this post was submitted on 30 Sep 2026
811 points (98.9% liked)

Funny

16425 readers
1226 users here now

General rules:

Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the mods.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 57 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (5 children)

My career started in the late 70s, when "Human Resources" was replacing "Personnel Department". I've always thought the term "human resource" was terribly degrading, and I still don't understand how it caught on and never left.

[–] cosmos8188@leminal.space 20 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Personnel department sounds so much neater.

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Yes, Personnel has "person" in it rather than "human".

[–] VinegarChunks@lemmus.org 13 points 1 week ago (2 children)

A lot of places also stopped calling their employees “employees” and started calling them “associates”. What’s up with that?

[–] Croquette@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It's a dimn effort to make employees feel part of the gang in a vain effort to keep them from quitting.

They could actually pay them properly and treat them like humans, but it costs money to do so.

[–] VinegarChunks@lemmus.org 3 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Really? I have always considered “associate” to sound like you aren’t a member of the organization. You’re just loosely associated with the organization.

[–] chunes@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I always figured it's to de-emphasize the fact that you have bosses and owners. Employee implies that clearly, while associate makes it seem more like you're working with colleagues of your own volition. All in the service of making you infinitesimally more pliable.

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

No it means more like "colleague".

[–] Boozilla@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 week ago

That "associate" thing has been around for decades, and varies by region. In the US it was mostly used for retail employees back in the day, not as much as corporate workers. But it goes in and out of style. When an employer adopts it or drops it, it's probably because some executive is trying to make a "splash".

[–] mobyduck648@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

Yeah I hate it, it sounds exactly like the worm-tongued bureaucrat-speak that it is. Orwell wrote about exactly this kind on nonsense in Politics and the English Language and it is as true as ever today.

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

I'm okay with it being called HR, because it's the more honest term for what it is.

It's now being referred to as Human Capital