zlacker

I think a lot of harm has been caused by "automation" actually meaning "distributing parts of the same tasks among a bunch of people". As far as I can tell that's one of the main outcomes of "efficiencies" from computerization of offices, among other places: they mostly just made it feasible to carve up the job of e.g. secretary among everybody, adding to the number of things and processes each worker has to understand and deal with.

>>alabas+(OP)
>> they mostly just made it feasible to carve up the job of e.g. secretary among everybody, adding to the number of things and processes each worker has to understand and deal with.

A previous generations old guy told me about this. He worked in the defense industry 50 years ago. You know, they had secretaries or admins that would handle all sorts of things for the engineers. Then the government changed the way they did contracts and companies couldn't bill for "overhead" any more. So the engineers (who bill to the project) had to start handling all those other things themselves and most of the support staff went away.

It's not that hard to handle any one thing, but if you do get the chance to work somewhere with a person that can "just handle that for you" it's really kind of amazing how much mental energy that frees up for your main tasks.

>>phkahl+u8
You’re describing the change from personnel to human resources. Its this little linguistic trick the C-suite foisted on the rest of us. You dehumanize then exploit. Resources, after all, are meant to be exploited.

>>alabas+(OP)
"Efficiency" is selfishness. It's a word for when people in power want to give less and get more.

>>Henchm+na
Those are unnecessarily emotionally charged definitions and implications of “resources” and “exploit”.

I am a resource for my kids, my spouse, and the rest of my friends and family. I am also a resource to my employer and other customers.

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.

>>ranpri+Yl
Zero sum claims do not a positive sum reduce

>>lotsof+gu
> Those are unnecessarily emotionally charged definitions and implications of “resources” and “exploit”.

One, don’t attempt to invalidate my emotions. They are both entirely valid, given the concerted push from the C-suite to dehumanize their workforce, and entirely necessary. Necessary because our parents and grandparents lived better lives because they weren’t as dehumanized. Necessary because so few people in this community specifically see it that way and it *needs to be pointed out repeatedly*.

Perhaps it would resonate more if you, too, had heard a couple of C-suites & their chosen MBAs joking about this exact topic. Perhaps dehumanizing people would make your blood boil if you experienced it as casually and often as I have.

But perhaps not. One of the great things about the WTFC-era is that I can disregard your opinion utterly.

>>Henchm+xF
If your parents and grandparents were able to live better lives as labor sellers, it was because the ratio of supply of labor and demand for labor was more favorable for them. Not because HR used to be known as Personnel or people were inherently “better”.

There were more slaves before MBAs, and before MBAs joked about mistreating employees, factory/plantation owners/kings did.