didn't work because it might take 10 of me to do the work of (for example) one good CICS person, if I can figure it out at all. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
