HR Advisor

Quoted from DB

Ever since the term 'Human Resource' was introduced instead of 'Personnel' I've hated it. Resources, to me, are materials and machinery, not blood and flesh. A person is far more important than a machine, gold, or any other type of ore.

We are just starting to get over another Human Resource, the Slave Trade, and now condemn its past so why continue with such a dreadful name.

[img]https://i.postimg.cc/L5fw7D63/8-E8-AB5-FC-5-E19-4-B35-9-A5-C-FAFC84867-B1-D.jpg[/img]

Quoted from Chrisblor

It's used all the time by tech and start-up businesses who for some reason have an aversion to the word "induction". 100% a Stockwood influenced vocab choice.

In a parallel universe John and Nick would currently be discussing what our female fans would be using as their tampon of choice this weekend at Chesterfield.

Quoted from Maringer

Businessfolk like to coin new verbs. 'Ringfencing' is one which only appeared a decade ago or so, I seem to recall.

This is true, I remember when austerity seriously kicked in and local authorities spent thousands on companies to tell them they need to save cash…my place of work was ‘ringfenced’ but the company…then we received letters saying our jobs could be at risk🙈

Funniest thing was our funding was from the home office…not the local authority so we were 100% safe anyway…

Quoted from KingstonMariner

Nah, that’s not right. But you have solved Fermat’s last theorum.

Fermat's theorum was about DIVISION , my theorum was about DIVISION 2 and promotion.

I think a lot of companies are now choosing to call HR teams 'People' teams. Seems more human, ironically.

Quoted from RichMariner

I think a lot of companies are now choosing to call HR teams 'People' teams. Seems more human, ironically.

Yeah GTFC, get with the program. 😉

My employer has a ‘People* organisation’. Departments are not departments any more either.

* not sue if you have to be a People Person to work there.

When I began at British steel in the early seventies it was called Industrial Relations, they seemed to be fairly neutral regarding the issues, then sometime they became Human Resources and became a management tool.

HR would have been called in to investigate the deconstructed flag incident.

HR departments are important if they concentrate on the major issues - salaries, recruitment, staff welfare and so on.

However, my experience is that they go looking for problems, find things that aren't there and try to make themselves relevant all the time.

In this case, imagine the kerfuffle about John MacAtee's recent night out. Meetings, followed by several more meetings and witnesses called to be followed by a comprehensive report for something that was absolutely nothing. If anybody has a perceived grievance against anybody or anything the whole apparatus springs into action, which in years gone by would be sorted between the individuals over a cup of tea.

Let's hope the owners have a clear idea of what they want the HR dept. to be, and not allow it to descend into a perpetual blame game.

Some interesting views on here from people about “people” people.

The job is for HR Advisor, they provide advice and evaluate any risks relating to any HR stuff then it’s down to decision makers to make a decision. Any organisation that lets HR make decisions will become dysfunctional very quickly.